NLA

1001 pateros
 Theology Library

SCHOOL OF THEQLOGY
AT CLAREMONT
California

eal
geet
bX LAVERNE COLLEGE LIBRARY,
oe *~ LAVERNE, CALIFOR NIA %,
“Se

vil THE
TH EOCRATIC KINGDOM
of our

LORD JESUS, THE CHRIST,

as covenanted in

THE OLD TESTAMENT

and presented in

THE NEW TESTAMENT

Nert Ai niel He nc?

de "ae
GEORGE N. H. PETERS, AM
yy

Preface by
WILBUR M. SMITH, D.D.

COMPLETE IN THREE VOLUMES

VoL. I

&
KREGEL PUBLICATIONS
Grand Rapids 6, Michigan
iB.
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
 PREFACE
ROBE oiscaxven
No writer of a major work in the field of Biblical interpretation
in modern times could have lived, and died, in greater oblivion,
and experienced less recognition for a great piece of work, than
the author of these three great volumes devoted to Biblical
prophecy. Of all the prefaces that it has been my privilege to write
in the last twenty years, this will be, to my regret, but inevitably so,
the least factual of all—and perhaps this in itself will carry a
lesson.
In 1942 I became intensely interested in the life of the Rev.
George Nathaniel H. Peters, and carried on an extensive corre-
spondence in an attempt to gather a few facts concerning him,
and, if possible, to trace his descendants, and to contact officers of
churches where he was supposed to have served. In all of this,
I have totally failed to unearth anything of importance. The brief
item in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge
tells us that Mr. Peters was born in 1825, that he graduated from
Wittenberg College, Springfield, Ohio, in 1850, and that he held
pastorates in Lutheran churches in the same state at Xenia and
Springfield. Wittenberg College was not able to give me anything
in addition to the fact that he was'a graduate of their institution.
One tremendously interested in the history and antiquities of
Springfield suggested that I write to Miss Peters of another city,
his daughter, a suggestion that kindled hope in my heart, soon to
be extinguished—this young woman was the daughter of another
minister of the same surname, but her father was a Methodist. I
was promised a communication on the result of an interview with
the grandson of Mr. Peters, but this was never forthcoming. He
never attained fame sufficient to be included in the early volumes
of Who's Who in America, and Alibone gives no details of his
life. Yet, this clergyman, never becoming nationally famous,
never serving large churches, passing away in such comparative
obscurity that we do not even seem to know the date of his death,
wrote the most important single work on Biblical predictive
prophecy to appear in this country at any time during the nine-
teenth century. The author of these volumes must have read
everything of importance in the major areas of history, science,
literature, and theology. From an examination of the index, one
learns that over four thousand different authors are quoted, from
the Church Fathers of the second century down to his own decade.
No one else has ever written a work on predictive prophecy in
which statements are so heavily supported, with reference to the
relevant literature, as has Peters.
I know that these are days when we look for small books, quick
summaries, synopses and digests, and when most people would be
frightened by the thought of slowly reading through a work of
two thousand pages; and yet, the study of this work by a devout
student of Biblical prophecy is more important now than seventy
years ago, when the author completed his manuscript. Many of
the things which the author unfolds here as events yet to take
place on this earth we now see in the process of fulfillment. He
wrote at a time when many were about to conclude that the
millennium was at hand, but his knowledge of the Word told him
otherwise; and the deep shadows which have fallen across the
earth since that bright day our author clearly foresaw on the
horizon through the prayerful use of the binocular dete of
Biblical prediction.
When my friend Mr. Kregel told me that he planned to reprint
this great work—and for this many will be exceedingly grateful—
I began a second investigation into the life of Mr. Peters, without
acquiring any further information except that of a negative form.
I have spent hours in carefully examining all the important relig-
ious and theological monthlies, and quarterlies, published in our
country in the six years subsequent to the appearance of this work,
that is, from 1884 to 1890, and have failed to find any review—
with the exception of a worthless six-line notice—in any of these
periodicals, many of them rich in review material. So the work
was passed by. I wonder why. Perhaps reviewers did not think
themselves competent to adequately survey and appraise such a
monumental work. The only writer with whom I am acquainted
that has given the work its just due is my beloved friend, the late
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer. He spoke to me about this work years
ago and awakened in me a desire to possess these volumes, which
led to a search which did not end for twelve years. Dr. Chafer
quotes extensively from this work, at times more frequently than
from any other theological treatise with the exception of Watson.
I have in my own library practically all the major important
works on Biblical prophecy published since 1800, and many pub-
lished long before that time, and complete sets of nearly all the
principal religious journals devoted to prophetic interpretation;
and I can say without hesitation that there is no work in the Eng-
lish language that deals with this increasingly important subject
with such depth, clearness, and understanding as The Theocratic
Kingdom of George N. H. Peters. One does not need to agree
with all of his statements, nor even with all of his interpretations,
to recognize the greatness of this work that must have cost him
a lifetime of research, prayer, investigation, and laborious writ-
ing—these were the days before typewriters.

Wilbur M. Smith
Fuller Theological Seminary
Pasadena, California
 Bogs ihe
ees itive a8
at pil ate # teed
owt

Sa bes inca
 TABLE “OR CONTENTS.

BUMS UOMO cca acres azlelrerass

rslaton Sh yan a Seofiyaanie viDeas nenaac ilameee 13
Proposirion 1.—The Kingdom of God is a subject of vital importance.............. 29

Prop, 2.—The establishment of this Kingdom was determined before, and designed
orjprepared from, the foundation of "the World | sic). /1eans'e = -tolsiovs aieoars |tetssarete tare 34

Prop. 3.—The meanings usually given to this Kingdom indicate that the most vague,
indefinite notions concerning it exist in the minds of many................... 39

Prop. 4.—The literal, grammatical interpretation of the Scriptures must (connected

with the figurative, tropical, or rhetorical) be observed in order to obtain a cor-
Fethmnderstanding 'Of The INGO 1. 5.1m, cg. ie'ole\aieols!» 'e oldin Gin"aete'nlS lteteratale nha le 47

Prop. 5.—The doctrine of the Kingdom is based on the inspiration of the Word of
TL tebe i eta ew asig ye laariarlg ayeteas Nasera"isn tah katohn an igca feiss wipPCDOPNphaN ay MONET 68
Prop. 6.—The Kingdom of God is intimately connected with the Supernatural..... 80

Prop. 7.—The Kingdom being a manifestation of the Supernatural, miracles are con-
MVSCCO WAGle: Thies rstac «orotate rehorets arearsterot teateslatatiel eotahe)etoiaedozeis fetoolstotalatstatuticalahaa stete Beye 88

RTP DIN, Vote ahanePatorhcasotatetere” eroreiiete tomer. iota ate ote alome alate MoteTeVans feteveliecectety @ ees a)scGle eenlote read Mota 102

Prop. 9.—The nature of, and the things pertaining to, the Kingdom can only be as-
eertained within the limits Of “Scriptane),. 1.4.55)-tehs ete. acce)o'a1a: 0's loloors'alareletnre's!
Mints 110

Prop. 10.—This Kingdom should be studied in the light of the Holy Scriptures, and
not merely in that of Creeds, Confessions, Formulas of Doctrine, etc........... 122

Prop, 11.—The mysteries of the Kingdom were given to the apostles.............. 141

Prop, 12.—There is some mystery yet connected with the things of the Kingdom... 144

Prop. 13.—Some things poe to the Kingdom intentionally revealed somewhat

OWS CULSI YS 5.Nia to%e rota toreresrarerataterehcvershate is raveshee Iotete ees a\afol aso Geele Ow t 'alinitstaeral eealiterteceRetete 148

Prop. 14.—Some things pertaining to the Kingdom not so easily comprehended as

ATVI NAST OSC), evecare tee alaletostorssrevacefiie teWelstae fare catssite vate"aPolalepaloraYorei's colonererers (=erahiete's apoio 151

Prov. 15.—The doctrine of the Kingdom can become better understood and appre-
ELMO IT Nr oxsWile Sietederarlade levees aapersinveraee bey eae tact taller Le feller 8 vafolora adoRepent tetee leltaDoule ven Renae 154
Prop. 16.—This Kingdom cannot be properly comprehended without acknowledg-
ing an intimate and internal connection existing between the Old and New Tes-
UTILS TECSA, Taare Po otaates fceibiottaleselole forshcrate aresartfe rslalerds"soe! dle’4tale lu lsrate e's'albtulevele stetetere 157
8 CONTENTS.

Prov. _17.—Without study of the prophecies no adequate idea can be obtained of the
IRAN LOM res esac stecarro eieanalasonus civbess.9)<avenchoqehstaleredeiover
ss)aveatekeaiet aia ponete eens at eeteee 163

Prop. 18.—The prophecies relating to the establishment of the Kingdom of God are
botheconditionediands unconditioneds ep. r cet) -/9a elaine atten ere ere 176-

Prop. 19.—The New Testament begins the announcement of the Kingdom in terms
expressive of its’ being previously well known... 0.20.00. .0.cs une cee cuccceme 181

Prop. 20,—To comprehend the subject of the Kingdom it is necessary to notice the
belief and expectations of the more pious portion of the Jews................. 183

Prop. 21.—The prophecies of the Kingdom interpreted literally sustain the expec-
datronstand hopes ofthe pious Jews ans cette tem cree cone Sse eee 190

Prov. 22.—John the Baptist, Jesus, and the disciples employed the phrases ‘‘ King-
dom of Heaven,” ‘“‘ Kingdom of God,”’ etc., in accordance with the usage of the
VOWS Aee ook craiz; susare Sisibsa olaze i ofacstche’ « eneiecaress osucunieaeteael kame a aaenerstous kage asahenote ekeacta e RE 195

Prop. 23.—There must be some substantial reason why the phrases ‘‘ Kingdom of
Godeeter-hwere thts AGOPtedS reacties het enna cie ee oe eer Pee 198

Prop. 24.—The Kingdom is offered to an elect nation, viz., the Jewish nation..... 207

Prop. 25.—The Theocracy was an earnest, introductory, or initiatory form of this

1 Gho¥e(6
Losdi een See MSC ICHCEOT IGE RIOD OT HO OOM OR ean HOMO A BE coder oes Seo SAS 216

Prop. 26.—The Theocracy thus instituted would have been permanently established
if the people, in their national capacity, had been faithful in obedience....... 222
Prop. 27.—The demand of the nation for an earthly king was a virtual abandon--
ment of the Theocratic Kingdom by the mation... .).c.0-0s+
sees «cece ccs ee 226

Prop. 28.—-God makes the Jewish king subordinate to His own Theocracy......... 228

Prop. 29.—This Theocracy, or Kingdom, is exclusively given to the natural descend-

quits of Abraham, im their corporate capacity. a. 2. .s..2 20 lecee eee ccieceee ie « 230

Prop. 30.—The prophets, however, without specifying the manner of introduction,

predict that the Gentiles shall participate in the blessings of the Theocracy or
1Sba\e{0
oi al RoE ACN OM CECT eon Ir tirig cao.cnkie Soe Le Com aacioeatc ais 232

Prop. 31.—This Theocracy was identified with the Davidic Kingdom.............. 234

Prop. 32.—This Theocratic Kingdom, thus incorporated with the Davidic, is re-
moyed when the Davidiewts Overthrowntly..c. -cs see cin ceicieie a reaieare tere ree 237

Prop. 33.—The prophets, some even before the captivity, foreseeing the overthrow
of the Kingdom, both foretell its downfall and its final restoration............ 240

Prop. 34..—The prophets describe this restored Kingdom, its extension, glory, etc.,
without distinguishing between the First and Second Advents................ 242

Prop, 35.—The prophets describe but one Kingdom.......... drasia Sack We syauenones ies 245,

Prop. 36.—The prophets, with one voice, describe this one Kingdom, thus restored,
in terms expressive of the most glorious additions....... .....0cecceeseeeees 248

Prop. 37.—The Kingdom thus predicted and promised was not in existence when
the forerunnemoiisesug ap peanredicc:.. e-icn semi sete eererneuiete mene tenets tomar arate 250

Prop. 38.—John the Baptist preached that this Kingdom, predicted by the prophets,
Waser nigh atrhandsyacntn.csw ssleeeiisea tectemiite pis ai aheattevation etaclecode tee ahettener 253
 CONTENTS. 9

Prop. 39.—John the Baptist was not ignorant of the Kingdom that he preached.... 256
Prop. 40.—The hearers of John believed that he preached to them the Kingdom pre-
dicted by the prophets, and in the sense held by themselves.................. 260

Prop. 41.—The Kingdom was not established under John's ministry.............. 262

Prop. 42.—Jesus Christ in His early ministry ry P preached that the Kingdom was ‘‘nigh
8
Ab LGDCie eon ok CEO AIS SR CIE OIcS circ. cMmOade incre oiomnontiamyaacacttcs 6 266

Prop. 43,—The disciples sent forth by Jesus to preach this Kingdom were not igno-
rant of the meaning to be attached to the Kingdom.................2.00c002 274

Prop. 44.—The preaching of the Kingdom, being in accordance with that of the
predicted Kingdom, raised no controversy between the Jews and Jesus, or be-
tween the Jews and His disciples and apostles... ....... 2.0... cc cece ee eee 280

Prop. 45.—The phrases ‘‘ Kingdom of Heaven,” ‘‘ Kingdom of God,”’ ‘‘ Kingdom of

Christ,” ete: denote the same Kingdom... . vs sec cspstobio cs amar er eke eee 283

Prop. 46.—The Kingdom anticipated by the Jews at the First Advent is based on
the Abrahamic and Davidicicovenants. |. 2)..02c,cc.<cins
le viele ioc «ciacie ea cies esas 285

Prop. 47.—The Jews had the strongest possible assurances given to them that the
Kingdom based on these covenants would be realized................-000-000: 287
Prop. 48.—The Kingdom being based on the covenants, the covenants must be care-
fully examined, and (Prop. 4) the literal language of the same must be main-
BAT Miarcgette are aefcris sarees aotatc, suetlatsieatctshevevaladels Seles iaisees collyshee selsa7 oyntnae ears eee 290

Prov. 49.—The covenants being, in Revelation, the foundation of the Kingdom,

must first be received and appreciated... .........-2cecesseessee- SAE Seo

Prov. 50.—This Kingdom will be the outgrowth of the renewed Abrahamic cove-
Mant mander which renewal we Liver <cissjsteye cloleiaie s o)elateininisicisas iolelete iolctelelelelcraiela 320

Prop. 51.—The relation that the Kingdom sustains to ‘‘the covenants of promise ”’
enables us to appreciate the prophecies pertaining to the Kingdom,..,......... 337

Prop. 52.—The promises pertaining to the Kingdom, as given in the covenants, will
He nerauby sili DAs ean momion ong Horn OnoM GOs kaGahNS dhe AT Ot tore a aes 342

Prop. 53.—The genealogies of our Lord form an important link in the comprehen- ,
BAG Oleg DUG ECU COM oleae iettete cmos ie)uehalisleya alelefle)Aveh> selwie etrha)=t ashe ionsterololeate 352

Prop. 54.—The preaching of the Kingdom by John, Jesus, and the disciples, was _
Como mMedetortie dewalt MALOU, <caas,- pan ctencisis esr iei<ctagerey more ieelecepeacrsyst aayaetefoto erciene 356

Prov. 55,—It was necessary that Jesus and His disciples should, at first, preach the
Kingdom as nigh to the Jewish nation.............0.. cesses cece eeeee eeees 362

Prop. 56.—The Kingdom was not established during the ministry of ‘‘the Christ ”’.. 366

Prop. 57.—This Kingdom was offered to the Jewish nation, but the nation rejected
Lbeeiscrise ay pe Miueiee a ea sareoslo UteLeva aretarataSintee Pals Sbbene Sila elsloGke sh neers: terol 375

Prop. 58.—Jesus, toward the close of His ministry, preached that the Kingdom was
not nigh....... De ee Bae. O DOP eC OU Ae On on ta.cn 6A ortcn oe Brolda coe 379

Prov. 59.—This Kingdom of God offered to the Jewish elect nation, lest the pur-
sede. sas cwe 386
pose of God fail, is to be given to others who areadopted: ..;j.c2.

Prop. 60,—This Kingdom of God is given, not to nations, but to one nation....... 392
10 CONTENTS.

Prop. 61.—The Kingdom which by promise exclusively belonged to the Jewish na-
tion, the rightful seed of Abraham, was now to be given to an engrafted people. 396

Prop. 62.—This people, to whom the Kingdom is to be given, gathered out of the
nations, becomes the: electmation,..... \csseaccuane
«fedh beet eree aces cetemas ete 401

Prop. 63.—The present elect, to whom the Kingdom will be given, is the continua-
tion of the previous election chiefly in another engrafted people........... we» 404
Prop. 64.—The Kingdom being given to the elect only, any adoption into that elect
portion must be revealed by express Divine Revelation.................ee000%

Prop. 65.—Before this Kingdom can be given to this elect people, they must first be
PAtHErvedHGuirt parc Gihs Pena. MS aletea ee Add Seen eke SI es Em ere eros 412
Prop. 66.—The Kingdom that was nigh at one time (viz., at the First Advent) to
the Jewish nation is now removed to the close of its tribulation, and of the
timesiot phe: Genbileds<<... a <envsm wy.dlesewadroieeh)
ters aueaenr tee alewren ietean cxstniec sinter 419

Prop. 67.—The Kingdom could not, therefore, have been set up at that time, viz.,
abner Misti A AViGIt. 2 scccitt syed. <pensarevera tcale ty onasa shacenisaies tea Seeeearsee serenetie ceeetae «ote ee 421
Prop. 68.—This Kingdom is then essentially a Jewish Kingdom................-.. 424
Prop. 69.—The death of Jesus did not remove the notion entertained by the disci-
ples and apostles concerning the Kingdom

Prop. 70.-—The apostles, after Christ’s ascension, did not preach, either to Jews or
Gentiles, that the Kingdom was established.............. 000.005 ce ccceceees 433

Prop. 71.—The language of the apostles confirmed the Jews in their Messianic
Hopestet Hermie GMs. cpelee is oak. oreekasvesce Seals waied taetre bre nisleael ieeeatotates 445
Prop. 72.—The doctrine of the Kingdom, as preached by the apostles, was received
loyethhescarlye Ch uRehic trys Woe 55g nse cre ah ha aver eravae woes eee heee cereale a 449
Prop. 73.—The doctrine of the Kingdom preached by the apostles and elders raised
Up: no controversy With the J CWS cas rsieie siesta sare eels aie¢ olgrale ws sieldg cat eles abe ee 467

Prop. 74.—The belief in the speedy Advent of Christ, entertained both by the apos-
tles and the churches under them, indicates what Kingdom was believed in and
taught by the first Christians......... Scar eianionain leicht eaetelene oleRe Tere nodes eet 470
Prop. 75.-—The doctrine of the Kingdom, as held by the churches established by the
BWOSVICS, “WAS: PELPOLUALCO aa cot tes ae crs cee ctglen crete. 5 leujaie sraierenes caret Solera Sreeaiats 480

Prop. 76.—The doctrine of the Kingdom was changed under the Gnostic and Alex-
amdrian MAVeNnce: Sy cgects sacle cae R ae ay areata Sted. ate TaayaPitaaer ate ner ete 499

Prop. 77.—The doctrine of the Kingdom, as held by the early Church, was finally
almost exterminated under the teaching and power of the Papacy............. 513

Prop. 78.—The early Church doctrine was revived after the Reformation.......... 524

Prop. 79.—The Kingdom of God, promised by covenant and prophets, is to be dis-

tinguished from the general and universal sovereignty of God................ 596

Prov. 80.—This Kingdom of covenant, promise, and prediction is to be distin-

guished from the sovereignty which Jesus exercises in virtue of His Divine
NGHUTG; O25 Hey ASee ee os Ebi t-bs wh sad do.2o diye eG ER a eee eens ae ere 509
Prov. 81.—This Kingdom, as covenanted, belongs to Jesus, as ‘‘the Son of Man’’.. 565

Prop. 82.—This Kingdom is a complete restoration, in the person of the Second

Adam or Man, of the dominion lost by the First Adam or Man................ 572
 CONTENTS, 11

Prop. 83.—This Kingdom is given to ‘the Son of Man”’ by God, the Father....... 577
Prop. 84.—As this Kingdom is specially given to ‘“the Son of Man”’ as the result of
His obedience, sufferings, and death, it must be something different from His
Divine nature, or from “piety,” ‘‘religion,’’ ‘‘God’s reign in the heart,’ etc... 582

Prop. 85.—Neither Abraham nor his engrafted seed have as yet inherited the King-
dom ; hence the Kingdom must be something different from ‘‘ piety,” “relig-
nan. “iGed's feign ithe heart,” 6b@. 0c. eco ccapaedeeey sees de cas eawonnieee 585

Prop. 86.—The object or design of this dispensation is to gather out these elect to
whom, as heirs with Abraham and his seed Christ, this Kingdom is to be given.. 586

Prop. 87.—The postponement of the Kingdom is the key to the understanding of

the meaning of this dispensation.................0c005 siokerayersy oversteralate Siaieveracts 590

Prop. 88,—The Church is then a preparatory stage for this Kingdom.............. 592

Prop. 89.—Christ, in view of this future Kingdom, sustains a peculiar relationship

fo the @hutchxt ena. dees. bee cattle te ae hie (YOR ies a ee 596

Prop, 90.—Members of the Church who are faithful are promised this Kingdom,... 600

Prop. 91.—The Kingdom of God is not the Jewish Church...................00: 604

Prop, 92.—This Kingdom is not what some call, ‘‘the Gospel Kingdom ’’......... 607

Prop. 93.—The covenanted Kingdom is not the Christian Church................. 609

Prop. 94.—The overlooking of the postponement of this Kingdom is a fundamental

mistake and fruitful source of error in many systems of Theology............. 621

Prop. 95.—If the Church is the Kingdom, then the terms ‘‘ Church” and ‘ King-
dom * Should De SVROMVMOUS..6.0-.c ce sacs sees: oc be one 5 elie cashout eee 632

Prop. 96.—The differences visible in the Church are evidences that it is not the pre-
dicted, Kingdom.of the, Messiah 223 «Aclec . Pcpeoate, case ghaiesieies « culties ema rer 634

Prop. 97.—The various forms of Church government indicate that the Church is not
tho; promised! "Kined ome s.case%'s cites aftic icSad + Steins Delia sage Snel s Side Svat 638

Prop. 98.—That the Church was not the Kingdom promised to David’s Son was the
beltefio£-titevcanlya@ hunch sar Qok ais is ots artes wiclan-sitvers sinla« sieistics Setar s saree 641

Prop. 99.—The opinion that the Church is the predicted Kingdom of the Christ was
of later origin than the first or second century... ........
22. c ence cence eens 644

Prop. 100.—The visible Church is not the predicted Kingdom of Jesus Christ...... 647
Prop. 101.—The invisible Church is not the covenanted Kingdom of Christ........ 655

Prop. 102.—Neither the visible nor invisible Church is the covenanted Kingdom... 662

Prop, 103.—This Kingdom is not a Kingdom in ‘‘the third heaven”’.,........... 668

Prop. 104.—The Christian Church is not denoted by the predicted Kingdom of the
prophets:eo.h .o9. 8: Wh arava be ear ane Satatate sities ale ete EIS AeERG as See 671

Prop. 105.—The Lord’s Prayer, as given to the disciples, and understood by them.
PRL SUStAINS, OU POSITION i. laces + siaeasinsince we otieeys® 4.050) 0 sce scnieie)dsninigilvnielnis 6

Prop. 106.—Our doctrine of the Kingdom sustained by the temptation of Christ. .. 698
 : mover, mes oe
[Pee es PLE Aste us
 INTRODUCTION.

In this work it is proposed to show what the Covenants demand, and

what relationship the second coming, kingdom, and glory of ‘‘ The Christ’
sustains to the same, in order that perfected Redemption may be realized.
This, logically, introduces a large amount of converging testimony.
he history of the human race is, as able theologians have remarked,
the history of God’s dealings with man. It is a fulfilling of revelation;
yea, more: it is an unfolding of the ways of God, a comprehensive
confirmation of, and an appointed aid in interpreting the plan of redemp-
tion. Hence God himself appeals to it, not merely as the evidence of the
truth declared, but as the mode by which we alone can obtain a full and
complete view of the Divine purpose relating to salvation. To do this we
must, however, regard past, present, and future history. The latter must
be received as predicted, for we may rest assured, from the past and
present fulfilment of the word of God, thus changed into historical
reality, that the predictions and promises relating to the future will also
in their turn become veritable history. Itis this faith, which grasps the
future as already present, that can form a decided and unmistakable
unity.
This is becoming more profoundly felt and expressed, and is forcibly
portrayed in some recent publications (e.g., Dorner’s His. Prot. Theol.,
Auberlen’s Div. Rev., etc.). Seeing that all things are tending toward
the kingdom to be hereafter established by Christ, that the dispen-
sations from Adam to the present are only preparatory stages for its
- coming manifestation, surely it_is the highest wisdom to direct special
and careful attention to the kingdom itself. If it is the end which
serves to explain the means employed; if it is the object for which
ages have passed by and are ever to revolve; if the coming of Jesus,
which is to inaugurate it, is emphatically called
‘‘ the blessed hope ;’’ if it
embraces the culmination of the world’s history in ample deliverance and
desired restitution ; then it is utterly impossible
for us to determine the
true significance, the Divine course, and the development of the plan of
salvation withouta deep insight into that ofthe kingdom itself. Proph-
ets, apostles, and Jesus himself, especially in his last testimony, contin-
ually point the eye of faith and the heart of hope to this kingdom as the
bright light which can clearly illumine the past and present, and even
dispel the darkness of the future. Scripture and theology, the latter in
its very early and later development, teach us, if we will but receive it,
that we cannot properly comprehend the Divine economy in its relation to
man and the world, unless we reverently consider the manifestation of its
14 INTRODUCTION.

ultimate result as exhibited in this kingdom. It follows, therefore, that a

work of this kind, intended to give an understanding of a subject so vital,
however defective in part, requires no apology to the reflecting mind.
Every effort in this direction, if it evinces appreciation of truth and rever-
ence for the word, will be received with pleasure by the true Biblical student.’
In the reaction against Rationalism, Spiritualism, Naturalism, etc., special
attention has been paid to the kingdom of God and the relation that it sus-
tains to history. The attack and defense revealed both how important+the
subject, and how sadly it had been neglected. It has been admitted by
recent writers of ability (eg., Dr. Auberlen, Div. Rev., p. 387), that
much is yet to be learned in reference to it ; that only a beginning has been
made in investigating the subject ; that a correct solution of the difficul-
ties surrounding it in order to give a satisfactory reply to objections is s¢ili
a work of the future. Some (as e.g., Rothe), when leoking over the great
array of Biblical authors, still find in their labors a something lacking,
which when carefully analyzed resolves itself in a lack of Divine unity in
reference to the kingdom of God, evincing itself in a mystical, if not arbi-
trary, definition of it, in various forms, to suit a present exigency, or har-
monize a supposed difficulty. This feeling is strengthened by the
continued assaults of unbelievers, which have been for some time made
against the early history of Christianity. Numerous works have appeared,
and with the boldest criticism have pointed out discrepancies existing
between the ancient faith and that entertained by the large body of the
Church at the present day ; and from such differences of belief have inferred
that the early faith was sadly defective, and that its prcomulgators are there-
fore unworthy of our confidence. We are told that the apostles, apostolic
fathers, and the first Christians generally were well-meaning and even
noble men, but ‘‘ ignorant, enthusiastic, and fanatical ’’ in their opinions.
Rejoinders, on the other hand, have appeared, which, professing to defend
the apostles, and fathers, are yet forced, most unwillingly, to admit the
leading charge preferred by their opponents. Thus, e.g., the German
Rationalists point to the preaching of John the Baptist, the disciples, and the
first believers, and show conclusively that they preached a-kingdom which
accorded with the Jewish forms—viz., a kingdom here on earth under the
personal reign of the Messiah, the Davidic throne and kingdom being
restored. ‘They press this matter with an exultant feeling, realizing
that the great proportion of the Church being opposed to such a belief
materially aids them in condemning ¢he first preaching of the gospel of

1 When regarding the large number of able treatises on various parts of the subject here
discussed, the author felt somewhat like Montesquieu, who, in his preface to ‘“‘ The
Spirit of Laws,’’ wrote : ‘‘ When I saw what so many great men in France, in England,
and in Germany had written before me, I was buried in admiration ; but I did not lose
courage. I said with Correggio, ‘I also am a painter.’ ” My painting consistsin bringing
together upon a large canvas the ideas of many painters ; or, without figure, to place in
a strict logical, consecutive order the truths pertaining to the kingdom, truths too often
presented in an isolated, disconnected manner, and thus destroying their force. As to
the ability to perform such a labor of love, the text above contains a sufficient excuse.
For God, passing by the refined and the learned, first showed forth His wisdom and
power in Galileans (Acts 2 : 7) ; He chooses ‘‘ the foolish things of the world to con-
found the wise” (1 Cor. 1 : 27) ; He places His “‘ treasure in earthen vessels, that the
excellency of the power may be of God and not of us” (2 Cor. 4 : 7), in order to evince
the often-repeated fact that even humble talents and attainments may be highly useful
in upholding the truth,
 INTRODUCTION. 15

the kingdom, and thus making the founders of the Church unworthy of
credence. The Church itself, by its published faith respecting the king-
dom, forges the weapons that are employed against it. Every work on
the other side in defense of the founders of the Christian Church, unable
to set aside the abundant and overwhelming evidence adduced, frankly
admits that the first preaching
was ina Jewish form ; that the faith of the
early Church is not now the faith of the Church (saving that of a few
individuals) ; and endeavors to solve the difficulty (as, e.g., Neander, and
others) by declaring, that the early period was _a transition state,-a prepara-
tory stage, an adaptation to meet the necessities of that age ; that hence
the truth in the matter of the kingdom was enveloped in a ‘‘ husk,’’ and
was to be gradually evolved in ‘‘ the consciousness of the Church ’’ by its
growth. Aside from thus virtually making Church authority superior to
Scripture (for according to this theory we know far more doctrinal truth
than the apostles), we earnestly protest against such a defense, which leaves
the apostles chargeable with error (embracing the husk instead of the
kernel), invalidates their testimony, and makes them unreliable guides.
Under several of the propositions this feature will be duly examined ; for
the present we have only to say: the reason for such a lack of unity, of
vital connection, of satisfactory apologetics, arises simply from ignoring a
fact brought out vividly by Barnabas in his Epistle—viz., that the Abra-
hamic Covenant contained the formative principles, the nucleus of the Plan
of Redemption ; and that all future revelations is an unveiling, a develop-
ing, a preparation for the ultimate fulfilment of that covenant, and of the
kingdom incorporated ih the predictions and promises relating to that
‘eovenant. The legitimate outgrowth is alone to be received as the
promised kingdom, without human addition in the way of defining and
explaining. In this way only can we preserve the simplicity and harmony
of Scripture, find ourselves In unison with the early preaching of this
kingdom, and consistently, without detracting from the apostles and their
immediate followers, defend the Divine record against the shafts of
unbelievers.
The multiplicity and utter inconsistency of prevailing interpretations
of the kingdom ; the complete failure to reconcile such meanings with the
preaching of the apostles ; the unfortunate concessions made by able theo-
logians to the Strauss and Bauer school on the subject of the kingdom ; the
impossibility of preserving the authority and unity of the apostolic teaching
from the modern standpoint of the kingdom ; the honest desire to obtain,
if possible, the truth—these and other considerations led the writer to
repeatedly consider, for many years, the Divine Revelation (in connection
with the history of man) with special reference to this subject, until he was
forced, by the vast array of authority and the satisfactory unity of teach-
ing and of purpose which it presented, not only to discard the modern
definitions as untrustworthy, but to accept of the old view of the kingdom
as the one clearly taught by the prophets, Jesus, the disciples, the apostles,
the apostolic fathers, and their immediate successors. In a course of read-
ing and study it has been constantly kept in view, and the results, after a
laborious comparison of Scripture, are now laid before the reader. This
work is far from being exhaustive. ,Here are only presented the outlines
of that which some other mind may mould into a more attractive and
comprehensive form. Owing to providences which prevented the writer
from actively prosecuting the ministry, he was directed to a course of study
16 INTRODUCTION.

which influenced him years ago to draw up a draft of the present work.
The need of such an one was then impressed, and this impression has been
deepened by a varied and close observation. Yet, feeling the necessity of
caution, it was held in abeyance to allow renewed reflection and investiga-
tion, until finally a sense of duty has impelled him to publish it as now
given. If it possesses no other merit than that of presenting in a compact
and logical form the Millenarian views of the ancient and modern believers,
and in paving the way for a more strict and consistent interpretation of
the kingdom, this as would already be sufficient justification for its
publication. The work, aside from its main leading idea, contains a
mass of information on a variety of subjects and texts which may prove
interesting, if not valuable, in suggestions to others. The author is not
desirous to play the Diogenes, evincing, under the garb of humility and
pretended low opinion of self, the utmost vainglory ; or to enact the
Alexander, showing, through an ardent desire for praise, a strong ambition
for honors. A due medium, involving self-respect and a sincere desire to
secure the approval of good men, is the most desirable, and also the most
consistent with modesty. He therefore concluded, that no one could
justly suspect his honesty of purpose, integrity, and desire to promote the
truth, if he would publish his thoughts in the form herein given, even if
he went to the length—impelled by what he regarded as truth—of giving
the decided opinion, with reasons attached, that the views so universally
promulgated respecting the kingdom of God are radically wrong, deroga-
tory to the Plan of Redemption, opposed to the honor of the Messiah, and
a remnant, remarkably preserved, of Alexandrian, monkish, and popish
interpretation. Not that the writer claims entire freedom from error him-
self. Imperfection and a liability to err are, more or less, the condition of
all human writings, even of the most well intended. Therefore, while, in
illustrating or defending my own views, the opinions of others may be
brought into review, it is far from me to assert that in some things, either
through inadvertency, or ignorance, or prejudice, the author may not be
ultimately found to be in error. Seeing that this is our own common lot,
it would be unwise to approach each other’s works with any other than
candid eyes and charitable hearts; so that, while we may feel to regret
what appears to us a mistake, we may at the same time duly acknowledge
the truth which is given. It may be proper to add in this connection,
lest the spirit and motive be misinterpreted, that in the course of the
work the names of authors are necessarily presented whose views are antag-
onistic to those here advocated. As it would have required considerable
space to insert in each instance the respect and high regard the author has
for them, although they thus differ from him, he may be allowed, once for
all, to say that, while compelled to dissent from them, he nevertheless
esteems them none the less as believers in Christ. Honestly impelled to
differences, and, in justice to our subject, to criticise the views of eminent
men, we still gratefully acknowledge ourselves largely indebted to many of
them for valuable information, instruction, and suggestions. We have no
desire to reproach them, or, in imitation of some of them in reference to
ourselves, to call their integrity, or piety, or orthodoxy into question. We
may even indulge the hope that this work may elicit renewed reflection,
study, and discussion, leading to the removal of the evident weakness and
contradictory statements of the prevailing Church view. Its publication
may, we trust, be provocative of good, sustaining as it does the humble
 INTRODUCTION. By:

position of a forerunner of the truth, or the relationship of being merely

suggestive, and thus opening the way for a more severe and critical
examination of a doctrine which has been too much taken for granted.
Defective as our works are in some respects, yet gifted minds have asserted,
with charity and truth, that no mental toil, no laborious research, no
earnestness of effort to interpret the Scriptures, however deficient in part
or whole, should be undervalued, or scouted, or denounced, because all
such may either present some truth which may serve to elucidate others,
or produce thoughts that may be suggestive to others in introducing true
knowledge. We too often overlook even our indebtedness to opposers of our
opinions and belief. What Julius Miller says should influence us not
only to attempt to labor ourselves, but to tolerate the efforts of others:
‘* Our attempts to exhibit the truth in its entirety and connection are only
like the prattle of children, compared with that clear knowledge which
awaits us; but woe would it be to us if, because we cannot have the
perfect, we should cease to apply to the imperfect, in all truthfulness
and honor, our strength and toil’’ (quoted by Auberlen, Div. Rev.,
p- 415). This work is written under the impression, deepened by the tes-
timony of able scholars, that the love of truth is one of the fundamental
principles given to us by Christianity, and revived by the spirit of Protes-
tantism and Science. Ignorance, fanaticism, party prejudice, etc. may
indeed at times have obscured it, but intelligent picty has constantly
restored it. Under its influence every inquiry after the truth, if conducted
with reverence to the Word, without animosity, and in meekness, even if
unsuccessful in its full attainment, is regarded by the truly learned and
wise with charity, without an impugning of motives, or questioning of
the religious standpoint of the searcher. This leads of course, to the
position, that the credit we desire to be awarded to ourselves for present-
ing what we conceive to be truth, should be likewise extended to others.
And if others claim, that they are not to decline the responsibility of hold-
ing forth the whole truth from our apprehension of consequences ; that
they are not to disguise or withdraw it through fear of giving offense, of
losing reputation and support—we justly claim the same privilege. More
than this : we can say with a distinguished theologian, who, contrasting
the labors of more recent theologians with those of the older, and pointing
out how the Old Testament is beginning to be appreciated in its relations
to the New Testament, and the future—how the historical and doctrinal
features of the primitive Church are more distinctly developed, how the
place of the Church in its relation to the kingdom of God is more fully
recognized—adds, that these are only ‘‘ the beginnings of a work in which
it is a pleasure and joy to have any share.”’ *
This pleasure, however, is materially affected by one feature, the natural
result of human inftvmity. Uprightness demands that we follow the
truth wherever it may lead, regardless of results, keeping in mind the
remark of Canstein (Lange, Com., vol. 1, p. 516), ‘‘ Straightforward-
ness is best. When we seek to make the truth bend, it usually
breaks.’’ he doctrine discussed in the following pages being within the
field of controversy, and the subject of varied interpretation, it will
become in its turn, owing to its antagonism to the prevailing theology, the
legitimate subject of criticism. Of this we do not complain, but rather

i Auberlen, Div. Rev., p. 264.

18 INTRODUCTION.

commend the fact. ‘‘ History repeats itself,’’ and in such a repetition we

do not flatter ourselves to escape the usual fate of our predecessors in
authorship. Indeed, we already have had sad foretastes of the same, con-
firming the teaching of Scripture, and corroborating the experience of
good men, that no exercise of wisdom, caution, and prudence will be able
wholly to avert the evil tongues and pens of others. Some men seem to be
constitutionally constituted to be ‘‘ heresy-hunters,’’ and imbibe largely the
spirit of Osiander of Tubingen, who(Dorner’s Hist. Prot. Theol., p. 185, note)
discovered in Arndt’s writings Popery, Monkery, Enthusiasm, Pelagianism,
Calvinism, Schwenckfeldianism, Flacianism, and Wegelianism. Arndt
survived the attack and still gloriously lives in the esteem of true Christian
freedom, while his opponent is almost forgotten. ‘This random illustra-
tion’ is taken from a vast multitude familiar to every scholar, and serves
to indicate a weakness naturally inherent in some men, and who,
perhaps, are scarcely answerable for its unfortunate display. ‘Truth itself,
however, requires no such picking of flaws, no harshness of language, no
personality of attack, no bigoted and selfish support. She loves to hide
herself in meekness, humility, and love, while the graces of the spirit
surround and accompany her. The rude grasp, the rough touch even, is
sure to mar the neat foldings and to spoil the downy softness and shining
lustre of her garments. That this work will bring upon the author bitter
and unrelenting abuse is almost inevitable, presenting as it does unpalata-
ble truths to a proud humanity. How can this be otherwise, when even
the institution of the Lord’s Supper, intended as a bond of union and love,
has been made the subject of uncharitable discord, violent abuse, and
miserable hatred between professed believers. While we trust that the
spirit which actuated many of the eucharistic controversies may never
again arise, we are only too sensible, from treatment already experienced,
that human nature remains the same. If the amiable Melanchthon did
not escape, but most earnestly wished to be delivered from the rabies theo-
logorwm, how can others be safe? Even the Master himself was and ts
attacked, and the disciple is not above his Master. ‘The virulence
occasionally received from some quarters reminds one of the utterances of
older controversialists, such as Henry VIII.’s work, Luther’s reply, and
More’s rejoinder. Perhaps, like St. Austin and others, they regard such
a manifestation of spirit as perfectly legitimate, desirable, and honor-
able. We do not quarrel with those who have inherited a taste for ‘‘ bitter
herbs.”? Expressing ourselves candidly and fairly toward our opponents,
we dare not return the epithets so liberally bestowed uponus. Two reasons
prevent us: the first is, that dealing as we do ‘‘ with the testimony of
Jesus, which is the spirit of prophecy,’’ entering the sacred province of
Scripture with the words of God constantly flowing from our pen, portray-
ing the holy utterances of the Most High, it ill becomes us, when thus
writing of the precious things pertaining to redemption, the kingdom of
the Great King, and the ultimate glory of God, to mingle with it the
painful evidences of human passion. The second is, dealing with a
subject which, in the writer’s opinion, has been misapprehended by
talented men, it is amply sufficient, for the elucidation and confirmation of
the truth, to point out defects and exhibit statements in opposition with-

1The Faculty of Wittenberg with John Deutschman (Kurtz’s Ch. Hist., vol. 2, p.
241) charged the amiable Spener with 264 errors, so lynx-eyed are some critics.
 INTRODUCTION. 19

out defaming the character or standing of any one. The latter procedure
is worthy alone. of a grovelling jesuitical casuistry. Our names (Millena-
rian) have been linked with Cerinthus, heresy, etc., which is only imitat-
ing the amiable example of the Jesuit Theophilus Raynaud, who was noted
for coupling his adversaries with some odious name to render them, if
possible, contemptible by the comparison. It is the same trick resorted to
by some Jews to wound Christ, and can only have weight with the
unreflecting.* To hold up the faults of opinion in others, for the sake of
contrasting, explaining, and enforcing the truth, is allowable to all;
especially when they are published, and thus become a sort of common
property, or at least challenge the notice of others; but to hold up a
man’s faults simply to make him odiousis a despicable business. As Ful-
ler (Heel. Hist., Book X., p. 27) has wisely said: ‘‘ What a monster
might be made out of the best beauties in the world, if a limner should
leave what is lovely and only collect into one picture what he findeth
amiss in them! I know that there be white teeth in the blackest blucka-
moor, and a black bill in the whitest swan. Worst men have something
to be commended ; best men, something in them to be condemned. Only to
insist on men’s faults, to render them odious, is no ingenious (sic)
employment,’’ etc. We doubt not the ultimate fulfilment of Isa. 66 :5
in the case of many who have been thus defamed : ‘‘ Hear the word of
the Lord, ye that tremble at His word ; your brethren that hated you,
that cast you out for my name’s sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified : but
He shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.’’ This passage
suggests that a mistaken zeal for God’s glory may often be the leading
motive of controversial bitterness—that our “‘ brethren’’ may, through
such overzeal, be its willing instruments. This, alas, embitters author-
ship on controverted questions. The opposition and obloquy consequent
to and connected with such a discussion as follows while duly antici-
pated,’ as a heritage of the studious sons of the Church (the more marked
their labors, the greater the abuse), would be less painful if it came only
from infidels or the enemies of the truth, but much of it comes through
those from whom, in view of a common faith and hope, we expect differ-
ent treatment—at least forbearance if not charity. Acknowledging the

1 Simple candor requires us to say, that some of our opponents write against us in a
style that forcibly reminds us of the Popish bulls against heretics, or the supercilious lan-
guage addressed by sundry ecclesiastical and civil judges, in the days of Queen Elizabeth,
against the Puritans—a style constantly reiterated in history and produced by the spirit,
‘©T am holier than thou,’’ connected with a feeling of personal importance akin to that
of the petty constable who, felt that anything in opposition to himself was in oppo-
sition to the commonwealth itself. Yet philosophy may suggest, that reproach, however
bestowed, often answers, like the dark background or shading of a portrait, to bring out
more vividly the individuality—a principle that Renan recognizes in Christ ; the re-
proaches of others bringing out, by way of contrast, more prominently and distinctively
the traits and characteristics of Jesus. Would any lover of the Christ wish this part of
the record blotted out? If not, why object toit when related to ourselves, especially
when contrasted with Matt. 5 : 10-12, ete.
2 When Spalatin, the chaplain of Frederick the Wise, desired to translate a work that
would give general satisfaction and at the same time be useful, he requested Luther to
recommend to him such anone. Luther, in his reply, declared that it was impossible to
find sucha book, saying, that if he wished to make people ‘‘ hear the voice of Jesus Christ,
you will be useful and agreeable, depend upon it, toa very small number only.’’ Luther’s
view, alas, is painfully corroborated by the disputes over “ the testimony of Jesus,’’ and
the recompense meted out to those calling specific attention to it.
20 INTRODUCTION.

respectful and Christian manner in which we are spoken of by a number of

our opponents, yet the simple fact is, that if any one dares to arise and
call into question the correctness of popular views and propose another, one
too in strict accordance with the early teaching of the Church, his motives
are assailed, his piety is doubted, his character is privately and publicly
traduced, his learning and ability are lowered, his position is accorded a
scornful and degrading pity, by persons who deem themselves set up for
the defense of the truth. This plainness of speech the reader will
pardon when he is assured that the writer, for the sake of the opinions
set forth in this work, has suffered all this from the hands of ‘‘ brethren,”’
who, by such efforts, reproaches, innuendoes, etc., have sought to lessen
his influence and retard his preferment. Precisely as the learned Mede
and hundreds of others have experienced.* We here enter our protest,
that truth is never benefited by such conduct, and that Christianity in its
most rudimentary form forbids such treatment. But in justice to the real-
ly intelligent class of our opponents, we must say that such dealings
toward us do not come from the truly learned opposer—for among such the
writer has the pleasure of numbering valued friends. One feature of this
work will bring upon us the censure of some —viz., the candid concessions
made to unbelievers who attack the Scriptures, and the acceptance of
the principle of interpretation (7.e., the grammatical sense), the views
entertained respecting the kingdom by John the Baptist, disciples, and
early church, etc., to which the writer is forced by justice, love for the
truth, and the decided, overwhelming proof presented in behalf of the
same. It must be acknowledged that many facts pertaining to the king-
dom, as covenanted, predicted, and preached, are either entirely ignored or
most imperfectly (inconsistently) explained by Christian Apologists. But
these very concessions form for us a means of logical strength, of consonant
unity, of accordance with Scripture and history, that, meeting unbelief
fairly and honestly upon its own ground, furnish us with the proper
weapons for defending the integrity of the Word and the reputation of the
first preachers of ‘‘ the gospel of the kingdom,”’ bringing a continued veri-
fication of the Divine utterance, that ‘‘a man’s foes shall be they of his

' Compare the case of Edward Irving (Life of, by Mrs. Oliphant, pp. 337-339), who of.
fered to win the degree of Doctor of Divinity by submitting to an academical examina-
tion, etc. Some of our opponents have received the title for writing books against us.
Those subject to such treatment can, however, console themselves with such passages
as 1 Cor. 3:18, when, as Barnes tells us (Com. loci., Remark 17), that the Christian
“‘must be willing to be esteemed a fool; to be despised ; to have his name cast out as
evil ; and to be regarded as even under delusion and deception. Whatever may be his
rank or his reputation for wisdom.and talent and learning, he must be willing to be
regarded as a fool by his former associates,” etc. Alas! this was foreseen, and hence the
encouragement given by Jesus, Matt. 5:11, ete. Bishop Newton remarks (Proph.
Diss., Vol. 2, p. 164), that we have but little encouragement from the Church in
studies of this kind, and instances the neglect bestowed upon two, ‘‘ the most learned
men of their times,” viz., Mede and Daubuz. The experience of many corroborates this
statement. The writer has now in his mind several men of eminent ability, who are
suffering from the covert and open attacks of ‘‘ brethren,” and are in danger of losing —
positions of usefulness and trust. But we console ourselves with Rothe’s declaration
(“Stille Stunde”) : ‘‘ He whose thoughts rise a little above the trivial must not be sur-
prised if he is thoroughly misunderstood by most men.” One of the severest trials—in-
cident to our infirmity—to a sensitive heart, is the loss of personal friends, highly
esteemed, through adhesion to what is honestly, regarded as the truth, but which such
may suppose to be error.
 INTRODUCTION, 91

own household.’? Of course, we expect no special favor from gross

Infidels, Spiritualists, Mystics, Free Religionists, and a variety of others,
whose basis necessarily leads to opposition and whose unbelief is frankly
criticised. Yet even such have dealt far more justly toward us, owing to
our honest conceptions of historical facts, than members who were united
with us in the same church. We may suitably close this section by again
referring to that noble characteristic of candor which should, above all,
mark our criticism of doctrine. We select as an apt illustration of our
meaning the honorable example of Professor Bush. Although in his
writings an opposer of Millenarianism, he endeavors to conceal no facts,
however adverse to himself, but freely gives them, being too much of a
scholar to be unacquainted with them, and too much of a gentleman and
Christian either to ignore, or to despise, or to deny them. Thus, e.g., he
fully admits the universality of our doctrine in the first three centuries and
eloquently says: ‘‘ We are well aware of the imposing array of venerable
names by which it (Chiliasm) is surrounded, as if it were the bed of Solo-
mon guarded by threescore valiant men of Israel, all holding swords, and
expert in war.’’ Unable to receive our doctrine, he still does justice to
that noble list of martyrs, confessors, writers, theologians, missionaries,
and others, who have held it, and finds in them the redeeming qualities of
Christian integrity, faith, love, and holiness.
It is a fact, lamented by some of our ablest divines, that there must be
something radically wrong in our prevailing interpretation of the Bible,
which allows such a diversity of antagonistic exegesis and doctrine, and by
which the truth is weakened and humbled, so that Revelation itself, by its
means, becomes the object of Rationalistic and Infidel ridicule and
attack, and is even sorely wounded in the house of its friends by its
stumbling, conceding, but well-meaning apologetic defenders. To indi-
cate this feeling, which prevails to a considerable extent, Dr. Auber-
len (Div. Rev., p. 387) quotes Rothe as saying respecting the defects of
exegesis : “‘ Our key does not open—the right key 1s lost ; and till we are
put in possession of it again, our exposition will never succeed. The
system of biblical ideas is mot that of our schools; and so long as we
attempt exegesis without it, the Bible will remain a half-closed book. We
must enter upon it with other conceptions than those which we have been
accustomed to think the only possible ones ; and whatever these may be,
this one thing at least is certain, from the whole tenor of the melody of
Scripture in its natural fulness, that they must be more realistic and
massive.”? This is asad confession after the voluminous labors of cen-
turies, and yet frue as it is sorrowful. We may be allowed to suggest,
that the only way in which this key can be obtained is to return to the
principles of interpretation adopted and prevailing in the very early history
of the Christian Church, by which, if consistently carried out, the kingdom
of God in its ‘‘ realistic and massive’’ form appears as the reliable inter-
preter of the Word. In other words, we have no suitable key to unlock
Revelation if we do not seize that provided for us in the revealed Will of
God respecting the ultimate end that He has in view in the plan of
redemption and the history of the world. A way is only known when the
beginning and terminus are considered; a human plan can only be
properly appreciated when the results of it are fully weighed : so with
God’s way and God’s plan, it can only be fully known when the end
intended is duly regarded. How to do this will be contained in some of
 22 INTRODUCTION.

the following propositions. That it will be accomplished we doubt not,

and we are encouraged to labor on when such men as Dr. Dorner
(p. 4, Introd., vol. 2, Hist. of Prot. Theol.), expressing the sentiments
of many others, says: ‘‘ There can be no doubt that Holy Scripture
contains a rich abundance of truths and views, which have yet to
be expounded and made the common possession of the Church,’’ and
adds, that this will be done as the necessity of the Church requires.’
This, however, cannot be accomplished without long and laborious study
of the Scriptures, diligent comparison of them, and inflexible abiding
within the limits of their plain, grammatical teaching. We have no
sympathy with that flippant, unargumentative, high-sounding, but
unscriptural mode of presenting theological questions, so prevalent at the
present day, by which the merest tyro of a student endeavors to elevate
himself, as a teacher, above men who have been trained by grave and
extended reflection, and which manifests itself by despising the teachings
of the Apostolic Fathers and of the noble men of the Church, and enforces
its views by an applauding of modern views and modern theories as
evidences of progression in truth. The dignity of religion, the steadfast-
ness of faith, and the reliability of the discovery of truth, must suffer by
such a style, which lacks the strength imparted by a scriptural basis—a
“ thus saith the Lord ’’—being built upon the deductions of reason, with,
perhaps, here and there a scripture passage thrown in by way of ornament.’
Give us men, who, instead of following their own fancies, or binding their
faith to human utterances, availing themselves of preceding knowledge,
patiently, thoughtfully, and reverently go to the very roots of questions,
and in things revealed by God determinately reject everything inconsistent
with such a revelation. We know that such a course demands courage

1See the duty of contribution in this direction insisted upon, and so eloquently ex-
pressed by Van Oosterzee in his address, ‘‘ The Gospel History and Modern Criticism,”
before the Evangelical Alliance of 1873, and his insistence upon all in the church ina
broad catholic spirit participating, happily quoting Dr. Nevin : ‘‘ The sectarian spirit is
always fanatical, or affects strength and has none.” Oosterzee in his Ch. Dog.
(vol. 1, p. 69), speaking of an advancing and clearer apprehension of the truth, antici-
pates, such ‘‘e.g. on the subject of the eschatology of the nineteenth century.”’
2? We are reminded of Henry More’s sarcastic remark of smatterers in theology, who
are ‘‘ parrot-like prattlers, boasting their wonderful insight to holy truth, when as they
have indeed scarce licked the outside of the glasse wherein it lies.”” Human nature always
produces a class who think that what they do not know is not worth knowing, or who
suppose that, from the knowledge professed, they are eminently qualified to judge of
those things never examined or studied. The latter are illustrated by the professor of
Church history (mentioned, Blackwood’s Magazine, June 1873, in article on Dr. Arnold),
who, when questioned as to the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and the Apologists of
the second century, replied, that he knew nothing of these writings, but ‘‘ what with
the Bible on the one hand, and the human consciousness on the other, he knew very
well what must have happened in that century.’’ Bishop Berkeley’s saying is still true :
“ In the present age thinking is more talked of but less practised than in ancient times,”
In ancient times the thinkers were the instructors ; nowadays nearly every one sets him-
self up fora teacher. The tendency now is to despise laborious research and to substitute
tinsel ; scholarship must give place to beautiful writing ; depth must be sacrificed for a ©
vast range of graceful figures of speech. The Bishop of Exeter (The Intellectual Life,
p. 46) has well said, confirmed as it is by experience, ‘‘ of all work that produces results,
nine tenths must be drudgery”-——“‘ there is nothing which so truly repays itself as this
very perseverance against weariness.” The discriminating, the scholarly, the wise, will,
over against the large majority, give due credit to evidenced study and labor, even if un-
able to accept of all its results.
 INTRODUCTION. 95

and study, but in every instance when exhibited by published labors, it will
command, if not the entire assent, the respect of the truly learned ; for
the latter, from experience, can appreciate, at least, the toil in producing
such a work. Give us such men, and then we can hope to make advance-
ment in Christian knowledge, in harmonizing the difficulties besetting
theology, and in widening the domain of thought, faith, and hope. What
we want is solidity, 4nd that, in theology, is alone attainable by having
underneath as a foundation to build on the pure declarations of God.
What God says 7s true, what man says may be true; and the truthfulness
of the latter can be ascertained, its certainty demonstrated, by compar-
ing it with that which God has declared. If the comparison is favorable,
let us accept of it ; if unfavorable, then let us have the Christian manhood
to reject it, no matter under whose name, patronage, or auspices it is
given. Rendering the regard due to the writings of others, it does not
follow that we must elevate them to the position of competitors of, or peers
with, the Divine utterances. Such a test the author solicits from the
reader, bringing to the consideration of the subject an impartial judgment,
and weighing its value and authority in the scripture balance and not in
human scales. Every sincere lover of the truth, even should his labor be
rejected in part or whole, must feel honored by the institution of such a
comparison.
It has, however, been the fate of some authors to be so far in advance of
their contemporaries that, appreciated only by the few discerning or
candid, it has required time, or the necessity of the Church, or the endorse-
ments of a line of students to give importance and weight to their state-
ments. While the deepest thinkers freely admit that new and valuable
contributions to theology are reasonably to be anticipated, that such are
absolutely required at the present juncture, and that such can only be
found in the rich resources of the Word, yet it is remarkable that a
contribution thus given will, especially in the hands of those whose minds
are controlled by human traditions and by an exalting of Church author-
ity above that of the Scriptures, be rejected and anathematized on the
ground of its being in opposition to their preconceived and favorite
formula of doctrine.’ Others, through indifference or an indisposition
to exainination, will pass it by with, probably, a momentary interest.
Others again, the few tried friends of intellectual and theological effort,
will give it a fair, frank, and sincere reception, and form a candid estimate
of its value based exclusively upon its correspondence with the Holy
Scriptures. The latter occupy the real student position—one that Dorner
has aptly characterized as of ‘‘ individual freedom, that indispensable
medium for all genuine appropriation of evangelical truth ’'—a freedom

1 Truth has ever met with bitter opposition, and the cessation of this condition would
nullify the example and exhortations of the Master, and materially lessen the prospect of
future reward and glory. Emerson, in referring to a scholar’s duty to afford at least
‘‘hospitality to every new thought of his time,” adds: ‘‘ The highest compliment man
ever receives from heaven, is the sending to him its disguised and discredited angels.”
Advised. by some friends, who take no interest in “the blessed hope,” to destroy my work
(and if such advice had been followed in the case of others, exceedingly valuable works,
the most highly esteemed, would never have seen the light and secured the admiration
of multitudes—Comp. Library Notes, p. 145, etc.,) because the only books read were
those of well-known and noted men, the writer felt impelled to perseverance for the rea-
sons assigned in the preface.
24 INTRODUCTION.

only limited by Revelation. Without intending an imitation of such great

writers as Bacon and others, who declared that they wrote for “* poster-
ity,’’ and that it would require time to “‘ ripen ”’ their views so as to cause
their due appreciation, yet such is the subject-matter of this work, so beset
and resisted by the torrent of opposing doctrine, so circumscribed by the
intrenched prevailing dogmas, so unpalatable to the licentiousness of the
increasing free-thinking, so unwelcomed to a proud and self-satisfied
reason, that we are justly apprehensive of an overwhelming opposition to
the following propositions. In this belief we are fortified by the predic-
tions of the Word, which unmistakably teach that they will find but little
acceptance with the world, and even with the Church at large, and that they
will only be pondered and received by the thoughtful few. In this period
of prosperity, of sanguine hope of continued and ever-increasing peace
and happiness, the minds and hearts of the multitude will be closed
against all appeal, all instruction. It is only when the dreadful storm of
persecution and death, alluded to in several propositions, shall, when
excited and marshalled by the elements and forces now at work, burst with
fearful violence upon the Chrrch, and beat with pitiless vehemence upon
the heads of true, unflinching believers in Christ, that this work will find
a cordial response, a hearty welcome in the breasts of the faithful. Time
with its startling and terrible events will justify this publication. When
the dreams of fallible man, now so universally held as the prophetic
announcements of God, are swept away by stern reality ; when, instead of
the fondly anticipated blessedness and glory to be brought about by exist-
ing agencies, the blood of man _ shall again stain and steep the soil of
earth with its precious crimson, thew will the doctrine of the kingdom, as
here taught, be regarded worthy of the highest consideration, and then
will it also become a solace, hope, and joy under tribulation. But to
remove the suspicion of arrogance or pride in making so strong an asser-
tion, we may be allowed to say, that such a future estimation is not based
on literary or theological merits or attainments, but solely upon a strict
adhesion to and firm belief in the infallible Word of God as herein
delineated under the guidance of a legitimate rule of interpretation, by
which the Divine purposes relating to the Church and world are plainly
and distinctly taught. The possessions of God, even the most costly, are
often given to mere children, and denied to the wise and noble. The
Magi, although babes in knowledge compared with the Pharisees, came
nearer to the truth than those who supposed themselves to be specially set
up for its advocates. Numerous examples attest the same and reveal the
feature, that just in proportion as a man, learned or unlearned, receives
and endorses the declarations of God, to the same extent will his writings
have an abiding value. Especially is this true concerning the things
pertaining to the future—that region, those ages known only to the
Eternal, and utterly impenetrable to mere mortal vision. Hence, the
writer consistently claims that his labors will not be im vain ; that they
will at least some day be esteemed in the degree that they sustain to the
Bible. We firmly hold to the opinion, confirmed by the providences of:
God, that the necessity has arisen for a renewal of the early Church
doctrine respecting the kingdom. If the millennial age, as conceded by a
host of antagonistic writers, is near at hand, and if the kingdom in that
age is such as herein portrayed, then is the kingdom itself not very distant,
and then too ought we reasonably to expéct—in view of its peculiar nature,
 INTRODUCTION. 25

prominence, aims, etc., especially of its immediate tremendous and fright-

ful antecedent preparations, and of its. becoming a net and snare for the
unbelieving and wicked—that before its appearance God will raise up
instruments—even if weak Jonahs—who will so distinctly announce the
order of events, so vividly represent the nature of the kingdom, point out
its manner of manifestation, give a precise understanding of the Church’s
actual relationship to the world and this kingdom, that the Church will be
prepared to endure the awful scenes awaiting her, and that the saints,
called to suffer the loss of life, may, in the thus revealed will of God, find
encouragement and comfort instead of disappointment and despair. With
the hope of being thus honored with others’ as an instrument 1m upholding
the faith of God’s dear children in the darkest period of the Church’s
history, one will sadly but cheerfully endure the censures of mistaken zeal
and bigotry, and give his days and years of wearisome labor as an inspiring
sacrifice of love.”
The doctrine herein advocated, because of its being so directly opposed
to the current theology, and perhaps new in form to sonie readers, must
not be regarded in the light of a novelty.* It is, as we shall show, far
older than the Christian Church, and was ably advocated by the founders
and immediate supporters of that Church. It is admitted by all scholars,
that the Apostolic Fathers and many of their successors endorsed it, and
that since their time eminent and pious men have taught it, and that to-
day it is embraced in the faith of some in the various denominations of the
Church. We therefore are not open to the charge of introducing a
“‘ modern novelty.’’ Again: men of pretensions, without perceiving the
logical result of its once being universally held by the early Church, may
deride this early view of the kingdom and stigmatize it as a return to
‘‘ Jewish forms.’’? But persons of reflection, seeing how largely it is inter-
woven with the very life, prosperity, and perpetuity of the Church in its
earliest period, and perceiving how deeply we are indebted to “ Jewish
forms,’’ even if unable to accept of its teachings, regard its faith with
respect. Indeed, it is difficult to apprehend how any one can scorn that
which inspired a hope that supported and strengthened the ancient steadfast
witnesses for the truth, the very pillars of the Church in their sufferings,
the dying martyrs at the stake, on the cross, or in the circus. Cut off the
believers of this very kingdom as they existed and testified in the first,
second, and third centuries, and where would be the Church? The really
intelligent comprehend this, feel its force, realize their indebtedness to
such believers for the perpetuation of gospel truth, and hence from such

1 See Props. on His. Mill. doctrine for others thus honored.

2The author of The Kingdom of Grace in his preface coolly charges the Millenarian
view with being a ‘“‘ novelty.” (Comp. Props. 76-79.) Over against such unscholarly
affirmations, it is sufficient to present the acknowledgment of Dorner (Hist. Prot. Theol.,
vol. 2, p. 462-3), that Millenarian doctrines have been successfully introduced into the
province of theology, and that, as in the early ages of the church and in the days of
Spener, etc., they are of importance to a correct understanding of the kingdom of
God.
3 It is saddening to have religious ideas—sanctified by the dearest associations of life ;
hallowed by connection with suffering, trial, and bereavement ; endeared by study, medi-
tation, and prayer ; fortified by strength—imparting power in times of deepest gloom—
ruthlessly trampled upon, or branded by cruel terms; but if productive of comfort, hope,
and strength to ourselves and others, such trials are alleviated by a preponderating glad-
ness of heart.
26 INTRODUCTION.

we anticipate no censure, couched in derision, in advocating what was

once almost, if not entirely, universal in the Church. They are ready to
acknowledge how, instead of its being a novelty and being held by weak
and unreliable men, it interpenetrated the most significant and remarkable
era, and how widely it was inculcated by the very teachers to whom the
Church owes, under God, its growth and extension.
Some, probably, may object to the quotations as excessive or pedantic,
but the reader will allow me thus to express my gratitude to and respect
for others ; thus to avoid the charges of misquoting or misstating writers
(from which he has unjustly suffered) ; hence the author, book, and page are
adduced to facilitate reference and indicate an intended fairness in argu-
ment, thus to aid those who are disposed to examine the affirmations in the
following propositions ; to show how many great and earnest thinkers have
given this subject, or parts of it, their earnest attention; to evince my
indebtedness to others, and avoid the appearance of so many writers of the
present day, who, while under great obligations to others for valuable
material, give no sign of a just recognition ; to imitate the conduct of
those who go forth to meet the storms of the sea, taking in a quantity of
ballast to keep the bark steady among the currents and winds; to
emulate the practice of writers of conceded merit, impressed by the
fact tersely stated by D’Israeli (Curios. of Lit., vol. 2, p. 416), that ‘* those
who never quote, in return are seldom quoted ;’’ to present a sense of
delicacy by avoiding ‘‘the odium of singularity of opinion,’’ adding
weight and authority to what otherwise might be regarded as doubtful ;
and, lastly, to avoid even by implication the application of the simile of
Swift in ‘* The Battle of the Books ’’—viz., of being like the spider weaving
his flimsy nets out of his own bowels, instead of being like the bee passing
over the field of nature and gathering its sweets from every flower to
enrich its hive. We may be allowed to add: like the bee, however, we
may justly claim, if nothing more, the industry and skill requisite in the
gathering of the wax, the honey, and the building of the cells.* Indeed,
such is our infirmity, that we all are more or less influenced by the author-
ity of names, and in the reading of a work chiefly composed of contro-
verted questions given in an argumentative form, we reasonably expect an
arrayof advocates on both sides, which imparts confidence that the author
has bestowed some attention to the subject, and makes his labor, in conse-
quence, the more valuable as an expression of opinion ora book of refer-
ence. At the same time, important as it is to the student to know and
trace opinions, we are not influenced, either by their commonplaceness,

1 Burton (Anat. of Melancholy, p. 37) quaintly remarks: ‘‘ As a good housewife out

of divers fleeces weaves one piece of cloth, a bee gathers wax and honey out of many
flowers.” In reference to the difficulties of authors, the originality manifested, the cred-
iting of thoughts and ideas to others which have become assimilated with our own,
etc., the reader may consult Mathews’ The Great Conversers, D’Israeli’s Calamities of
Authors, Curiosities of Literature, Saunders’s Salad for the Solitary, etc. This, how-
ever, does not prevent a student who diligently compares scripture with scripture to
bring forth—so rich is the precious mine—things ‘‘ new as well as old’’ (Matt. 13 : 52).
That explorations thus conducted will not be fruitless may be found not only in exeget-
ical remarks scattered through the work, but under special propositions, as those, e.g., on
the disciples preaching, the preaching of Jesus, the election, the postponement of the
kingdom, the covenants, the genealogies, the temptation, the Divine sovereignty, the
Son of Man, the kingdom, the Church, the parables, the inheritance, the resurrection,
the barren woman, Pre-Mill. Advent, signs, Divinity of Jesus, etc.
 INTRODUCTION. 27

axiomatic nature, or remoteness in time, to assert, as Glanvil (Lecky,

Hist. of Rat., vol. 1, p. 182, note) sarcastically charged the scholars of his
day, on the authority of Beza, that women have no beards, and on that
of Augustine, that peace is a blessing, or to believe that common pebbles
must be rare because they come from the Indies.
Finally, the form of propositions adopted avoids repetition and insures
easy reference. It also gives distinctness to the numerous subjects so
intimately connected with the kingdom, and it enabled the writer to
abridge what otherwise would have required considerable enlargement.
The design kept in view has been to give the greatest amount of informa-
tion within the smallest space, resisting the temptation, often presented,
of extending some salient point. The propositions, separately treated, are
to be examined and criticised in the light which each one sustains in its
connection with the whole. It is but a low polemical trick to detach
one from the rest without indicating its relationship to others, and upon
such a detachment frame a charge of error. It does not require much
cunning or skill to wrest the words of any author from their connection, to
misrepresent their meaning, and to hold them up to undeserved reproach.
Willing to have any fault or error pointed out, it must, to give it adequate
force, be done not only with a consideration of the manner and relation
in which it is set forth, but also of the scriptural arguments, if any, which
profess to sustain it. Otherwise, we take refuge in what Zeisius (Lange,
Com., vol. 1, p. 496) says: ‘‘If the words of Christ, who was eternal
Wisdom and Truth, were perverted, why should we wonder that His servants
and children suffer from similar misrepresentations.’’ *
GEORGE N. H. PETERS.
SPRINGFIELD, OHIO, 1883.

1 May the author add: after many years of labor—as the following pages indicate—
and the cold fraternization of ‘‘ brethren” who had no sympathy for Chiliastic study, it
would be a personal gratification to the writer to learn from students who have investi-
gated the subjects presented in this work, that the perusal of this book has given them
pleasure and strengthened them in ‘‘ the blessed hope.”
 fed ng ae slit ?

Veena
POArS pe
Petey
 THE

THEOCRATIC KINGDOM
OF OUR

LORD JESUS, THE CHRIST.

Proposition 1. The kingdom of God is a subject of vital im-

portance.
The Scriptures cannot be rightly comprehended without a due —
knowledge of this kingdom. It isa fact, attested by a multitude
of works, and constantly presented in all phases of Biblical litera-
ture, that the doctrine respecting the kingdom has materially
affected the judgments of men concerning the canonical authority,
the credibility, inspiration, and the meaning of the writings con-
tained in the Bible. If in error here, it will inevitably manifest
itself, ¢.g., in exegesis and criticism. This feature has been noticed
by various writers, and, however explained, the views entertained
on this subject are admitted to greatly modify the reception, the
interpretation, and the doctrinal teaching of the Word. ~
To illustrate: Olshausen, Pref. to Com., attributes Luther’s remarks and hesitancy
concerning the Apocalypse to a preconceived opinion of the kingdom, and to his not
“thoroughly apprehending the doctrine of God’s kingdom upon earth.” Numerous
examples will be given as we proceed. It is gratifying that recent writers begin to ap-
preciate the leading doctrine of the kingdom. While some are wrong in not more
accurately distinguishing between the Divine Sovereignty (Props. 80 and 81) and the
covenanted kingdom (Prop. 49, etc.), yet, as the Bible*they correctly make the kingdom
of God the central topic around which all other doctrines
logically arrange themselves,
Correctly apprehending the kingdom of God as the guidingidea, Oosterzee (Ch. Dog., vol.
i. p. 65) justly observes : “The dogmatic theology which
understands its vocation will
be neither more nor less than a theology of the kingdomin all the force of the word.”
He aptly remarks (p. 168):‘‘ The idea of the kingdom of God is the golden thread
which runs through all; and of this kingdom the Bible is the document ;’ and quotes
Nitzsch : ‘‘ The Word of God is the testimony of His kingdom, in the form of a history
and doctrine explained and continued by personal organs.’’ Many others, however they
may treat it, designate it as Augustine (The City of God), a fundamental thought or idea.

Obs. 1. Its importance may be estimated by considering the following

particulars: 1. The kingdom is the object designed by the oath-bound
30 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 1.

covenant (Prop. 49). 2. It is the great theme, the burden of prophecy

(Props. 33-35, etc). 3. Itisa subject which embraces a larger proportion of
Revelation than all other subjects combined ; thus indicating the estima-
tion in which it is held by God. Dr. Pye Smith, Bickersteth, and
others have well observed and commented on this peculiarity—viz., that
inspired writers say more respecting the kingdom of Christ than they do
concerning all other things treated or discussed in the Word. 4. It was
the leading subject of the preaching of John the Baptist, Christ, the
disciples and apostles (Props. 38-74). 5. It was a cherished subject of
preaching in the primitive Church (Props. 75-77). 6, Itis the foundation
of a correct scriptural preaching, for the Gospel itself is ‘* the gospel of the
kingdom.’’ % To promote its establishment Jesus appears, suffers, and
dies (Props. 50, 181), and to manifest it He will come again (Props.
66, 68, 130, etc.). 8. Jesus Christ Himself, must be deeply interested in
it, since it is a distinguishing blessing and honor given to Him by the
Father (Prop. 84), and belongs to Him as His inheritance (Props. 82, 116,
etc.). 9. We are invited, as the most precious of privileges, to inherit this
kingdom (Prop. 96). 10. It is the constantly presented object of faith
and hope, which should influence us to prayer, duty, and watchfulness.
11. It is the result of the preparatory dispensations, enabling us to appre-
ciate the means employed to attain this end. 12. It embraces within
itself perfect completed redemption ; for in it all the promises of God will
be verified and realized. 13. It exhibits in an outward form the pleasure
of the Divine will in the salvation of the race and the deliverance of crea-
tion (Props. 149, 145, etc.). 14. It brings the Divine utterances into
unity of design (Props. 174, 175), exhibits manifested unity (Prop. 173),
and vindicates the inspiration of Holy Writ (Prop. 182), including the
Apocalypse (Prop. 176). 15. It enforces not only the humanity (Props. 82,
89) of Christ, but also His Divinity (Props. 85 and 183), with the strong-
est reasoning. 16. It exhibits to us the majesty and glory of Jesus, ‘‘ The
Christ,’’ as Theocratic King (Props. 88, 89, 132, 184, etc.), and the pre-
eminent position of ‘‘ the first-born ’’ who are co-heirs with Him (Props.
118, 119, 127, etc.). All these, as well as other related points, will be
fully discussed in the following pages. A sufficiency is briefiy stated, that
the reader may not fail to see how significant must be a proper compre-
hension of this subject.
We are prepared, from such considerations, to appreciate-the remark
attributed by Lange (Com., vol. 1, p. 254) to Starke: ‘* The king-
dom of heaven must form the central point of all theological learn-
ing.’”? Van Oosterzee ( Theol. of the N. T., p. 69) calls it the
foundation thought, and, after giving the doctrine of the king-
dom its proper position in the teaching of Jesus (saving, ‘‘ that the idea of
the kingdom of God is fundamental in the theology of Christ,’’) remarks :
‘* Already Hess has furnished a treatise on the doctrine of the kingdom of
God, in which he shows how prominent a place this idea occupies in
Holy Scripture, especially in the teaching of the Lord. It is surprising
therefore that Schmid, in the work cited, assigns to it the third place in —
his treatment of the doctrine of Jesus. Much better Neander, who, in his
life of Jesus, derives a ‘ whole system of truths’ from the parables of the
kingdom of God.’’ Let us add, however, that even Schmid does ample
justice in acknowledging its importance, when (e.g., Bib. Theol. N. T., p.
243) he calls it, the growndwork of His (Christ’s) teaching.”’
 Prop. 1.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 31

Such testimony could be multiplied. It is gratifying to find numerous recent writers

of eminence (as e.g. Delitzsch, Auberlen, Kurtz, Bonar, etc.) who emphatically declare
that the most important subject for careful consideration, and the one, too, that will
most serve to explain the plan of salvation, is that contained so prominently in the
preaching of Christ, viz., that of the kingdom. We conclude in the words of one of
the most recent, Thompson (Theol. of Christ, p. 19): ‘‘ The whole circle of doctrines
taught by Christ revolves about this central point, that he represented to men the kingdom of
God ;” or to recall Oosterzee (Ch. Dog., vol. 1, p. 169) : ‘‘ The central thought is contained
in the idea of the kingdom of God.’”’ Dr. Kling (Herzog’s Ency., Art. ‘‘ Kingdom of
God”) pertinently says: ‘‘ The idea of the kingdom of God is the central idea of the
entire economy of revelation ; the kingdom of God is the purpose of all heavenly reve-
lation and preparations, and therefore the moving principle of Divine works, guidance,
and institutions of the Old and New Testament, the law and the gospel, and even of
creation and promise from the beginning on.”

Obs. 2. It is significant to the thoughtful student—a fulfilment of

prophecy—that the idea of a distinctive Divine kingdom related to Christ
and this earth, a kingdom which decidedly holds the foremost place in the
teaching of Jesus, should be made, both (with few exceptions) in theology
and the confessions of the Church, to come down from its first position in
the Bible and occupy, when alluded to, a very subordinate one. In
hundreds of books, where it reasonably ought to be conspicuous, a few
references of a somewhat mystical and unsatisfactory nature, or a brief
endorsement of the old monkish view that it applies to the Church,
dismisses the entire subject ; while inferior subjects have long chapters and
even volumes in their interest. There is, to the reflecting mind, something
radically wrong in such a change of position, and the wider the departure
from the scriptural basis the more defective does it become. Any effort,
as here made, to restore the doctrine of the kingdom to its true and para-
mount Biblical station should at least solicit attention.

Obs. 3. The kingdom deserves the first place in Biblical and the first
rank in Systematic theology. The reasons for this, as already intimated,
are abundant. This has been too much overlooked, and the kingdom has
been placed in a subordinate position, until for some years past a reaction
—induced by unbelieving attacks—has taken place, and the kingdom
(however explained) is brought out again most prominently, especially by
Lange (see Pref. to Com.), Van Oosterzee (Ch. Dogmatics), Thompson
(Theol. of Christ), Auberlen (Div. Rev.), and others. While thus advo-
cating its claims to doctrinal position, we do not, as sometimes unjustly
charged, depreciate the importance, the value, and the exceeding precious-
ness of the person and death of Jesus. The latter is doctrinally the out-
growth from the former, and as provisionary (for without the latter the
kingdom, as covenanted and promised, could not possibly be obtained),
for the kingdom, is of incalculable consequence.
Tf it be said that “‘ the Christ’’ is of greater importance than the kingdom, this is
fully admitted, inasmuch as the theocratic king who establishes the kingdom is greater
than the kingdom itself. Indeed, as the student will observe, our line of reasoning
proceeds to exalt the kingdom because of the vital union existing between the king and
kingdom—the latter being the inheritance of the former. On the other hand, we glorify
“the Christ’ by showing the result and grandeurof His work as exhibited in this theo-
cratic ordering. In the kingdom, Jesus Himself is evermore the central figure, and He
can never be regarded in a higher, holier, clearer light than that reflected upon Him by
His theocratic relationship. This will hereafter be brought forth in detail.
32 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRrop. 1.

Obs. 4. In proportion as investigation advances in this direction may

we expect valuable acquisitions. Reuss (Hist. of Ch. Theol. of Ap.
Age, p. 137), although mistaken in his interpretation of the kingdom,
truthfully says: ‘‘There can be no doubt, then, that this full and
suggestive idea of the kingdom of God must be in some way the mine
to be explored by us, in order to bring to light the treaswres which Chris-
tian science have to mould and fashion, to meet the necessities of every
successive sphere, and the measure and capacities of every mind.”’

Obs. 5. That the subject of the kingdom is one widely acknowledged as

leading can even be seen in the most extreme views, as ¢.g. Sweden-
borgianism, Mormonism, Shakerism, etc. We need only refer to the
simple fact that writers of pantheistic and mystical tendencies have
taken the phrase ‘‘ kingdom of heaven ’’ to be the real starting-point of
Christianity, which they designate ‘‘ The New Jerusalem coming down
from God out of heaven ;’? and from which they argue that all men
should morally labor for the infinite, making every effort, whether in relig-
ion, science, poetry, art, etc., to be hailed as a subjective submission to, or
acknowledgment of, this kingdom. ‘Taking the spiritualized notion
entertained by many in the Church, they enlarge it by giving to it a
pantheistical dress or mystical adornment, to suit their ideas of evolution,
law, unity, philosophy, human nature, spiritualism, etc. Attention now
is only called to the circumstance, that in systems and theories of religion
the most unscriptural, still a great degree of prominency is given to the
idea of the kingdom.
Even Bauer says: ‘‘ The essence of Christianity is the doctrine of the kingdom of
God, and the conditions requisite for a participation in this, so as to place man in a gen-
uine moral relation to God.” Christlieb (Modern Doubt, p. 38) approvingly quotes
Bauer, but is inclined to make the essence to be Christ, bringing men back in and
through Christ. Both are correct : viewing Christ as the means of salvation, etc., He is
the foundation of the Christian system ; but regarding the Bible in its doctrinal aspect
or even the end designed by Christianity and its relationship to the past and the future,
then the kingdom of God forms the fundamental idea, and ‘‘ the Christ ” is the chosen
instrumentality by which it is to be realized. As our work is devoted to the doctrinal as-
pect, we would say that the essence of Christianity, linked with the past dispensations
and the future one, is the kingdom of God, more specifically shown to be obtained
through Jesus Christ—now the heirship by repentance and faith in Him, then by actual
inheriting at His coming.

Obs. 6. This subject is attractive to the reverent believer not merely

because of its being the absorbing theme of Old Testament prophecy
and New Testament prediction, but owing to the personal relationship that
he sustains, as an heir, to it. It is fitting to recognize, comprehend, and
appreciate our inheritance. But even the literary aspect, the intellectual
excellence of it, invites earnest investigation. Aside from its being a
predominating idea of a book, which has had such a moulding influence
in all the departments of life, it is the topic which, above all others, calls
forth the most eloquent and sublime of all the descriptions and promises
of the Bible, culminating in the last heart-stirring words of Jesus
intrusted to John.
This excellence is illustrated, e.g., by the last chapter of Habakkuk, which Dr. Frank-
lin admired as exceeding all human descriptions, and which, it is said, he caused a num-
ber of infidels at Paris, reading it to them without informing them that it was in the
Prop. 1.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 33

Bible, to eulogize as something descriptively grand. The reader, too, may recall the poet
Burns, so sensitive to beauty, that it is said of him that he could not read Isa. 25 : 8,
Rev. 21 : 4, and kindred passages without being affected to tears. Who can estimate the
emotions, the delight excited by this subject, as presented by inspired men, in the
hearts of believers in the past and present.

Obs. 7. When surveying the vast array of facts and events, some the
greatest that the world has ever witnessed, all pointing to this kingdom as
a contemplated end ; when looking at the same as they occur and exist
to-day, preparatory to the kingdom; and when contemplating the host of
remarkable, astounding events predicted to come to pass in connection
with the kingdom still future, surely this forms a subject worthy, beyond
all others, of the earnest, devout and patient study of every student of the
world’s eventful and, without this key, perplexing history. The kingdom
embraces so much, both in preparation and in actual realization, that, in
view of its extent, the doctrine exceeds all others in magnitude, enfolding
in itself nearly all doctrine.
To this we may add the pregnant idea (Lange’s Com. Luke, p. 326, Doc. 1): ‘‘ It lies
in the nature of the case that Christian eschatology, the more the course of time ad-
vances, must become less and less an unimportant appendix, and more and more a locus
primarius of Christian doctrine.”

Obs. 8. A deeper investigation of this doctrine and a correspondent

return to the old faith, held by men who, by position and association
(as e.g. Apostolical Church), were pre-eminently qualified to comprehend
it, will remove those painful concessions now made to unbelief, which
stigmatizes the apostles and early Church as still under the influence of
‘* erroneous Jewish forms.’’ Such a study and return, will relieve theo-
logians from being driven to the humiliating expedient of virtually
acknowledging that the apostles were mistaken in their notions respecting
the kingdom ; that they embraced ‘‘ the Jewish husk,’’ which, however,
contained the germ of truth (which they, situated as they were, could not
properly appreciate) that ‘‘ the conciousness of the Church ’’ in its devel-
opment (so Neander, etc.) was to strip of its surroundings and fructify
into full grown truth. It is alone in the direction indicated by us, that we
can hope—defending as it does every utterance and doctrinal position of
the first preachers of the kingdom—for a consistent pleading, justification,
and protection against the Strauss and Bauer school (and others), which
has driven noted theologians—led by a preconceived doctrine of the king-
dom—to place ‘‘ the consciousness of the Church ”’ (that finally obtained
the truth which had escaped the grasp of the apostles), as exhibited in
Church authority or theology, or the productions of fallible men, above that
of the Scriptures containing ‘‘ the Jewish husk.’’ The importance of our
doctrine is evinced, in that it reverses all this, exalting and vindicating
both the Scriptures and the correct knowledge of its inspired writers.
This doctrine, rightly apprehended, is not only important to elevate apologetics, to
meet the objections of unbelief, to honor the authoritative doctrinal utterances of the
Scriptures, but is admirably adapted to refute numerous errors, out of which religious
systems are originated, and through which they are maintained. The following propo-
sitions will introduce many of these, and practically show how they are met and defeated
by this doctrine alone.
34 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PROP. 2,

Proposition 2. Zhe establishment of this kingdom was deter-

mined before, and designed and prepared from, the foundation
of the world.
These two phrases are given in Matt. 25:34, Jno. 17: 24, Eph.
1:4, Heb. 4:3, 1 Pet. 1:20, Rev. 13:8, in comparison with other
passages. The one may indicate that the Divine purpose relating
to the kingdom existed in the mind of the Eternal before the crea-
tion of the world; and the other, that the creation itself both
evinced His intention to carry out His design (¢.¢., was prepara-
tory), and that it was in fact, as it existed before the fall and ensu-
ing curse, the prepared sphere of its manifestation.
Comp. Matt. 13 : 35, Luke 11 : 50, Rev. 17:8. Whatever application these passages
may have to the future kingdom, we cannot rid ourselves of the plainly implied meaning
that, in the mind of the Divine Architect and Purposer, the contemplated tinal use of
this world was allied with its origin. Shallow, unbelieving criticism makes itself merry
at the idea of ‘‘ the foundations of the earth,” and present it as a proof that the Bible
teaches an untrue form, and hence exhibits ignorance. The forcible figure of speech
and the intent are entirely overlooked, for the sake of making an uncritical attack.
As to the form, the Bible gave it (Job 26 : 7) long before science taught it ; as to “ the
foundations,’’ the general analogy of the Scriptures teach that these are in the creative
power, wisdom, love—the attributes—of the Creator ‘‘ in whom we live, move, and have
our being.”

Obs. 1. Hence, we properly infer the dignity of this subject, compre-

hended in the eternal counsels and evolved from the ever-existing ‘* pur-
pose of Him, which worketh all things after the counsel of His own will.’’
King Edward VI.’s Catechism (Bickersteth’s Promised Glory, p. 2), however it
may explain it, correctly affirms: ‘‘ Before the Lord God made heaven and earth, He
determined to have for Himself a most beautiful kingdom and holy commonwealth.’’
Moll (Lange’s Com. Heb., Doc. p. 211) says: ‘‘ At the very creation of the world God
looked forward to and made arrangements for the eternally abiding and unchangeable
kingdom of glory ; and to the introduction of that kingdom tend all the revelations,
arrangements, and providences of God in the history of the world.”’

Obs. 2. We also justly infer, that God’s will thus expressed respecting
the kingdom indicates a Divine plan, which, in view of His attributes,
necessarily embraces wnity of design. Therefore, when the kingdom is
once defined by the Spirit, no change or modification can possibly be
allowed without the most express declarations from God announcing it.

Obs. 3. The idea of the kingdom being thus identified in its connec-
tion with eternal purpose and with creation, God will wndoubtedly accom-
plish His revealed will concerning it, confirmed as it is even by oath.
God Himself stands pledged to the ultimate realization of this idea.
PRop. 2.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 35

Obs. 4. The exercise of creative power, and its continued exhibition in

behalf of man and the world, clearly shows the Divine determination to
establish this kingdom, notwithstanding the antagonistic elements intro-
duced by the fall. All things exist, because God has a determined end in
view, Which end is embraced in this kingdom.
Obs. 5. This kingdom is one pertaining to the earth. Before the crea-
tion of the world, it only existed in the determination or purpose of God,
but at creation the very foundation of the world was laid in preparation
for it. We know that the expression ‘‘ inherit the kingdom prepared for
you from the foundation of the world,”’ is interpreted by many simply to
mean, prepared for you from the beginning or from eternity, and refers
only to purpose. But taking into consideration the paradisaical condition
of the earth at creation and the fact (Props. 140-148) of its future restora-
tion to the same when the kingdom is to be established, we believe that the
phrase embraces a far deeper significance, viz., its relationship to the
earth. ‘‘ From the foundation of the world’’ is indicative that God
purposed this very earth, when founded, for this kingdom.
Fairbairn (Typology, vol. 1, p. 312) says: ‘‘ Because destined for Christ and his
elect people in the mind of God,’’ to which we add, destined to become the theatre of a
theocratic kingdom. It may be suggested: As will be shown hereafter, this kingdom
embraces completed redemption, and this alone indicates the truthfulness of our propo-
sition, because redemption (which the kingdom perfects) was in purpose co-existent
with that of creation (Eph. 1 : 4, 1 Pet. 1 : 20). This enables us to consider the unbe-
lieving objection that God made creation so imperfect that it required constant interfer-
ence or “* tinkering,’ seeing that all things have been previously foreseen and previded
for in order—against all adverse influences arising from free will, passion, prejudice,
etc. to carry out a predetermined result to its intelligently expressed consummation.
On the other hand, it answers the extravagant eulogies heaped by unbelief (in opposition
to revelation) upon nature, its perfection, sublimity, etc., in showing that the Creator
Himself, far from deeming nature able to save man, to render him happy, to deliver him
from evil, declares it placed, with all its faded nobility, with all its tarnished greatness
and riches, under a curse, and proposes in the doctrine of the kingdom a renewal,a
deliverance, a restitution, which shall free nature, exalt man, and glorify the Maker.

Obs. 6. Such phraseology involves, of necessity, owing to the fall and

entailed curse, a glorious restitution for which provision is to be made.
We are pointed to that original perfection of creation which the Almighty
pronounced good, but this being marred (as the Bible teaches) by sin and
resultant evil, it is requisite, before God’s purpose is fully carried out, to
restore that forfeited perfection. How this is done will be explained at
length hereafter.
Obs. %. This phraseology respecting the kingdom includes, in view of
expressed predetermination, the appointment or preordination of the
king (1 Pet. 1:20). It also comprehends the number of the rulers,
elect, heirs or inheritors of the kingdom (Eph. 1 : 4, etc.), as well as every
particular, provisionary and realized, pertaining to it. God does not
undertake the accomplishment of a set purpose without His perfect knowl-
edge embracing all things relating to it. For ‘‘ known unto God are
all His works from the beginning of the world’’ (Acts, 15:18, Isa.
46 : 9, 10, etc.)
Obs. 8. The idea of the kingdom being the heginning (i.e., leading to
creation, etc.) and the ending (7.e., embracing the final result) of the
36 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [Prop. 2.
dispensations or ages, we may well believe what the Scriptures state
concerning it, viz., that this idea is carried on to a practical accomplish-
ment in order that the supremacy and authority of God may be universally
acknowledged, and that the manifold wisdom and love of the Lord may be
displayed and experienced in the eternal ages. It also reaffirms that for
this object and end all things are sustained and allowed, to work out,
under Divine Providence, their destiny in respect to this kingdom.

Obs. 9. This language, so expressive of the comprehensiveness and funda-

mental nature of the kingdom idea, suggests to us that the dispensations
or ages themselves (the Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Christian) are
ordered in their succession as part of the Divine purpose in relation to this
kingdom. If we are to take the rendering given by Locke, Chandler,
Clarke, Whitby, etc., to Eph. 3 : 11, such a special ordering is announced.
Instead of our version, ‘‘ according to the eternal purpose,’’ etc., they
read : ‘‘ according to the disposition or arrangement of the ages which He
made for (or, in or through) Christ Jesus our Lord.’’” Whatever transla-
tion we may prefer, one thing is certainly taught in the passage, viz.,
that in the ‘‘ eternal purpose,’’ or ‘‘ the purpose of the ages,’’ etc., is
included the notion that time itself is embraced in God’s plan with special
reference to Jesus Christ as the King of the kingdom, for whom the plan is
carried into execution and by whom it will be perfected.
Favoring the rendering “‘ the arrangement of the ages’’ as most in accord with anal-
ogy (teaching that times themselves are controlled, etc., by God), yet we object not to
receive Bloumfield’s “* disposition of the ages’’ or Barnes’ ‘‘ purpose of the ages,”’ etc.,
because under all of them is still included the provisionary measures instituted in time,
following each other in succession, for and by Christ. The idea of a Divine plan, ever-
abiding and sure, is necessarily connected with the passage, which, as Holy Writ teaches,
includes the doctrine that all things are ordered for and have their foundation in
Christ, because He is the Christ, the theocratic king. The plan of salvation contem-
plates a restoration effected through Christ and witnessed in this kingdom, and, there-
fore, it embraces all arrangements, even those of time. This is corroborated by other pas-
sages. Thuse.g.,1 Cor. 2:7reads: “the mystery which He ordained before the worlds”
(7p6 tov atovdr, before the ages), i.e., the ages relating to the world (Comp. Prof. Lewis’s
ch. on Time-worlds in Six Days of Creation).

Obs. 10. The kingdom being comprehended in the eternal counsels of

God and in the design of creation, and being allied with various orderings
extending over the past history of the world and with others still future,
we ought reasonably to anticipate it to be a deeply involved, widely com-
prising subject, having a variety of aspects (as e.g.,in relation to the
Father, Son, elect, etc.), and an encircling of other subjects (as e.g., elec-
tion, resurrection, judgment, etc.), as well as a profundity of scope (as
é.g., in relation to time, the person of the king, glorification, etc.), which
demand most careful study, reflection, and comparison to understand.

Obs. 11. The proposition indicates a fundamental position that the -

student of the kingdom must occupy. It implies that as the kingdom is
God’s purpose, all knowledge of the kingdom must be derived from Him.
It is God’s idea, contemplated and realized, that we are endeavoring to
apprehend, and all reliable information must come from Him. Hence,
compare Prop. 9.
PRop. 2. ] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 37

Obs. 12. In Prov. 8:31, wisdom is represented as “‘ rejoicing in the

habitable part of his earth,’’ and as delighting in or presenting ‘‘ my
delights’ to ‘‘the sons of men.’? When the Divine purpose, as em-
braced in this kingdom, in reference to the earth and man, is completely
manifested, then the reason of this will also fully appear. Wisdom will
be justified both in preparing this earth for its display and in exhibiting
itself in the riches bestowed upon her adherents in the theocratic relation-
ship. If it is wisdom to receive any truth of God, much more is it wise
to lay hold of the great leading truths, that we may finally obtain the
blessings that true wisdom imparts.
Obs. 13. The proposition, from a purely Biblical standpoint, shows
that we cannot entertain the view that unbelief urges against the Bible,
viz., that Oriental religions antedate the Bible by many centuries. The
respective proofs of priority are found in the respective religious works in
the shape of assertion, and the truthfulness of one or the other must be
determined by its contact with the facts of history. Now history, as far as
known outside of the religious books, does not countenance Oriental exag-
gerations of age ; on the other hand, history corroborates the Bible state-
ment, which, owing to a plan systematically developed and with which is
connected a vast array of facts, is fully sustained both as to alleged age and
contents. (Compare Props. 179 and 182.) The proof of a continuous plan,
evidenced in the history of the past and present, and in the immense
superiority of subject matter, adaptation to man, etc., will follow in various
propositions.
Obs. 14. Lastly, this proposition is based on the scripturally derived
statement, that a Divine Creating Mind anda Ruling Will orders and rules
over all, so that notwithstanding apparent difficulties and unexplained
problems, that Mind and Will shall be ultimately trrumphantly vindicated
in an open, revealed manner, indicating, what piety already realizes as an
earnest in preparatory work, their close and intimate relationship with
man and earth. This absolute Mind and Will, affirming that it consciously
and personally works to introduce a predetermined kingdom, is, of course,
the original fountain-head from whence all proceeds. ‘To the believer in
the Word, it is unnecessary, because our views are based on Scripture, to
add anything; but to the unbeliever we may remark : that in defense
of such a position it is not required to represent the absurdities, the
contradictions of reason, etc., into which those fall who deny this existing
Mind and Will (other writers have ably done this), but rather to follow out
in all its connections the leading doctrine of the kingdom, and from the
evidences of marked design and unity manifested in its history, bring
forth a proof in behalf of a personal existing God, ordering and overruling
all things, that will commend itself to the intelligent reader more than any
other that we could possibly propose. The greater the work contemplated—
and there is none greater than this kingdom—the more clearly ought we
to see the intelligence of the Mind that originates it, and the power of the
Will that performs it. If that Mind and Will has proposed, in Revelation
to man, a certain, determinate plan of operation by which the kingdom
shall, after a while, be openly revealed; if the design and mode of
procedure and result commends itself to faith and reason as adapted and
desirable ; if history and experience plainly sustains the developments of
38 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 2.

such a plan through the ages, then we may rest assured that in harmony
with such a purposed plan, with its corroborating history and adjustment
to the necessities of man and creation, there must be, as the Bible wisely
and scientifically affirms, a guiding mind and controlling will. It would
be premature to press this argument ; let us then first present an array of
incontrovertible facts, and from these facts, as a conclusion (¢.g., Prop.
182, etc.), deduce the statement made, that the kingdom itself is depend-
ent upon the pleasure and work of the Father both in its inception and
provision, in its prediction and realization. (Comp. e.g. Prop. 84.)
This proposition logically follows from the idea of intelligent design. 'The Bible ap-
peals to the evident manifestation of design in the mind of the Creator as exhibited in
the ordering of the universe. Natural theology lays special stress on the evidences of a
previous foretheught and knowledge of adaptedness. The Scriptures likewise refer us to
the abundant testimony of design in the mind of the Almighty Ruler as declared in the
ordering and provisionary ruling of the world. The moral, religious, and civil training
of mankind, the fundamental laws of society, etc., are appealed to in proof. Numerous
passages hke Ps. 94:9, 10, Isa. 40 : 14, Acts 15 : 18, Isa. 46 : 9, 10, Rom. 11 : 33, Eph.
1; 8, 9, etc., indicate not merely God’s knowledge and wisdom, but the manifestation of
such in a predetermined purpose. Systematic theology directs particular attention to
the evidences of a previously settled purpose. Our subject largely develops this fact,
and insists upon the truth and force of Eph. 3 : 10, 11 and kindred passages.
PRoP. 3.] THE THEOORATIC KINGDOM. 39

Proposition 3. The meanings usually given to this kingdom in-

dicate that the most vague, indefinite notions exist concerning it.
Theologians, eminent for their piety and position in the Church,
are now entertaining crude ideas and contradictory conceptions of
the kingdom. For many centuries, under the interpretation given
by men who have, probably unconsciously, largely imbibed the
spirit of the Alexandrian school, the kingdom has been made to
mean a variety of things at the option of the writer. Modern
authors, with but few exceptions, instead of discarding this loose-
ness, seem to revel in it, making the kingdom to denote almost
everything that fancy connects with religion, or the Church, or
even with humanity. We select, out of numerous examples, sev-
eral to illustrate the prevalent mode of expounding it, and the lati-
tude of opinion expressed concerning it.

Obs. 1. Albert Barnes, who, possessing many admirable traits, is re-

garded as a popular commentator, gives the following definitions of the
kingdom in his Commentary. The kingdom is, Matt. 3:2, ‘‘ His
(Messiah’s) spiritual reign begun in the Church on earth and completed
in heaven ;’’ Matt. 6:10, the ‘‘ reign,’? God’s reign, or the Gospel of
Christ advanced; Matt, 13 : 24, “the gospel,’ or ‘‘ the effect of the
gospel ;’’ Matt. 13:31, “‘ piety ina renewed heart, or the Church ;’’
Matt. 13 : 44, ‘‘ the gospel, the new dispensation, the offer of eternal
life ;’? Matt. 13 : 45, ‘‘ religion,”’ or ‘‘ the gospel ;’’ Matt. 13 : 52, “‘ the
gospel,’’ or ‘‘ the truth ;’’ Matt. 25 : 34. “‘salvation,’’ ‘‘ eternal life,’’ or
“‘heaven ;’’ Matt. 26 : 29, ‘‘ heaven ;’’ Matt. 19 : 24, ‘‘ way of salvation ;’’
Matt. 21:31, to ‘‘ become Christians,’ or to ‘‘ follow the Saviour ;’’ Matt.
5 :19,.‘**the Church ;’’ Matt. 5 : 20, ‘‘the Church,” or ‘“‘the world to
come ;”’ Matt. 11:11, ‘‘ preaching the kingdom of God, or the gospel ;’’
Matt. 16 : 19, ‘‘ the Church on earth ;’’ etc. With minor changes (as e.g.
Jno. 3:5, “‘ the true Church,”’ 1 Cor. 15 : 24, ‘‘ dominion in general ’’), and
a hesitancy in precisely determining what it means (as e.g. Mark 10:15,
‘* the gospel, the new dispensation by the Messiah, or the reign of God
through a mediator,’’ etc.), we find these often repeated. Surely the
kingdom cannot possibly mean all these things, seeing that such explana-
tions are doth arbitrary and contradictory. The gospel of, or concerning,
the kingdom is one fact, the kingdom itself is quite another ; the dispensa-
tion in which the kingdom is to be manifested is certainly different from
the kingdom which it embraces ; the heirs of the kingdom are certainly
not the inheritance. These and other plain scriptural statements are en-
tirely overlooked in such definitions. The evident antagonism of such
popular explanations are amply sufficient to their refutation. The reply
to all such definitions will follow, as e.g. Props. 90-115.
40 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 3.

Dr. Lawrence in the Independent, October 23d, 1870, makes ‘‘ the kingdom of heaven’’
to mean: 1. ‘‘The universe of matter and mind ;’ 2. ‘‘ That part of the revolted
human race which has been brought into subjection to Christ ;’ 3. “‘ A kingdom of
grace, because it is by God’s love in Christ that they—believers—are brought into it ;’
4. ** A kingdom of glory in heaven ;’ and 5. “It is His reign over His loyal subjects.”
Our Church literature is permeated with similar definitions. M’Clintock and Strong’s
Cyclop., Art. ‘‘ Kingdom of Heaven,”’ defines it, first, ‘‘ the Divine spiritual kingdom, the
glorious reign of the Messiah ;’’ then afterward it is ‘‘ the Christian dispensation or the
community of those who receive Jesus as the Messiah ;’’ this again is divided into ‘‘ an
internal and external form”— internal ‘‘in the hearts of all Christians,’’ and externally it
is ‘* embodied in the visible Church ;’’ and then finally in its future relation, ‘‘ it denotes
the bliss of heaven, eternal life.” Compare Dr. Craven’s remarks, in an excursus, Lange’s
Com. Rev., p. 94, on Robinson’s definition (Greek Dic.) of the kingdom, who makes it a
dispensation, also a principle, and likewise a people actuated by that principle. Dr.
Craven justly objects to such ‘‘ a looseness in the use of language.”’

Obs. 2. Dr. Barrow, On the Creed, explains ‘‘the kingdom of heaven’’

as ‘‘ capable especially of two acceptations.’? Without discarding other
views, he lays down this proposition: ‘‘ It first commonly signifies the
state or constitution of religion under the gospel, in opposition to, or
contradistinction to, the state of things under the ancient law.’’ To
prove this, he shows that ‘in the time of the law, God’s kingdom was in
a manner earthly,’’ and proceeds to point out its earthly characteristics;
but that now under the gospel ‘‘God’s kingdom is more capacious,
unlimited,’’ and, in brief, more spiritual. From this he deduces that it
may denote: 1. The state of relation ; 2. The society of men put into such
a state ; and then also adds: 3. It is ‘‘ taken for the perfection or utmost
improvement of this state.’’
Aside from the indefiniteness of such a definition, indicating the difficulty of forming
a consistent whole (for the relation in which men are placed is superseded by the men
themselves, and then again by the perfection of the state realized), we only now notice
some self-contradictions which it contains: 1. If the phrase ‘“‘ kingdom of heaven’’ is
used ‘‘ in opposition or contradistinction to’’ former dispensations (the ancient Theoc-
racy), then it follows, which he himself will not allow, that no true kingdom of God
existed previously to the Christian Church. 2. If the kingdom only denotes the state or
constitution of religion, does it embrace or reject that which preceded the Christian era ?
It it embraces it, then, after all the kingdom is a continuation of the former ; if it rejects,
then it does not allow that religion existed previously in “a state or constitution.’ 3.
If the mere “ capaciousness,’’ etc. causes such a change in phraseology, that the ex-
pression ‘‘ kingdom of heaven”’ is applicable to the Church now and not to the Church
previously existing, how comes it, notwithstanding its supposed earthly nature (as op-
posed to the present state), that the ancient saints are accounted equally worthy with
Christian believers to enter in and inherit the kingdom? The whole theory, in its
invidious comparisons, is derogatory of God’s previous appointments, and degrades the
position occupied by the ancient believers. Other objections, stiJl more serious, will be
brought forth under appropriate heads : these however, briefly suggested, are sufficient
for the student to note the defectiveness of interpretation.

Gos. 3. Neander’s elaborated theory of the kingdom is pervaded by the

same indistinctness and contradiction. Thus e¢.g., in one place (Life of
Christ, sec. 213) the kingdom is something not visible, not outward ; in
other places (Hist. Ch. Church, vol. 2, p. 176) ‘‘ the Church comprised
the whole visible form of the kingdom of God,’ and (p. 17%) ‘‘ hither-
to, therefore, there could be no visible appearance of the kingdom
of God beyond the pale of the Church.’’ His view only makes these
‘‘ apparent ’’ contradictions ; for he has a number of kingdoms to suit the
varied demands of his development speculations. He gives us: 1. An
PROP. 3.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 41
invisible kingdom connected with the Church ; 2. An invisible kingdom
established in the heart ; 3. A visible kingdom inthe Church ; 4. A future
consummation or completion by the direct intervention of Jesus Christ;
5. The present as one with the future, z.¢. viewed connectedly ; 6. A king-
dom in the person of Christ ; 7% The higher spiritual world or heavenly
community co-existing with the invisible Church.
In defining, a singular variety is introduced, and as we shall have occasion to quote
largely from him under the propositions relating to the Church, one illustration (Hist.
Ch. Church, vol. 1, p. 499) will suffice : ‘‘ The idea of the Church is subordinate to that
of the kingdom of God, because by the latter is denoted either the whole of a series of
historical developments or a great assemblage of co-existent spiritual creations.” Here
is certainly a latitude opened great enough to introduce the various changes that strict
adherence to the development theory required. Following propositions wiil show how
unscriptural such interpretations are, when compared with the simplicity and unity of
the Word, They engraft upon Holy Writ the deductions of Hegelian philosophy, and
thus, through the great ability and learning cojoined, mislead the unwary reader.

Obs. 4. Dr. Lange (Bremen Lectures, 1871, Lec. 8) says: ‘‘ The

kingdom of God itself, the older theologians divided, not without grounds,
into the kingdom of power, the kingdom of grace, the kingdom of glory.
Still it must be remarked that each of these kingdoms properly separates
into two kingdoms ; the kingdom of power into God’s rule over entire
nature, and His rule over the whole rebellion of such intelligences as, in
the misuse of freedom, have gone astray ; the kingdom of grace, into the
typical prefiguration of the real kingdom of heaven, or the Old Testament
theocracy, and into the real, 7.¢. spiritually potent, New Testament king-
dom itself; the kingdom of glory, into the realm of the triumphant
Church in the other world, and the union of that world and this in the
final consummation.’’ Lange thus forms six kingdoms or divisions of the
kingdom, which was rendered necessary by the partial rejection of the
early Church doctrine. These are purely theological deductions, having no
foundation whatever in Scripture, as will appear when we come to the
preaching of the apostles, the doctrine of the Church, etc. As we are only
now concerned in giving a few specimens of entertained opinions, it is
premature to present our reply. Like preceding definitions, 1t lowers the
theocracy by denying to it the reality of being in all respects the kingdom
of God. This alone should cause us to receive it with grave doubts.
It is difficult at times to understand those complex and contradictory meanings.
Thus e.g., Lange in his Commentary gives a variety, some of which are not in accord with
those just mentioned. In the general introduction he says : ‘‘ As mankind was original-
ly destined to form the kingdom of God, and for that purpose was arranged into one
family, the kingdom of God may also be viewed as the restoration of mankind to one
body under the One and Eternal Head (Acts 3 : 21, Eph. 1 : 22) in whom it was elected
from all eternity, and called, for the harmonious manifestation of the glory of God, Eph.
1:4, 5.” (This we can cordially adopt with the provision that this is done in the cov-
enanted way proposed). But then he adds: ‘‘ The kingdom of God is that new creation
in which God reveals Himself in His character asRedeemer.’’ “It consists in the resto-
ration of the dominion of the Spirit of God over the hearts of men,” etc. Hence it
existed from the beginning of time, for he says, p. 3, ‘‘ the real kingdom of God was
founded when redemption was introduced,” ete. On p. 24 he has it founded in the
Apostolic Church and manifested in ‘ ecclesiastical and Christian life.’’ On p. 25 he
has ‘‘ the kingdom of heaven in the person of Christ,’’ and afterward ‘‘ the person of
Christ in the kingdom of heaven.” On p. 25 he has ‘‘ His kingdom founded upon earth
by the planting of His Church through the power of the Holy Ghost,’’ ete. Thus there
is a shifting from one position to another, a substitution of the means by which to obtain
 42 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 3.

the kingdom for the kingdom itself, etc., that evidences a weakness incompatible with
a leading doctrine of the Bible. For indefiniteness, see Com. on Matt. 16:13, 20, p. 298,
where it is, and then it is not, the kingdom of heaven. Comp. p. 299, s. 5 and 6, etc.

Obs. 5. Olshausen (Com. on Matt. 3:1) defines the kingdom of

heaven to be both ‘‘ external and internal ;’’ externally in the Church,
and ultimately in its consummation ; internally in believers, and in the
ideal future world. Hence a believer is already in the kingdom, or carries
it with him, and ‘‘ yet even for him it is still to come,”’ 7.e., a higher
manifestation or realization of it. This is also ‘‘ applied to different
relations’’ both of time, place, etc. How unsatisfactory this is in the
light of covenant and promise, will be shown under the Church (Props.
94-115), where the incongruity of persons being in the kingdom while
still heirs, the lack of resemblance between the covenanted kingdom and
the Church (visible and invisible) are fully noticed. Much that Olshausen
has written is valuable and suggestive (take e.g. the caution, ch. 10,
p. 116, Introduction), but his exegesis of Matt. 3 : 2 is most certainly defec-
tive. For any theory which can make “is at hand” to be actually
present, thus arbitrarily changing the tenses used ; which virtually makes
the kingdom of God “‘ always existing,’’ thus not discriminating between
things that materially differ ; which makes the theocracy under Moses and
David a mere type, thus overlooking its reality as a kingdom; which
applies Luke 17 : 21 to a kingdom in the heart, divides and subdivides
the kingdom after the fashion of those already referred to, and tells us,
without proof annexed, that “‘ the Saviour put forward its ideal charac-
ter,’? must be received with great caution.
The reader will notice that we also introduce those who are Millenarian, or have a
strong bias for our doctrine (as Olshausen, Lange, etc.), and yet largely adopt the mysti-
cal notion of the kingdom. While such have the kingdom pre-eminently, and in its ful-
ness, in the millennium, they also (not accurately distinguishing the kingdom, as cove-
nanted, from the Church, not observing the postponement of the kingdom, not discerning
the difference between the Divine Sovereignty and the Theocracy, etc.) have a kingdom
now existing in the Church and individual believer, preparatory to and merging into
the other or proper one. A large number of eminent men take this position, as e.g. Ouos-
terzee, Delitzsch, Auberlen, Bonar, etc. A careful consideration of Scripture compels us
to differ from brethren highly esteemed ; the reasons will follow in their order.

Obs. 6. In Dr. Hodge’s recent work on ‘‘ Systematic Divinity,’’ we find

(p. 596, vol. 2) a section entitled, ‘‘ the Church, God’s kingdom.”’ ‘To
prove this caption, he informs us that God determined to deliver man from
his apostasy, and hence inaugurated a kingdom antagonistic to that of
darkness. This kingdom thus introduced had no “ visible organization
apart from the families, the people of God.’’ It was afterward through
the descendants of the patriarchs formed into a ‘‘ visible kingdom,’’ which
has existed down to the present day. But when we ask, if it has always
thus existed, why e.g. do the prophets speak of it as non-existing, as still
future, as something to be anticipated, as set up by the Messiah at His
coming, such questions, and similar ones, that readily suggest themselves
to the scholar, remain unanswered. Indeed, as he goes on defining, he
forgets his previous declaration ; for when speaking of the nature of
Christ’s kingdom he tells us; that ‘‘ as the Messiah was to come to make
all things new’”’ (which he thus strangely locates with the first Advent
instead of the second, as the Scriptures do), we have also “‘ the establish-
Prop. 3.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 43

ment of a new kingdom.’’ How can it be new, if it has always existed?

Then he has Christ’s dominion over the universe, calling it ‘‘ the kingdom
of power ;’? Christ’s ‘‘ spiritual kingdom,’’ which is twofold, viz., an
invisible kingdom consisting only of the regenerated, and a visible king-
dom manifested in the organized, external society of believers. Finally,
he gives us ‘“‘the kingdom of glory’ to be revealed when Christ
comes again. ‘Thus he presents us, 1. An invisible kingdom down to
the patriarchs; 2. A visible kingdom down to Christ ; 3. An invisible
one down to the first Advent ; 4. Christ’s kingdom of power; 5. Christ’s
invisible kingdom since his Advent ; 6. Christ’s visible kingdom extend-
ing from the same period ; 7. And the kingdom of glory. Surely the very
enumeration of such a list, when compared with the simplicity and
uniform phraseology of the Bible, forces upon our minds the suspicion that
there must be a serious defect in a system which requires such an array of
kingdoms ; which ignores the distinctive marks of the covenanted king-
dom; which does not distinguish between the universal Divine sovereignty
and the kingdom as predicted; and which presents us a series of definitions
utterly unknown to those who were specially set apart to preach the gospel
of the kingdom.
Such interpretations, with slight changes, could be multiplied. The New Testament,
with notes published by the American Tract Society on Matt. 3 : 2, makes the kingdom
**the sway of Christ’s Gospel and dispensation over the hearts, lives, and destinies of
men, both in this world and the next,’ and this (mistaking the means for the end) is
equivalent to ‘‘ the Messiah’s reign as predicted by the prophets.”’ But to make this
out, recourse is had to various ‘‘ stages’ in the ‘‘ heart of the individual believer, in
the churches, in influencing society, in the millennium, in the judgment-day, and
in the heavenly world.’’ Storr, in Diss. on the Kingdom of Heaven, compresses
the matter so that it shall ‘‘ embrace the whole time of the Messiah.’ He forgets that
this is not the time of the Messiah (e.g. Luke 17 : 22), but the times of the Gentiles
(Luke 21 : 24), and that the predicted time of the Messiah is still future, (Comp. e.g.
Props. 136 and 137). Schmid (Bib. Theol. N. T., p. 244) tells us that “the kingdom of
God is understood to be both present and future ; the dominion of the exalted Christ,
which consists partly in the influence over the minds of men exercised by the Word,
partly in the guidance of the external destinies of the Church, partly in the rewards and
punishments at the last judgment. In ‘t, too, is perhaps recognized the kingdom of
grace, the temporal institutions of religion, the kingdom of glory, and the future acts of
judgment ; adding, too, the idea that Jesus was only in error in fixing too close a proxim-
ity for this judgment.’’ Schmid afterward defines the kingdom to be “‘ in its nature, on
the one hand, something simply existing and eternal, and, on the other, something tem-
poral, developing itself through various conditions ;” being also ‘‘a Divine order of
things,’’ ‘‘ a communion of spirits founded by Christ,’’ “‘ « fellowship of men,” ete.

Obs. 7. The definitions given to the kingdom by Infidels, Rationalists,

Free Religionists, etc., are varied. While some reject the idea entirely as a
mere phantom or “‘ Jewish conception,’’ others incorporate it and make it
mean, ‘ God manifested in and through nature,”’ or ‘‘ God in humanity,”
or ‘‘ God in progressive development,” or ‘‘ the truth,’’ or “‘ the suprem-
acy of reason,”’ or “‘ the supremacy of the naturai dignity and nature of
man,’”’ etc. Renan (Life of Jesus, p. 240) makes it, ‘‘ the reign of the
poor and disinherited,”’ “‘ the literal accomplishment of the Apocalyptic
visions of Daniel and Enoch,’’ ‘‘ the kingdom of souls’’ (p. 249), ‘‘ the
ood,”’ ‘‘ the reign of justice,’ ‘‘ the liberty of the soul,” etc. In this
direction there is no end to the notions respecting it, generally drifting,
however, toward the idea of a humanity redeemed by an enthroned reason
44 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 3.

(of which Jesus is an example of high genius), or of a God permeating

nature and man.
Indeed, no doctrine of the Bible has fared so badly through mere fancy, imagination,
enthusiasm, and fanaticism as that of the kingdom. In behalf of a theory or system it
has been perverted, distorted, and abused until many persons, looking only at the abuses
and antagonism (forgetting that all truth is subject to the same), discard the whole mat-
ter. When the Papacy, Shakers, Mormons, etc. define it in a way to embrace their par-
ticular organizations ; when Anabaptists, Fifth Monarchy men, etc. interpret it so as to
include their ambitious projects ; when almost every denomination, sect, etc. explain it
so as to make themselves the recipients of the kingdom ; when it has been prostituted to
the basest of purposes, and it is presented in a hundred different aspects and claims—all
this only shows how important these parties consider the incorporation and possession
in some form, of the doctrine. It is amazing to a person who steadily for years notices
the definitions of others, how latitudinarian they have become in these modern days.
Recently a tract written and published by Speer informs us that the Church was ‘‘ taken
into the Roman kingdom of God ”—i.e., into the Roman Empire, thus designating that
“the kingdom of God’’ which the Scriptures (Dan. 2 and 7) call a ‘‘ Beast.” We are
told by Rev. Fowle (Contemp. Review, May, 1872, art. “Christ. and Immortality’’),
that “by the kingdom of heaven Christ meant almost, if not quite exclusively, the estab-
lishment of God’s rule and order upon earth ;’ and to make this denote the Church is,
in his opinion, “a substituting a secondary and comparatively unimportant interpreta-
tion for the primary and true one.” This, then,opens the way for mystical incorpora-
tions, for it supplies ‘‘ the missing link needed to bind together the morality of Paganism
and Christianity,’’ and brings us to this result : “the kingdom of heaven is civilization
viewed religiously, owning God as its Creator and Judge, and looking for still nobler de-
velopments in other spheres.”

Obs. 8. Those who give us such definitions, antagonistic to the primitive

Church view, exhibit also the greatest diversity among themselves respect-
ing the commencement of this kingdom in its supposed present form. ‘They
are as little agreed concerning its beginning as in its meaning. Some
commence it in paradise; others, after the fall when redemption was
proposed ; some with the patriarchs or with the theocratic ordering at
Sinai ; others, at the preaching of John the Baptist ; some, with the birth
of Christ ; others, at Christ’s baptism ; some, at the preaching of Jesus
and disciples ; others, at the confession of Peter; some, at the death of
Christ, or at his resurrection and ascension ; others, on the day of Pente-
cost ;and others, at the destruction of Jerusalem. Some again have
several commencements or different stages ; others have only one, regard-
ing all previous as merely typical and unreal. Quotations illustrative of
this antagonism will be given in following propositions. Let us only now
suggest to the reader: is it not remarkable that a kingdom of God, so
distinctively covenanted and predicted, should be so indefinite in its
commencement that eminent and pious men are unable to point out its
beginning with any degree of absolute certainty? That we even tind
many who, in their perplexity, have several beginnings, such as ‘‘ typi-
cal,’”’ ‘‘initial,’’ etc.? That they are undecided from what period in
Christ’s life to date it? Surely, is it not wise to consider that such a
diversity, unknown to Scripture, and based solely on assertion, may arise
from some mistake, a fatal flaw in its meaning? Having a kingdom to find
and at present existing (over against the plainest statements of Scripture
to the contrary), it is easy to see how such a confusion and variety arises.

Obs. 9. Attention is called to the fact, that the most serious contradic-
tions greatly weaken the force of these definitions. Thus e.g. eminent
Prop. 3.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 45
men inform us that there has been a continuous kingdom, without in-
termission, from the earliest period down to the present. Now
others, as eg. Van Qosterzee (Theol. of N. Test.) positively makes
the kingdom of heaven or of Christ something ‘‘ new ;’’ not a mere con-
tinuation, for ‘‘ since it had first come nigh in the fulness of time, 2¢
did not before exist on earth ;’’ and then asserts that it is a mistake to
make the Church the kingdom. He reduces the force of the latter by
admitting that, although it is spiritual, yet the Church is also the external
form in which it appears. With some truth, we have here an admixture
of error and weakness, that neutralizes the whole. In the following pages,
it will be shown, step by step, that the kingdom of God did previously
exist on earth, that it does not apply to the existing Church, and that the
kingdom of Jesus Christ, when established, is not new but a renewal
with precious, astounding additions. Meyer (Com. on Matt. 3: 2),
seeing how fanciful, arbitrary, and contradictory are the interpretations
usually given, cautiously remarks: ‘‘ These expressions ‘ kingdom of
heaven,’ etc., never signify else than the Messianic kingdom, even in those
passages which seem to denote the Church, the Christian religion, etc.”’

Obs. 10. Able authors admit that Christianity has met with, and
undergone, changes since its introduction. Buckle (Hist. Civ.) in-
forms us that this has been affected by foreign events contrary to the
original scheme. This has been pressed by Bauer, Renan, etc. All
confess to some variations from the original ; one class contending that
they are for the better—another, for the worse. However this mzy be,
it must be acknowledged, that when comparing the early Church doctrine
of the kingdom with the meanings now so extensively given and adopted,
a wide departure from the original and primitive meaning is fully evi-
denced. It is a substitution, too, so opposite and diverse, that it assumes
the attitude of hostility to the first one adopted by the Church, casting, at
the same time, as many shadows as Simon Magus is reported to have done
when walking the streets. The design of this work is to restore and
defend the original meaning, by showing its scriptural basis and historical
connection.
It has been truthfully said by Jer. Taylor (Works, vol. 5, p. 348) that “men will
call all opinions by the name of religion ; and superstructures by the name of funda-
mental articles ;and fancies by the glorious appellation of faith.” This, alas, is con-
stantly repeated, so that the student needs constant watchfulness. Nothing is exempt
from diversity, so that, as illustrative, Vares long ago assured us that he reckoned the
old philosophers had about eight hundred opinions concerning the “summum
bonum.”’

Obs. 11. Considering the various conflicting interpretations entertained

by learned men respecting the kingdom, we realize what Glanvil (The
Vanity of Dogmatizing) developed from hints given by Bacon, viz., the
fallibility of the most powerful mind even under the most favorable
circumstances, and in its moments of highest confidence. After making
due allowance for the leadings of education, the tenacity of prejudice, the
proneness to error, the inherent weakness of intellect, we have still a
sufficiency to guide us. God foresaw this diversity, and hence accommo-
dated Himself to our weakness in the plain, grammatical language and sense
in which He expresses Himself. But unfortunately we are prone, in our
46 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 3.

superior wisdom, to overlook this fact, and arrogate to ourselves the high-
er power of adding to the grammatical meaning owr own constructions of
what the sense ought to be, and thus plunge ourselves into hopeless
embarrassments.

Obs. 12. The only way to rid ourselves of these ill-defined and antago-
nistic explanations, is to adopt legitimate principles of interpretation, and
then carefully, in detail, examine the original covenants and promises
upon which the kingdom is based ; and if we have obtained a definition
strictly in accordance with these, never to depart from the same, without
the most express—not inferential—proof in hand that a change is denoted.

Obs. 13. It isa lamentable fact, that few theologians are to be found
who are willing to give a rigid scriptural examination to this subject.
Preachers, who profess themselves called to proclaim ‘‘ the gospel of the
kingdom,’’ totally waive such a study. A few isolated passages, either
torn from their connection, or misapprehended in their relationship to
other Scripture, form the basis of a vast inferential structure. Instead of
making Holy Writ the standard of interpretation, multitudes, while im
theory recognizing the Bible as the sole measure of faith, yet in practice
will take the explanations and Scriptural references given by favorite
authors as their reliable guides, without the least attempt to verify, by a
personal application to Scripture, their correctness. Undoubtedly we are
greatly indebted to writers for definitions, interpretations, suggestions,
ete., yet, after all, those who are called on to instruct others should satisfy
themselves by a personal study of Revelation that their belief and opinions
are scripturally founded. Error, too, is often plausible and friendly;
truth sometimes comes in the garb of an adversary.

Obs. i4. Many shrink from investigation when they find that things
which they fondly believed, incorporated in their prayers and hopes, and
portrayed with eloquence, are subject to the suspicion of being built upon
a sandy foundation. It is a trite saying that ‘‘ truth never dies,’’ however
great the opposition ; and we may rest assured that any opinion that we
may individually entertain, can never alter or seriously affect the truth of
God. It is folly to shelter ourselves behind the fear that, peradventure,
inquiry and scrutiny may lead to a revolution of our views. This may
indeed be an amiable weakness, but it is one as fatal to the student as
Delilah’s hands were to Samson. If in earnest search after the truth, such
a result, should it occur under clear apprehension and decided conviction
of Scriptural authority, must be accepted as alone honorable. It is to the
credit of some of the greatest writers (especially the German who so
frankly express it), that opinions once strongly advocated were subse-
quently discarded under the persuasion that truth, honesty, and integrity
required the change.
Prop. 4.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. at

Proposition 4. Lhe literal, grammatical interpretation of the

Scriptures must (connected with the figurative, tropical, or
rhetorical) be observed in order to obtain a correct understand:
ing of this kingdom.
On a proposition which has brought forth many volumes in its
discussion, we desire simply to announce our position, and assign a
few reasons in its behalf. Its import is of such weight ; the conse-
quences of its adoption are of such moment; the tendency it pos-
sesses of leading to the truth and of vindicating Scripture is of such
value, that we cannot pass it by without some explanations and
reflections.
Obs. 1. We unhesitatingly plant ourselves upon the famous maxim (Zeci.
Polity, B. 2.) of the able Hooker: ‘‘ I hold for a most infallible rule in
expositions of the Sacred Scriptures, that where a literal construction will
stand, the furthest from the letter is commonly the worst. There is
nothing more dangerous than this licentious and deluding art, which
changes the meaning of words, as alchymy doth, or would do, the sub-
stance of metals, making of anything what it pleases, and bringing in the
end all truth to nothing.’? The primitive Church occupied this position,
and Ireneeus (Adv. Her. 2, C. 27) gives us the general sentiment when (in
the language of Neander, Hist. Dogmas, p. 77) ‘* he says of the Holy Script-
ures : that what the understanding can daily make use of, what it can
easily know, is that which lies before our eyes, unambiguously, literally,
and clearly in Holy Writ.’?* However much this principle of interpreta-
tion was subverted, as history attests, by succeeding centuries (not without
protests), yet at the Reformation it was again revived. Thus Luther (Table
Talk, ‘‘On God’s Word,’’ 11) remarks: ‘‘I have grounded my preach-
ing upon the literal word ; he that pleases may follow me, he that will not
may stay.’’? In confirmation of such a course, it may be said: if God
has really intended to make known His will to man, it follows that to
secure knowledge on our part, He must convey His truth to us in accord-
ance with the well-known rules of language. He must adapt Himself to
our mode of communicating thought and ideas. If His words were given
to be understood, it follows that He must have employed language to
convey the sense intended, agreeably to the laws grammatically expressed,
controlling all language ; and that, instead of seeking a sense which the
words in themselves do not contain, we are primarily to obtain the sense
that the words obviously embrace, making due allowance for the existence
of figures of speech when indicated by the context, scope, or construction
of the passage. By ‘‘ literal,’? we mean the grammatical interpretation of
Scripture. Some writers, to avoid lengthy or circumlocutory phraseology,
have employed the phrase “‘ literal interpretation,’’ by which they denote,
48 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 4.

not that every word or sentence is to be taken in its rigid literalism, but
that the language of the Bible is to be interpreted by the customary rules
of grammar and rhetoric, which are used in determining the sense of the
‘“‘ Tliad,”’ ‘* Paradise Lost,’’ and works of human composition. Weare to ac-
cept of a strictly literal rendering, unless we have the distinctive marks of
figures of speech, when the tropical sense is also received, without after-
ward, in addition, engrafting upon it another and separate sense which is
not allowed by the rules of grammar, but which (7.e., last added sense) is
applied by many to the Bible, as if the language of that book was not fairly
circumscribed by, but formed an exception to, the universal laws of
language. This is our position endorsed by the exhortation given to all
to search the Scriptures (Acts 17 : 11, Jno. 5 : 39), by the frequent appeals
made to the fulfilment of prophecy on a literal basis, by the obligations to
know God’s Word founded on the ability (Matt. 24: 15) to comprehend it,
etc. When emploving the word “‘ literal,’’ we are to be comprehended as
also fully acknowledging the figurative sense, the beautiful ornaments of lan-
guage ; we cordially accept all that is natwral to language itself, its naked
strength and its charming adornments, but object to additionally forcing
on it a foreign element, and enclosing it in a garb that hides its just
proportions. When, too, it is said that the Bible is thus to be interpreted
like any other book, governed by the laws which alone can protect us
against a wrong imposition of meaning, reference is solely made to its
grammatical construction, and not, as Liberals and others employ this idea
in behalf of unbelief, that it is merely a human production. With the
human element there is also a Divine ; grammatically, to accord with our
infirmity, it is constructed like any other book, but under, in and through
this are truths far beyond human conception and production.’

1 Neander (Ch. Hist. vol. 1, p. 388) says that Irenzeus, Tertullian, Clement, etc., in op-
posing Gnosticism, directed attention to “ a sober, grammatical method of interpretation,
and leading them to establish the first hermeneutical canons,” etc. The student will
observe that, while advocating the early reception of the grammatical interpretation, yet
even, as Mosheim, Neander, and others have noticed, then some of its advocates as weli
as others more or less imbibed the Rabbinical Jewish custom of obscuring the plain lan-
guage of Scripture by forced allegories and a recondite sense. The Jews, as is well
known, while to a large degree holding to a literal interpretation (as e.g. in reference to
a literal coming and kingdom of the Messiah, etc.), at the time of the First Advent had
fallen more and more into a figurative and allegorizing interpretation, which culminated
in the speculative Cabala. Milman (Hist. Jews, vol. 3, p. 443) remarks of the Cabala :
‘* Not only was the Bible one vast allegory, in which the literal sense was scornfully cast
aside, and a wild and arbitrary one attached to every history and every doctrine, but at
the same time there was a superstitious reverence for the letter ; the numbers of the let-
ters, 10, 7, 12, 32, every single letter, the collocation of every letter, the transposition,
the substitution, had a special, even a supernatural power.” Fairbairn (Zypoloyy, vol.
1, p. 326) refers to Hisenmenger (Entwectes Judenthum), and remarks that “some
Rabbinical authorities contend for forty-nine, and others for as many as seventy mean-
ings to each verse.”
? Bloomfield (Pref. p. 15, Gr. Test.) quotes Luther, Melanchthon, Scaliger, and Bishop
Middleton as favoring the grammatical and literal sense. Luther (On Deut., quoted
Seiss’s Last Times, p. 253) pointedly says: “I here once more repeat, what I have so.
often insisted on, that the Christian should direct his efforts toward understanding the
so-called literal sense of Scripture, which alone is the substance of faith and of Christian the-
ology, which alone will sustain him in the hour of trouble and temptation, and which
will triumph over sin, death, and the gates of hell, to the praise and glory of God. The
allegorical sense is usually uncertain, and by no means safe to build our faith upon ; for it
depends for the most part on human opinion only, on which if a man lean he will
find it no better than the Egyptian reed. Therefore Origen, Jerome, and similar
Prop. 4.] THE TIIEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 49

of the Fathers are to be avoided, with the whole of that Alexandrian school which
abounds in this species of interpretation.”’ The Eneyclop. Reliy. Knouwl., Art. ‘‘ Sense
of Scripture,” affirms that the Reformers, over against the Romish fourfold sense,
adopted the grammatical, and that Luther declared it to be ‘‘the only sense that it will
doto die by.” Mosheim (Kecl. Iist., vol. 3, p. 187), over against “ the uncertain and falla-
cious method of the ancients, who neglected the literal sense, and labored to extort from
the holy oracles by the aid of the fancy a kind of recondite meaning, or in other words
to divert them without reason, to foreign applications,’’ eulogizes “ that golden rule of
all sound interpretation which Luther first introduced, namely, that all the sacred books
contain but one single meaning,” and commends Melanchthon because “‘ rarely departing
from the literal meaning.” AJl the Reformers, without exception, expressed simular
views ; and however much they may have, on the one hand, injured the principle by a
too rigid literalism in some instances, or, on the other, by a violation of it, yet every one
holds it up as a principle to be followed asa guide. Every student of the Reformation
must have noticed that one of the okjections urged against the Reformers was their too
strict adherence to the letter, as e.g. Carlstadt’s issuing violent tracts against Luther's
“stupid and shallow literal theology.” Ellicott (Aids to Fuith, Essay 9, Scrip. and Inter.),
after tracing the interpretation of the Church, says: “there has been from the very
earliest times, not only in theory but in practice, a plain, literal, and historical mode of
interpreting Scripture,” and this he finds exemplified even in many who often, for the
sake of the preciousness of the literal, overlooked their theory of differing senses.
8 The extreme of Parker (Dis. of Religion, p. 242) is one-sided—viz., ‘‘ the conclusion
is forced upon us that the Bible is a human work, as much as the Principia of Newton or
Descartes.” Unbelievers and semi-believers generally advocate that the construction of
the Bible is like that of other books, but refuse (Bauer, etc.) to credit the fact that it is
diverse from all other books in the authority and truths that it contains. Our entire
argument following shows that we hold it to be above and beyond all other books in the
unity of supernatural and Divine things embraced. Briefly: when the dyer and weaver
color and weave the woollen fabric of artistic design, we do not discard the wool, or dye,
or machinery —common to the production of all woollen fabrics—which have aided in
producing it, when we also regard the design, the figures and their connection, and ad-
mire the taste and skill of the designer. Thus applied to the Word, admitting the in-
strumentalities employed —even the most humble—it would be folly to confine ourselves
to these, and not contemplate the unity of design, etc. evidenced. Again, the very fact
that the Bible is received as a revelation, has influenced many, who are largely addicted
to spiritualizing, to tell us, as eg. Professor Bush (Pref. to Mill.) : ‘it cannot be
doubted that the sacred volume was given to man in order to be understood.” If so,
how is it possible to discard the grammatical interpretation for another depending
solely upon man’s inferences or fancies? Again, this position does not conflict with a
twofold fulfilment of prophecy, if some choose to adopt it in several cases (Comp.
Brooke's El. of Proph. Interp., p. 86, etc.), seeing that both fulfilments are based on the
same literal sense. Again, the grammatical interpretation combined with the historical
does not forbid, owing to the variety of subjects, the greatness of them, the deep mean-
ings often presented, the connection that one portion has to another, the difference of
style, the signification of words, etc., a diversity of opinion on various passages.

Obs. 2. The only true standard of interpretation is the grammatical

(aided by the historical), and this opposes: 1. That spiritual or mystical
one which looks for an internal revelation either in or under the letter ; 2.
The rationalistic notion that such an interpretation must be attached to the
letter as will best accommodate itself to reason ; 3. The Romish idea that
such an interpretation of the letter can only be accepted as is in unison
with the authoritative utterance of the Church ; 4. And the High Church
notion, that only such a meaning as is consistent with symbolical repre-
sentations can be received. The adoption of any one of these four opin-
ions immediately causes a prejudicing of the Word, and thus wnqualifies the
person from becoming an unbiased interpreter. Let the reader consider
that the grammatical interpretation was for ages the only one used ; and
can a reason be given why it should suddenly be abandoned for another?
Much of Scripture was presented long before Christ, and the portion thus
50 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 4.

written was literally comprehended by the Jews, not only without rebuke
from, but with the decided approbation of, the Almighty. God appeals to
the literalness of His Word, as affording proof that each part shall find in
due time its mate. His veracity and power are staked on a literal fulfil-
ment. Now if the Word was not thus to be understood ; if a hidden and
recondite sense lay beneath it waiting for Origen, Swedenborg, etc., to
reveal it, how could the Jews be censured for misapprehending the Script-
ures; how could they derive comfort and edification from them ; and
how could they possibly have entertained an enlightened faith and hope?
To suppose this is equivalent to saying, that for many centuries the Jews
held to an erroneous sense —to the ‘‘ husk,’’ as Neander and others phrase
it—and that they were guided into, and confirmed in, such a belief by the
express words of God Himself. If we reject the literal and substitute
another mode of interpretation, there is no deliverance from this dilemma,
however much men may attempt to gloss it over by “‘ progression,”’
**development,’’ etc. Admitting that revelation was gradual, that truth
and additional light were introduced by degrees, all this has nothing what-
ever to do with the mode of interpretation, seeing, as we shall abundantly
show hereafter, that a consistent unity can only be preserved by a contin-
uous application of the same method of interpretation to the respective
additions given. It is the most reasonable to anticipate, that a principle
of interpretation once universally held and for ages applied, would not
undergo a reversal without a plain direction from God authorizing it to be
made.’
1 We do not overlook (Obs. 1, note 1) that before the Advent of Jesus the Jews had
already, to some extent, departed from this literal interpretation, having adopted an
allegorical, mystical system, which was in favor with the Rabbinical portion. This,
however, does not vitiate our argument, which urges the period preceding this introduc-
tion, and accepts of the fact that, e.g., in reference to the doctrine of the kingdom, there
was no departure from the literal interpretation even among the Rabbinical party. The
mystical departure, too, was confined to but a few, comparatively, of the learned, and
had but little influence upon the body of the nation. This is seen, 1. By the united
expectation of a literal kingdom, as admitted by all writers ; 2. By the preaching of
John the Baptist, the disciples, and Jesus ; 3. By the rejection of Jesus on the ground
that a literal kingdom was not established, etc. KEyen Shedd (Hist. Ch. Doc.) acknowl-
edges that “ one of the principal grounds of their (Jews) rejection of Christ was the fact
that He represented the Messiah’s rule as a spiritual one in the hearts of men, and gave no
countenance to their literal and materializing interpretation of the Messianic prophecies.”
(Shedd’s misapprehension of Christ’s teaching will be noticed hereafter, but he is correct
in his statement that the Jews understood the Messianic prophecies in their grammatical
sense.) Dr. Knapp (Ch. Theol., p. 326) affirms: ‘‘ The allegorical interpretation of the
Sacred Scriptures cannot be historically proved to have prevailed among the Jews from
the time of the exile, or to have been common with the Jews of Palestine at the time of
Christ and His apostles. Although the Sanhedrim and the hearers of Jesus often
appealed to the Old Testament, according to the testimony of the New Testament writers,
they give no indication of the allegorical interpretation. Even Josephus has nothing of
it, The Platonic Jews of Egypt began, in the first century, in imitation of the heathen
Greeks, to interpret the Old Testament allegorically. Philo was distinguished among
those in that place who practised this method and he defends it as something new and
before unheard of, and for that reason opposed by the other Jews ; De Confus. Lingu.
page 347 seg. Jesus was not, therefore, in a situation where he was compelled to com-
ply with a prevailing custom of allegorical interpretation ; for this method did not prevail
at that time among the Jews, certainly not in Palestine, where Jesus taught.” (He de-
clares : “The writers of the New Testament themselves make a clear distinction be-
tween the allegorical and literal interpretation of the Old Testament. When they use
the allegorical method, they either say expressly, here is allegory, Gal. 4 : 24, or they show
it by the context, or by prefixing some particle of comparison, ¢.g., dorep xa0dc, Heb. 7,
Prop. 4.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 51.
John ies 14, Matt. 12 : 40.” He concludes, therefore, that we must receive literal predic-
tions, promises, etc., unless otherwise indicated, which rule he repeatedly violates in his
own work.) Dr. Knapp’s position is abundantly confirmed by Neander, Mosheim,
Kurtz, and other historians, by articles in Cyclopedias on Philo, interpretation, etc.
Pressense (The Early Years of Christianity, p. 99) says : “While an ingenious and learned
school formed at Alexandria had contrived by a system of allegorical interpretation to
infuse Platonism into the Old Testament, the school at Jerusalem had been growing in-
creasingly rigid, and interdicted any such daring exegesis. It clung with fanatic attach-
ment to the letter of the Scriptures, but, failing to comprehend the spirit, it sunk into
all the puerilities of a narrow literalism. Its interpretations lacked both breadth and
depth ; it surrendered itself to the subtilities of purely verbal dialectics.’’ So also Pres-
sense (p. 325) remarks of the heresies of the first century : “ These heretics then fol-
lowed the example of Simon Magus, in turning the Scriptures to their own purposes,
and wresting them into the confirmation of their peculiar tenets. They gave an allegor-
ical interpretation to the historical portion of the Old Testament, and thus cast a sacred
veil over their monstrous errors.’’ Heresy is no friend to the plain grammatical sense
of the Word. The history of interpretation is briefly told. The first, and Jewish,
method was to abide by the grammatical sense (still retained to some extent by the
Orthodox—over against the Reformed or Rationalist—Jews, and especially by “ the Kar-
aites” or ‘‘Scripturists”’), but as the Jews came in contact with Greek and Oriental
philosophy (in Egypt, Greece, etc.), the effort to conciliate the Hebrew Scriptures with
such a philosophy led to a second mode by which the obvious sense is made figurative
in order to convey another sense—the latter being regarded asthe higher. This brought
forth three distinctive types of interpretation : the grammatical, the ideal, and these
two, more or less, combined. The Jewish method—evidenced by its exclusiveness and
Messianic hopes—was adopted by the primitive Church, as witnessed e.g. by its appli-
cation of prophecy, its Pre-millenarian views, etc. The ideal, presented in the system
of Philo, was inaugurated into the Christian Church by the Alexandrian fathers, and
speedily gained a wide-spread reputation, being followed by numerous writers. A com-
bination of the grammatical and ideal found a host of followers down to the Reforma-
tion. Tradition, metaphysical speculations, some favorite form of philosophy, were in-
corporated. At the Reformation there was a return to the Jewish method, and while the
ideal and mystical has been largely adopted, yet the extremes—excepting in a few
cases—once so prevailing are now avoided. As to Philo’s system, afterward adopted by
Christian fathers (Origen, etc.), we only quote, as illustrative, from an Article entitled
“Alexandrian Christianity” (The North Brit. Review, August, 1855): “According to
him (Philo), nearly the whole of Scripture, not only its parables, its symbolical cere-
monies, its obscure prophecies, but even the simplest language in which it relates the
most ordinary transaction, every name and every number that it contains, possesses not
only a plain but also a hidden meaning, the former of which is to the latter as the body
to the soul.” After stating that Aristobulus and other Jews, Oriental and Alexandrian,
and even Greeks (in application to their poets) had employed this method, the writer
adds : ‘‘ We should say that the adoption of this principle of interpretation by Philo
and his Christian disciples was the greatest obstacle to their discovering the true mean-
ing of the Bible, and is the cause of their being almost useless as expositors. They
themselves compared the literal interpretation to the flowers and fruits that grow upon
the surface of the ground, and the allegorical one to a jewel hid beneath the soil ; and
we may well say that, while boring and groping after this jewel supposed to be con-
cealed, turning every stone and sifting every grain of sand, they often missed or de-
stroyed the wholesome fruit and beautiful flower that grew before their eyes and be-
neath their feet.” So that Ueberweg (Hist. Philosophy, vol. 1, p. 229) remarks : “ Philo
criticises the attitude of those who merely hold fast to the literal sense of Scripture as
low, unworthy, and superstitious.” . :
2 It is a sad fact that multitudes declare the plain grammatical sense in numerous pas-
sages, if received, to be a corruption of the truth. God is thus virtually charged not
merely with surrounding “‘ the kernel” (truth) with ‘‘ a husk ”(error), but (to carry out
the figure) with a poisonous one! But even men who constantly violate the gram-
matical sense by the engrafting of a higher and spiritual sense, at times confess the
superiority of the former. Thus, to illustrate (quoted in McClintock and Strong’s
Cyclop., Art. “Interp.’’) :“Jerome (Com. in Mal. 1: 16), about A. D. 400, could say,
‘The rule of Scripture is, where there is a manifest prediction of future events, not to
enfeeble that which is written by the uncertainty of allegory.’” “Even Hilary in his
book ‘De Trinitate,’ 1, properly asserts, ‘He is the best reader who rather expects to
obtain sense from the words than imposes it upon them, and who carrie€ more away
52 THE TITEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [Prop. 4. .

than he has brought, nor forces that upon the words which he had resolved to under-
stand before he began to read.’’’ The student will not fail to observe that Protestant
Confessions of Faith insist upon this grammatical sense when e.g. speaking (Art. XX.
Anglican Church) of “ God’s Word written,” or (Art. 18, Scotch Conf.) of “‘ the plain text
of Scripture.” Indeed, all contessions are based upon it, and assume the sense accepted
as the one commending itself to all by the common rules of language. Many, like
Porphyry (in his third Book ; see Art. on, McClintock and Strong’s Cyclop.), object to
the allegorical and mystical interpretation introduced into the Church by the Alexan-
drian fathers, as e.g. illustrated in “ The Apology,” (vol. 1, p. 11 of The Literalist), and
in Luther's principle of interpretation (vol. 3, p. 127). Some Millenarian writers (as Dr.
Craven in Lange’s Com. Rev., p. 98) prefer ‘‘ normal’’ to the word ‘‘ literal,” as more
expressive of our views of interpretation, not discarding the figurative.

Obs. 3. Such a reversal or change is, unfortunately, inferred from several

passages of Scripture, and professing to be controlled in this matter by the
Word, it becomes requisite to examine the legitimacy of the inference. 1
Cor. 2 : 14 is advanced as in conflict with our proposition and as fully
endorsing its opposite, viz: ‘‘ The natural man receiveth not the things
of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him ; neither can he know
them, because they are spiritually discerned.’’? 'This passage pushed to an
extreme, forms the key-note of the mystical, spiritualizing, Origenistic
system of interpretation ; the foundation of countless vagaries. Let us
test it, eg., by the facts connected with the incarnation and death of
Jesus ; these were revealed by the Spirit and realized in such a manner
that they are to be understood literally (as commands, duties, etc.), but to
one class they are foolishness, and they do not know them, in the sense of
appreciating their value, or importance, or relation to God and man (for
knowing is used, as any concordance will show, as an equivalent for appre-
ciation, experience, etc.); while to another class they are known by
‘* spiritual discernment.’’? What does this latter expression denote?
That we are to attach to the incarnation and death a spiritual meaning
and discard the literal? No! ‘spiritually discerned ”’ is discerning ‘‘ the
things of the Spirit,’’ t.e., things given by the Spirit ; noting how the Spirit
reveals and records them in the Scriptures, submitting ourselves to the
guidance and enlightening influence of the Spirit ¢hrowgh the written
Word, until by His teaching and Divine aid we learn to appreciate and to
appropriate the truths revealed to ourselves ; and not to reject a literal
rendering, and fasten, under the assumption of special superadded enlight-
enment, another sense upon the Scriptures. ‘‘ The things of the Spirit’’
are amatter of record, and not left to the fancies or heated imaginations
of every man who professes to be remarkably guided and influenced by the
Spirit. Therefore, to properly discern what are the teachings of the Spirit,
the record itself must be received in the sense prescribed by the usage of
language. Even if the passage be regarded as teaching that the soul,
mind, or Spirit discerns the truth, this does not invalidate the literalness
of the recorded things of the Spirit, as already evidenced by the example
presented. For in the context it is distinctly stated that God reveals His
truth through the Spirit, and that such a revelation is contained ‘‘ not in
the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but ’’ (in the words) ‘‘ which the
Tfoly Ghost teacheth ; comparing spiritual things ”’ (7.e. the things taught
by the Spirit)“*with spiritual things ”’ (i.e. with other things also received
from the Spirit). This brings us back to the question already answered,
How are the words themselves to be apprehended—as teaching what they
grammatically contain, or as including some other meaning?
Prop. 47] THE TITEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 53
Another passage often paraded as against us is found in 2 Cor. 3:6:
** Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Testament ; no/ of the
letter, but of the Spirit: for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth View
While it is impossible to preserve the force and true apprehension of this
Scripture without understanding what is meant by the New ‘Testament or
covenant (which will be examined Prop. 50, in connection with the Abra-
hamic covenant), yet, aside from this, sufficient reason can be advanced to
rebut its reference to a literal, or any other system of interpretation.
Asking what is meant by “‘ the Spirit,’’ the answer comes in the very same
chapter ‘‘ Now the Lord is that Spirit’? (v.17, comp. Barnes’ admissions,
etc.), and (in y. 18, according to Barnes, Beza, Wolf, Locke, Rosenmiiller,
Doddridge, etc., the Greek is) ‘‘ from the Lord the Spirit.’ If Christ be
the Spirit here denoted, how can it refer to interpretation? Or, if the
testimony of the apostle, that by the Spirit Christ is meant, is set aside, we
ask then, low comes it, according to the statement of Neander and a host
of writers, that the apostles could not rid themselves of the ‘‘ materialistic
husk ’’ of a literal interpretation of the Word? If the “literal ’’ applica-
tion *‘ killeth’’ as some* declare, how does it come then that God gives His
word in sucha form? Is it reasonable or credible that He, who is justly
lauded for benevolence, mercy, and grace, would give truth surrounded by
a deadly covering—truth too indispensable to secure the happiness and
peace of man? Is it not the rule of the Divine procedure (uttered by
Jesus, Matt. 7:5, 9, 10, etc.) that even man will not give to an asking
son a stone for bread or a serpent for a fish, much less God? Such are a
few of the questions that immediately suggest themsclves, when making
the passage advocate a proceeding that would be inconsistent in man.
The simple, unpretending meaning of the verse is this: that the Word
of God in its letter (7.e. in its plain, unambiguous written form) cannot give
life ;that possessing the letter alone would inevitably lead to death, for
having only the letter the covenant promises could mot be realized, but
that having the Spirit, even Christ, the assurance js given that the letter
itself—death without Christ or the Spirit—or the promises of God
contained in the letter, shall be duly verified and accomplished. Two
passages throw light on this verse ;the one where even the letter of the
Gospel, the preaching of the apostles, may prove to be a “savor of death
unto death’? (2 Cor. 2 : 16) without Christ ; and the other (John 6 : 63),
when Jesus, to indicate the future resurrection and possession of eternal
life, says: ‘‘It is the Spirit that quickeneth”’ (comp.2 Cor. 4:14;
John 5:21; Rom. 8: 11; Gal. 4:17; Phil. 3:21), keeping in view that this
quickening is applied to Christ in 1 Pet., 3: 18, “‘ being put to death in
the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.’’ Hence the literal aspect of the
truth is far from being condemned or set aside ; if 80, it would sweep away
the most precious promises that the Bible contains. It is then to be
received, but in connection with it, that also which alone gives it efficacy
and power in this world, and in that which is to come.” ‘The idea, there-
fore, of the apostle is, that without the related work and power of Jesus,
as the Christ, and His Spirit exerted in our behalf, the mere reception of the
truth in its material form will, instead of delivering from, only conduct to
death. There is nothing in the scope of the passage to indicate any such
reference as many attach to it, so condemnatory to the Bible and the prac-
tice of the apostles.*
54 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 4.

1 Cornelius Agrippa (On the Vanitie of Sciences, ch. 97) speaks of the Scholastics and
their performances, and adds (what is applicable to-day) : ‘‘ against which if any will resist
with the authoritee of the holy Scriptures, fourthwith he shall saie : the letter killeth, it is
deadly, it is unprofitable ;but they saye that we ought to search out that: which lieth
hidden in the letter afterwarde they having recourse to interpreting, to expoundinge, to
glossinge, and to sillogisinge, do rather give it some other sense, than the proper mean-
inge of the letter ; if thou instantly require an answere and be earnest upon them, they
will give evil language and call thee Asse, as one which understandeth not that which is
hidden in the letter, but as a serpente feedest on the earthe alone,” etc. A recent illus-
tration of a ruinous interpretation of this passage in 2 Cor. 3:6 may be in place. The
eloquent H. W. Beecher preached from this text, as reported e.g. N. Y. Sun, May
19th, 1873, and the sermon exhibits the painful conclusion that in his efforts to glorify
“‘ the Spirit’’ he utterly degrades “ the letter.” Misapprehending the meaning of his
text, he presses it in his service to undervalue—as infidels do—the written record ; com-
paring the latter in its imperfections to the dead bark, moss, worms, and insects scraped
(by assailants, unbelievers) from the trees of an orchard, adding: ‘‘ and the more they
raked the better he would like it,’’ etc. The tendency of such declarations are danger-
ous and most derogatory to the Word. Then, again, it is amazing to witness the self-
contradiction of writers. Take e.g. Calvin (who in many places favors a literal inter-
pretation Inst. ch. 10 B. 2, S. 8,) speaking of the letter, says: ‘‘ The Old Testament is
literal, because it was promulgated without the efficacy of the Spirit,” etc., and yet in the
same section he admits that under this ‘‘ literal’’ dispensation men were converted, that
the work of the Spirit was experienced, that men were moved and spake by Him! He
endeavors to palliate his expression by adding that this ‘‘ is used by way of comparison.”
But this does not remove the difficulty, and it does not inform us how the Old Testament,
once literal, now becomes “‘ spiritual.”” And when Calvin was attacked (D’ Aubigné’s Ref-
ormation, vol. 3, p. 81) by Quinten “‘ the spiritual,”’ the latter sought refuge in the fol-
lowing : “‘ We are not subject to the letter which killeth, but to the Spirit which giveth
life. . . . The Bible contains allegories, myths which the Holy Spirit explains to
us.’’ Calvin replied : “ You make your Scriptures a nose of wax, and play with it, as if
it were a ball.”
2 The critical reader will observe that our argument has only reference to the doctrinal
interpretation, and not to the practical influence that doctrine or truth should have on
the life. There may be a clear apprehension of doctrine, and yet it may (as, alas, multi-
tude of instances testify) be inconducive to piety, etc., but this practical neglect does
not affect the interpretation. Spener (Hagenbach, Hist. Doc., vol. 2, p. 246) took the right
position when opposing the mere reception of the letter without an additional self-
appropriation of the truth expressed in it. And in opposing the Quakers he justly
observes, on the other side : “‘ Our feelings are not the norm of truth, but Divine truth is
the norm of our feelings. This rule of truth exists in the Divine Word apart from our-
selves.”
3 The misinterpretation of this and the previous passage has opened a wide door to
innumerable vagaries and assumptions of higher spiritual excellence. Thus, to illus-
trate: it led Schwenkfeld (Kurtz, Uh. Hist., vol. 2, p. 155), to call Luther’s insisting upon
the unconditional authority of the Word of God “a bondage to the letter,’’ and caused
him to exalt a professed “inner word of the Spirit above the written Word of the Script-
ures.” The names of Antoinette Bourignan, Seb. Frank, Thamer, Servetus, Labadie,
““The Angelic Brethren,’’ Jumpers or Barkers, Shakers, Duchoborzins (a Russian sect,
see Kurtz, Ch. Hist., vol. 2, p. 239), Zoharites, Mugeletonians, Petro-Joannites, and
others, are suggestive of the same. This theory of interpretation run to excess may be
found in Woolston’s book (London, 1722), ‘‘ A Free Gift to the Clergy,’’ in which ‘‘ the
hireling priests of what denomination soever” ‘‘are all ministers of the letter.” The
titles of various works are amply sufficient, such as e.g. How’s “Sufficiency of the Spirit’s
Teaching without Human Learning ; or a Treatise Tending to Prove Human Learning to
be no Help to the Spiritual Understanding of the Word of God ;” or the ‘‘ Allegorical
Explanations of both Testaments ;’ or the ‘‘ Mystical Ark,” etc. So Hutchinson based
his system on a fanciful etymology of Hebrew words, from which spiritual significations
were drawn, so that history was turned into prophecy, and the plain grammatical sense
was set aside. Such extravagances still exist, and a thousand illustrations might be drawn
from recent writers, reviving in a measure the idea advocated even by Lardner, Steven-
son, Pearce, Sherlock, etc. (who follow Woolston’s and Thomas’ views) that the Gospel
history itself is to be understood in a mystical or parabolic sense. Mysticism, more or
less developed, is found in many authors of the present day, although they refuse the ex-
Prop. 4.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 55
treme of the “‘ Abecedarians,’’ who (Appletons’ Cyclop.) ‘ held that without the aid of
study the Holy Spirit would convey directly to the understanding a knowledge of the
Scriptures, and that, therefore, it was better not to know how to read.”’ It is also a sad
commentary on human weakness that tracts and books, containing doctrinal statements,
interpretations of prophecy, etc., claim that their interpretations were given by special
Divine inspiration or enlightenment through the Spirit. Without questioning the sin-
cerity of these persons (for men are easily led to such a belief, if they assume themselves
to be the special favorites of the Spirit in the reception of gifts), it is sufficient to say
that every such a plea vitiates the value of their teaching, and imposes alone upon the
weak, ignorant, or unreflecting, who are unable to test their utterances by the general anal-
ogy of the Word. Luther, on John 14 : 25-28, gives an infallible rule for trying the pro-
fessed (by men) utterances of the Holy Spirit, thus : ‘‘ If one come, therefore, and pre-
sent anything to me as taught or revealed by the Holy Spirit, [keep to the Word and hold
this doctrine up to it, as to the true touchstone. If now I see that it agrees with that
which Christ says, I receive it as right and good. But if it be a departure from it, or
would produce something different from it, then I say, Thou art not the Holy Ghost, but
the detestable devil. For the true Spirit comes in no other name than in the name of
Christ, and teaches nothing other than what the Lord Christ has said.” A writer in
the North Brit. Review (May 1849) objects to Morell (‘‘ Philosophy of Religion’’), not
allowing the letter of the Scriptures its true position and weight as the testimony of God,
but makes the only ground of certitude to exist in the subjective mind of the inquirer—in
intuitional consciousness. The fact is that, to induce the highest certitude, we must
receive the authoritative letter as containing the truth, give it its logical force (through
reason), and allow its intuitive influence (through a responding moral nature), dependant
upon the Spirit that gave the truth, and upon our adaptability for its reception. God’s
Word is true, whether men receive or reject it.

Obs. 4. Briefly, then, we are forced by a regard for consistency to

endorse the proposition for the following reasons: 1. God communicates
with us through language, and He follows, in order that we may under-
stand, the usages of language. 2. The literal interpretation was the
ancient mode employed down to the time of Christ. 3. It was the early
Christian Church method, and continued thus until subverted by the
Alexandrian and monkish one. (Comp. e.g. in reference to interpretation
of Scriptures relating to kingdom, Props. 70-78). 4. It is the one to
which God alone appeals in behalf of the veracity, etc., of His word.
5. It is the only one that can give us the certainty that it is not the work
of man. 6. The fundamental truths of Christianity, the covenants, the
person, incarnation, life, and death of Jesus, the promises, the fulfilment
of prophecy, etc., are based upon it. 7% It is the one that maintains its
reasonableness and accordance with the laws of language, and can thus be
tested and proven. 8. It presents a simplicity which binds together the
Old and New Testaments in unity of language and of design that no other
system bestows. 9. It brings forth most prominently the analogy of
Scripture and of faith. 10. It not only preserves the promises of God
intact, but fully shows how and when they are fulfilled. 11. Itconduces to
bring out most distinctively a perfect Redeemer and acompleted redemption.
12. It prevents a host of contradictory meanings applied to the kingdom,
clearly tracing and presenting it as the covenants and promises demand.
13. It effectually closes the door to a flood of wild and antagonistic inter-
pretations fastened on the Word under the claim of superior spiritual
enlightenment, discernment, and sanctity. 14. It aids us fairly to meet,
without lowering and degrading the Word by abject concessions and the
accommodation theory, the assaults of unbelievers. ‘The bearing of all
this will be evidenced as we pass over the leading doctrine of the Bible ; and
the result of our labors, the fruit of adherence to grammatical interpreta-
tion, will indicate the solidity of the ground occupied.
56 THE THEOOCRATIO KINGDOM. [Prop. 4.

Dr. Sprecher in his Groundwork of Theol., p. 1, ch. 5, on ‘‘ The Right of Private

Judgment and the Sufficiency, Intelligibility, and Efficacy of the Sacred Scriptures,’’ fully
and ably sustains our position. After insisting upon the intelligibility of the Scriptures,
because ‘‘ a revelation unintelligible is no revelation at all,” etc., he (p. 109) remarks :
** As the revelation is made in oral communications and in written words, in articulate
speech and intelligible language—language intelligible to its first hearers and readers—it
follows that the words in this revelation must have been used according to the rules of
language then prevalent, the usus loguendi of that day, according to the meaning or sense
of the words to those to whom the language was vernacular. Otherwise the communica-
tion could not have been understood by them. It is evident, therefore, that the Bible
must be explained in the same way, and interpreted by the same rules which apply to
any other books written in the same language. This was the view of Luther, and he
called it the sensum literalem.” Brookes (Maranatha,p. 38) justly observes, in behalf of
the grammatical sense, that if the Word is at the mercy of the interpreter, then the Bible
*‘is no longer a revelation, but a concealment of God’s will.” Professor Riddle (Hints
on Bible Interpretation) forcibly observes that ‘‘ the right of private interpretation”
“assumes that the Bible is a human (in its language) book ; that however its human
authors were inspired, they wrote or spoke so as to be understood, using words, whether
literally or figuratively, in the sense in which general usage employs them. For if this
principle of interpretation were not correct, there could be no duty of private interpre-
tation.’’ ‘‘ Indeed, any other position makes the Bible a dishonest book.’’ Chilling-
worth (Works, vol. 1, p. 231) affirms our view, because God designed His Word not sim-
ply “‘for the learned, but for all men,” which design is only met by the grammatical
sense.

Obs. 5. Our position is endorsed, at least in theory if not always in prac-

tice, by the ablest writers. Our introductions and aids to the study of the
Bible (as eg. Horne’s, vol. 1, p. 322, etc. Comp, Alford’s How to Study
New Test., Dunn’s Study of the Bible; Smith’s Dic. of the Bible ; Her-
z0g’s Hneyc., The Bible and its Study, etc.), regard it as fundamental to a
correct understanding of the Word. ‘Theologians and authors in every
statement of doctrine or argument, lay stress on it as the strongest possible
proof to be adduced in favor of what the Scriptures actually do teach.
This, e.g. is evidenced on almost every page of such works as Kitto’s Cyclo-
pedia, Fairbairn’s Bib. Dictionary, Kurtz’s Sac. History, etc., and in all
our leading commentaries, in Sys. Divinity, ete. Indeed, the plain gram-
matico-rhetorical sense is to multitudes the end of controversy. The
reformers, as stated (comp. Mosheim’s Ch. Hist., Cent. 16, 8.3; Eichhorn’s
Gech. der Cultur, p. 1, and 175; Hallam’s Introd. Lit. of Europe, vol. 2,
p. 287 etc.) confined themselves, more or less, to the literal interpretation.
Even some eminent Roman Catholic divines (comp. Calmet’s Dic.) have
admitted the literal sense, as e.g. John Charlier De Gerson, Chancellor of
the University of Paris, of whom Neander (Hist. Dogmas, vol. 2, p. 607)
says: ‘Gerson first of all asserted as a fundamental maxim that the
literal sense of the Bible was the only true one; that all things necessary
to salvation were plainly contained in the Bible, and that no true doctrine
could be at variance with the Bible.’? He, however, neutralized this by
also declaring that this literal sense must be explained by the interpreta-
tion of the Church, given to it through General Councils. The most
pompous array of testimonials might be presented in favor of the interpre-
tation advocated by us—even from men who are largely addicted to spirit-
ualizing—but the illustrations appended will suffice. It is self-evident
that, in the perusal of the writings of others, we feel, explain it as we ma
that in the interpretation of Scripture they are correct and truthful jn
proportion as the literal sense or the natural figurative one sustains them.
Barnes (Com. Gal. 4 : 24) expresses our view : ‘‘ the great truth has gone
Prop. 4.]} THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 57

forth, never more to be recalled, that the Bible is to be interpreted on the

same principle as all other books; that its language is to be investigated
by the same laws as language in all other books ; and that no more liberty
is to be taken in allegorizing the Scriptures than may be taken with
Herodotus or Livy.”
Rev. Dr. Sprecher, my honored instructor in theology, in a letter addressed to me
dated January 16th, 1856, after referring to his extensive reading on the subject and the
reflection of years, says: ‘‘ Their (i.e., Millenarians) principles of interpretation are cor-
rect,” however he may differ on some details of exegesis. Rev. Robert Hall, in his
Review of Gregory's Letters, utters the following: ‘‘ Let the fair grammatical import
of Scripture language be investigated ;and whatever propositions are, by an easy and
natural interpretation, deducible from thence, let them be received as the dictates of
infinite wisdom, whatever aspect they bear, or whatever difficulties they present. Re-
pugnant to reason they never can be, because they spring from the author of it; but
superior to reason, whose limits they will infinitely surpass, we must expect to find
them, since they are a communication of such matters of fact respecting the spiritual
and eternal world as need not to have been communicated, if the knowledge of them
could have been acquired from any other quarter.’’ Ernesti only expresses the views
of many when he tells us: ‘‘ Theologians are right when they affirm the literal
sense to be the only true one.” In the Inst. Interp. of the New Testament, he lays
it down as a fundamental law of exegesis that the interpretation of Scripture is to be
conducted by the same rules applicable to the interpretation of a classical or profane
author. (This has not been wholly eliminated in Professor Stuart’s translation). The
only caution requisite is, that no exegesis is to be considered isolated from other Script-
ure, but must be regarded in its connection with the general analogy, spirit, or design
of the writers. The painful fact is, that, however correct in principle, Ernesti, Mi-
chelis, and others too much overlooked the internal and Divine unity exhibited by a
gramimatico-historical interpretation—i.e. its union and correspondence with a continu-
ous Divine plan. They failed to combine what even exegesis presented. Every reader
of course knows that without the lteral interpretation, works on the fulfilment of
prophecy cannot be effective as seen in writings of Sherlock, Newton, Kett, Faber, Keith,
Hurd,ete. Greswell (Parables, vol. 3, p. 173) denounces the dangerous practice of mak-
ing varied senses, as ‘‘ substituting an indefinite and capricious standard of interpreta-
tion,” and then forcibly adds: ‘‘ If there is any one principle of interpretation which
from the nature of the case is not liable to vary ; which is founded in the reason of
things, and cannot accommodate itself to the peculiar tastes or prejudices of individuals,
in the use and admission of which persons of every persuasion might be capable of con-
curring, and which would lead all, if they applied it rightly, to similar conclusions;
which is consequently the least likely to fail of the desired effect, and therefore we
may presume was of all others intended to be our guide and director in arriving at the
knowledge both of what we are required to believe, and of what we are bound to prac-
tice ; it appears to me to be this, that we take the words of Scripture as we find them ;
that we endeavor to ascertain their true, grammatical sense, whether in the Old or the
New Testament, in the first instance, and then receive the truths which are thereby con-
veyed, whether articles of faith or rules of practice, according to the plain and simple
and obvious meaning of the language itself.” Graff, in his Lay Sermons, No. 1, ob-
serves that ‘‘ the language is human,’’ and adds: “‘ It is this human phase of the Script-
ures which brings them within our reach, even as it is the human nature of the Divine
Person, of whom they treat, that renders Him capable of being our Saviour, Representa-
tive, and Friend. As in the perusal of other books, so in reading the Bible, there is no
better general rule than that the obvious meaning is the true.”” A sensible art. on Biblical
Interpretation may be found in the North Brit. Review, Aug., 1858. We only add
this : if the idea contained in the grammatical sense is not the one inspired, then the
inspiration of the views presented is largely left to the option of the interpreter.

Obs. 6. This proposition is of the utmost importance, seeing that, as all

frankly acknowledge, our doctrinal basis and subsequent superstructure
depend upon its adoption. The early Christians in their simplicity and
faith occupied our posture,’ and therefore held a doctrine concerning the
kingdom, which, by a change to another attitude, is now regarded by the
58 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 4.

masses as erroneous. We are mainly indebted to Origen for this transfor-

mation, he giving the leverage through which it was accomplished.
Luther and others may give their estimate of his performance.’ It is suffi-
cient to say that he laid down the principle ‘‘ that the Scriptures are of
little use to those who understand them as they are written,’’ etc.
(Porter’s Lec. Hom., p. 51). He advocates (De. Princ. B. 4 C. 1) the
threefold interpretation ; the obvious sense he likens to ‘‘the flesh; a
higher sense is equivalent to ‘‘ the soul,’’ and a still higher is represented
by ‘‘ the Spirit ;’’ ‘‘ for as man consists of body, soul, and spirit, so in the
same way does Scripture.’? How this system spread is briefly stated by
Mosheim (Zecl. Hist., Cen. 3, p. 2,8. 6): “A prodigious number of inter-
preters, both in this and succeeding ages, followed the method of Origen,
though with some variations ; nor could the few, who explained the sacred
writings with judgment and a true spirit of criticism, oppose with any
success the torrent of allegory that was overflowing the Church.’’* Augus-
tine (City of God, B. 17,8. 3) gives a threefold meaning to the prophecies,
one referring to the earthly, another to the heavenly Jerusalem, and a
third to both of these. The moral sense advocated by Kant (Horne’s
Introd., vol. 1, p. 3823), which, setting aside the grammatical, imposes a
moral meaning, whether the passage can naturally bear it or not, is an
offshoot of such a system. So also the theory of accommodation ‘to the
opinions and prejudices of the Jews as advanced by Semler and developed
by his followers (Horne’s Jntrod., vol. 2, p. 324), is the natural offspring
of such bold handling of the Word. In addition: the extravagant claims
of Swedenborg that he was set up as the true interpreter of the Word, is
exclusively based on the notion that to him was, for the first time, given
the secret key by the Creator himself, to unlock the Bible and portray its
meaning ; and this key, on examination, turns, only ina more scientific
way, the old bolts in Origen’s lock, now enlarged and reburnished. It
resolves itself in as wide a removal as possible from the literal, and finds
morality and religion in the plainest historical statements and facts ; in
short, wherever a mystical ingenuity could engraft them.* Without ques-
tioning the sincerity, intended honesty, and piety of such men, justice to
ourselves, and a desire to vindicate the truth, demands an exposure of their
inconsistency and dangerous tendency. Many, indeed, reject the vagaries
of Origen, the absurdities of Augustine, the folly of Kant and Semler, the
visions of Swedenborg, and would regard it as uncomplimentary to be
classed as interpreters with one or the other of them, who, notwithstand-
ing, are precisely in the same category. For with all these, they also for-
sake the literal sense, or, if the passage contains it, the figurative sense,
and add as the true sense another, viz., a spiritual or mystical. It is
singular, too, that many writers, unable to discriminate between figurative
language and ‘their own superadded spiritualizing, confound the two,
although greatly differing, as one. Waldegrave, Fairbairn, and others
employ the term “‘ figurative’’ as if it were equivalent to spiritual, over-
looking the fact that all figurative language falls under the grammatical
construction of speech and is very different from the additional meaning |
fastened upon the obtained figurative sense. Let us again say: all parties
admit—however some may afterward discard it—the literal sense ; they all
accept of the figurative meaning ascertained by the rules of grammar and
rhetoric ; these are freely admitted as contained in the words or sentences,
and thus far all are agreed, but here the points of agreement cease, and
Prop. 4.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 59

the paths become diverging. We are satisfied with the sense thus
obtained, seeking no other foreign to all languages, and which no one
dreams to apply to any book except to the Bible. They, on the other
hand, are not contented with such a sense—frequently finding it contra-
dictory to their preconceived theory—but gravely tell us that this gram-
matical sense is a purely representative sense of another and differing one,
which last they fail, either through design or discrimination, to distinguish
from the literal.° This peculiar mode of interpretation, traceable to
the old Origenistic method, makes it easy to fasten almost any meaning to
“‘the kingdom of heaven.’’ To its looseness are we indebted for the
varied interpretations concerning it.®
1 Professor Shedd (List. of Ch. Doc., B. 6, ch. 1) endeavors to make the impression
that the later system of interpretation (i.e., Alexandrian) was ‘‘ the most authoritative
one.’ Rev. Shimeall, in his Reply, conclusively shows that it only became such,
over against the literal, by a wide and disastrous departure from the once prevailing in-
terpretation. Ellicott (Aids to Faith, Essay 9, ‘“‘ Scripture and its Interpretation”’) cor-
rectly shows that the only really valuable and authoritative interpretation of the Church,
including even the available portion of Origen’s, etc., is that based on a grammatical
and historical one. The reader will be gratified with his Essay.
2 For Luther's view, see note to Obs. 1. Also Michelet’s Life of Luther, p. 273 and
Ap. p. 419. Comp. estimate of Mosheim, Neander, Milner, and Kurtz in Ch. His-
tories, Killen in The Old Cath. Church, Porter's Homuiletics, etc., and it will be found
that Pressense (Karly Yeurs of Chris., vol. 2, p. 328) is correct when he says that Origen’s
mode of interpretation ‘‘reads a Bible of his own invention, a human book within
the Book of God.”
3 Compare Hagenbach’s Tiist. of Doc., sec. 162, vol. 1, Davison’s Sac. Herm., p.
163-192, etc., and it will be found that Origen’s threefold sense and Augustine’s three
and fourfold sense gave place even to Angelom’s sevenfold and eightfold sense, and
ultimately to as many as could he derived. John Scotus Erigena taught an infinite
sense, and Cocceius declared, ‘‘that the words of Scripture must everywhere be sup-
posed to signify just as much as they may signify,’’ i.e., as much as fancy could torture
out of them, Milner justly describes (Hecl. Hist., vol. 1, p. 469) a long period thus:
‘* A thick mist for ages pervaded the Christian world, supported and strengthened by
his (Origen’s) allegorical manner of interpretation. The learned alone were considered
for ages implicitly to be followed ; and the vulgar, when the literal was hissed off the
stage, had nothing to do but to follow their authority wherever it led them.’’ This
“mist” is far from being dispelled, and the work performed under its cover is still
largely retained.
4 Swedenborg (The Apoc. Revealed, vol. 2, p. 959) advocates three senses, viz., ‘‘ the
celestial, the spiritual, and the natural ;” the last being of little account. Under the
pious garb of visions, etc., he conveniently gets rid of the grammatical sense, and, with
it, of covenant and prediction according to their plain meaning. This Swedenborgian
key reveals, ¢.g., that (Div. Prov. No. 326) ‘‘ cows” signify ‘‘ good natural affections ;”’
that (True Ch. Relig. Nos. 113, 277) a horse denotes ‘‘ the understanding of the Word of
God ;”’ that (Arc. Coles. No. 2089) Ishmael begetting twelve princes means ‘‘ the primary
precepts which are of charity ;’ that (Arc. Coelest. No. 4790) Joseph sold to Potiphar
signifies ‘‘ the alienation of Divine truths by scientifics.’’ A large number of such
engrafted meanings are scattered all through his writings, and remind us strongly of
Origen’s flights in the same direction. Thus e.g. the latter makes the seven women tak-
ing hold of one man, mentioned by Isaiah, to denote the ‘‘ seven operations of the
Divine Spirit,” viz., ‘‘ the spirit of wisdom, of intelligence, of council, of virtue, of
knowledge, of piety, and the fear of the Lord’’ (Porter’s Lec. Hom., p. 51). Multitudes
followed and endorsed such interpretation. Gregory the Great in his exposition of Job
fancies that ‘‘ Job’s friends denote the heretics, his seven sons the twelve apostles, his
three daughters the laity adhering to the Trinity, his seven thousand sheep the same
faithful people, and his three thousand humpbacked camels the depraved Gentiles.”’
Eckhart (art., Mystics of Fourteenth Century, Littell’s Living Age, vol. 123, p. 457)
informs us that ‘‘ the shell is to be broken, the husk to be torn off and flung away ere
the spiritual kernel could be reached.’’ How he reaches this “‘ spiritual kernel” is
illustrated in his sermon on the restoration to life of the widow’s son, thus : he makes
60 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 4.

‘the city of Nain to be the soul of man, the disciples the rays of light entering into the
soul, and the widow’s son the human will,’’ etc. Nicholas of Basle, with thousands of
others, in a professed spirit of self-renunciation, but which really exalted self in that it
possessed a private inspiration, sought out the hidden meaning of Scripture. Under
the plea of supernatural illumination, ancients and moderns discard the authority of the
letter-- some are extremists, others more moderate.
5 Thus e.g., take the promises relating to the re-establishment of the throne and kingdom
of David, and to the blessings to be enjoyed by the same Jewish nation which realized the
fulfilled threatenings, and after the grammatical sense, both strictly literal and figura-
tive, is obtained, then these are converted into something else. Thus David’s throne is
the Father’s throne in heaven, the blessings specifically announced to the Jews are
spiritualized as something now to be experienced and appropriated by the Gentiles, etc.
Those who are desirous to see how far men can go in spiritualizing are referred to the
writings of T. R. Gates and others. This additional sense, too, is often one of the
most far-fetched inferential, reminding one of the Rabbinical principle, thus (Hopkins’
Puritans, vol. 1, p. 533) illustrated : ‘‘ Hunting on the Sabbath day is a sin,’’ says the
Jewish Talmud, and “ therefore catching a flea on that day is sin, because it is a kind
of hunting.’’ This is no caricature ; for recently in the Christian Pulpit appeared
an article by an evidently sincere writer (whose name, out of respect, is repressed) on
the ‘‘ Parable of the Leaven,” in which the author asserts that the first measure of meal
was the Jews, the second measure George Washington and his compeers, and the third
a chosen body now raised up in a certain sect of which the writer is amember! Alas for
the Word, when thus mutilated. One of the latest exhibitions in this direction is found
in Milton Woolley’s Science of the Bible, which interprets all by supposed astronomical
relations. Even plain history symbolizes natural phenomena, either terrestrial or celes-
tial. We give a brief specimen of application : ‘‘ Now when Moses was grown (i.e., when
Aquarius rises heliacally as before the sun), he spied an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew
(i. e., winter smiting summer), and he looked this way and that way, and perceiving
himself unseen (i.e., the sun’s rays hid him), he slew the Egyptian (i.e., winter was
followed by summer). But when he went out the second day (i.e., after he passed the
summer solstice), he saw two Hebrews (i.e., the two halves of summer) striving to-
gether,’ etc. Ridiculous as this may appear, it is not near as dangerous as many other
interpretations already mentioned.
6 The reader is reminded that recent writers, as Fairbairn, Brown, etc., make no effort
to give us canons or rules which would guide us in engrafting a spiritual sense upon the
grammatically figurative. The nearest approach is that given by Horne, (Introd. vol. 1,
p. 382, on the ‘‘ Spiritual Interpretation,” sec. 1). This is unsatisfactory because it
mixes type, symbol, figure, etc. In conversation with a talented professor of theology,
allusion was made to Horne’s rules for spiritual interpretation, and although favorable
himself to spiritualizing, he promptly rejected them, and frankly admitted that deter-
minate rules could not be recorded, claiming that there were some things beyond our
power to fully recognize and control by rules. However true the latter may be as to
some scientific or theological truth, it certainly cannot apply to interpretation.

Obs. 7. A departure from the literal sense has not only caused those
immensely varied and antagonistic interpretations of the kingdom, but it
has, in its self-defence, forced able and pious men to a confession which
undermines and destroys the authority of the Bible. Strauss, Bauer, and
others, charge the Bible, including the New Testament, with teaching in a
direct, literal sense a visible, outward kingdom here on earth under the
personal reign of Jesus; in brief, a kingdom in its Jewish form. This
1s frankly admitted by eminent theologians ; indeed, there can be, as we
shall hereafter show, no question about its being a fact. But how do they
get rid of this objection as urged by Renan, Parker, and others? Easily
enough, by turning on to it the light afforded by their additional sense.
We have one of the most scholarly inform us. ‘Thus eg. Neander (Life
of Jesus, p. 250, etc.) concedes that the true idea of the kingdom of God
was contained in a ‘‘ materialistic husk,’’ which (the latter) he designates
a ‘* chimera, which was the rough rind of the sacred bulb ;’”’ and contends
that this ‘‘ husk ’’ was in the second or third century removed, and then
Prop. 4.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. Pac)
*“the real kingdom of God was made clear,’’ and the believers in that
“rough rind’ by the change ‘‘ became heretics.’’ In other words, the
literal sense once held is discarded and another sense, which is pronounced
the true one, is given to the kingdom, and a complete reversal of opinion
follows, so that in the estimation of many the former believers are no
longer to be regarded as in sympathy and belief with the Church. We
earnestly protest against such a procedure, which makes the apostles and
early believers to put their faith in a “ chimera,’’ ‘‘a rough rind,” “a
materialistic husk ;’’ which proclaims with the utmost self-complacency
that ‘in the things of the Spirit,’ in doctrinal truths, we, or the Church,
are far in advance of the apostles; which makes inspired men and
preachers of the kingdom ignorant of the leading doctrine of the Bible,
and one too that they were specially to proclaim. Let this husk be the
grammatical sense—strictly literal and figurative—we are abundantly
satisfied with its consolations, profundity, and sublimity. Its meat is
wholesome and nourishing, imparting strength, and we need no other,
although it is, with high-sounding words, pronounced to be the inner,
sacred germ developed by “‘ the consciousness of the Church,’’ or by the
growth induced by the Spirit. When we see that the reception of this
inner germ produces direct antagonism to one admitted sense of the Word,
hostility to the early faith of the Church, inability to fairly meet the
objections of infidelity, a countless number of mystical additions leading
to the most extravagant revelations, we respectfully, but firmly, decline
the intoxicating potion. This ‘‘ germ system’ virtually makes the
Bible *‘ all things to all men,” in a way that opens wide the door to the
entrance of that mournful, endless procession of diverse, adverse, opposite,
inimical opinions, doctrines, systems, etc., which appear in the history of
hermeneutics, theology, and the Church. Should we not, to say the least,
hesitate before we endorse a method which has been so widespread for
evil, and which, with the best intention, sweeps a net with meshes so
large that it cannot hold in confinement the fishes it encloses ; which is a
power so explosive and dangerous to manage that when handled its effects
cannot be controlled? It leads even such men as Cocceius to exult in the
prolific manner in which reason can become the measurer of Scripture, say-
ing: ‘‘ The Scripture is so rich that an able expositor will bring more than
one sense out of it.’ What kind of riches these are, we need not now
delineate.!
The most dangerous attacks of unbelief against the Bible are based on
a purely grammatical interpretation of it. ‘The result is, that the teaching
of the Scriptures being diverse—as e.g. in reference to the kingdom—from
the spiritual conceptions of the modern Church, both are rejected on the
ground that they are unreliable, for the first given by professed inspired
men is not entertained by the Church, and the second 1s solely the work
of fallible successors. Now the vast mass of the Church, having left the
apostolic interpretation and followed the Alexandrian, monkish, and
popish interpretations, is utterly unable to resist those attacks without
resorting to a double, concealed, inner, or spiritual meaning. Here is the
fatal lack of consistency; for it is virtually admitting that the Word accord-
ing to its letter cannot be defended, thus opening a wide gap for the
enemies of the truth to enter, conceding that one admitted sense possesses
a serious defect. Now, we propose in this work to take the principles of
interpretation correctly adopted by unbelievers, admitted by many ortho-
62 THE TIEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 4.

dox to be sound and reliable, however they may yiolate them, and show,
step by step, presenting Scripture proof as we advance, that they preserve
the integrity of the Word, the inspired teaching of the apostles, and a
marked unity of design in redemptive purposes. While there is a large
class who make their attack against Christianity through the literal inter-
pretation and reject it as untenable, there is another large one who profess
to retain some regard for the Bible, and under this esteem manipulate
the literal sense by engrafting upon it what they designate a higher and
nobler sense. MRationalistic, Naturalistic, and Liberal books, full of Free
Religionist ideas, develop this feature largely. Alas! this destructive
work was taught them by the system of believers, and they plant them-
selves complacently upon the interpreting basis so kindly provided—all
objections being swallowed up in the latitude given by a supposed freedom.
Grammar, rhetoric, and history are violated for the sake of an idea, an
‘‘inner germ,’’ and the most scholarly, learned men are pushing on, exult-
antly, the work.” Prudence dictates a return to the grammatical sense,
which all admit, and a strict adherence to the same. Every one feels that
just in proportion as an important doctrine or truth is founded upon such
a sense, in that proportion is it credible: Even mystics, the greatest
spiritualizers, seek to sustain their views by an appeal to such wherever
available. The leading doctrine of the kingdom cannot prove an excep-
tion to a rule which commends itself to good judgment.

1 History is full of them. Not merely Cocceius (Mosheim Ch. Hist., vol. 3, p. 429), but a
host of others arose in all centuries, who thus perverted the plainest passages, making even
(Horne’s Introd., vol. 1, p. 384, note) the incest of Lot and his daughters a sign of salva-
tion through Jesus Christ, and the phrase ‘‘ Joshua the son of Nun’’ to be the equiva-
lent of ‘‘ Jesus the Son of Man,’’ etc. These are extremes, which happily the good sense
of many of our opponents reject with us, and they are only presented to show what fruits
the system itself, in the hands of some, produces. Multitudes accuse us of folly (1
Cor. 3 : 18) in adhering to the grammatical construction, but they forget two things, 1.
That if the grammatical word contains foolishness, then the Spirit is justly chargeable in its
production ; and 2. That no mistakes of rigid literalism, overlooking figures of speech con-
tained (as alleged e.g. against the Audiani, the followers of Audzus), can be compared
with the more serious and dangerous blunders of spiritual and mystical interpretation.
One of the most sad mistakes, under the impression of ‘‘ spiritual discernment,” is
found in the history of Irving’s life (see p. 445, etc., and App. p. 567, 609, Irving's Life
by Mrs. Oliphant). The student, undoubtedly, has noticed the multitude of interpre-
tations which accommodate Scripture---in the manner of the clergyman who preached
before the Pretender at Perth from Isa. 14 : 1, 2—to present existing circumstances and
conditions, when the context, scope, etc., indicate no such reference. Professor Sherer,
when he repudiates ‘‘ the literal system "’ as ‘‘ the theological baggage,” and makes the
Spirit apart from (not in and by) the Word the bestower of new revelations, new truths,
new doctrines etc., is only reproducing an old departure from the Scripture teaching;
and when Castellio, at Geneva, said, ‘‘ The Spirit will eclipse the light of the Scripture
as the sun eclipses the light of a candle,’ it is only the repetition of an oft-repeated
fanatical prediction. It is the spirit of the Jesuit who made the Pope “‘the greater
light,’’ or of the London preacher who made Pharaoh to mean God the Father, Joseph
the Son of God, and Potiphar’s wife sinful nature (Ency. Bib. Knowl., art. ‘‘ Spirit-
ualize’’),
2 The spiritualistic theory, now so prevalent end heartily endorsed in the Church, is
bearing its deadly fruit in many a work published under infidel and semi-infidel aus- —
pices. ‘hus e.g. A. Coqueral, Jr. (Hurst’s Hist. Raticnal., p. 409) is the mouthpiece of a
vast number when he declares that ‘‘authority does not rest in the letter, or in the
leaves of Scripture. The Divine Spirit acts in the soul freely and independently of the
letter. It is high time that we renounce the puerile, disrespectful, and contradictory
worship of the letter. The letter killeth.” It is not a sufficient reply to say that these
men believe that every man possessing truth is equally inspired with the apostles, and
Prop. 4.] THE THEOCRATIC. KINGDOM. 63
hence do not confine themselves to the spiritual sense of the Word, but embrace their
own individual deductions. For this is precisely what multitudes, professing to be
Christians and not ranked with infidels, are doing, viz., giving an additional sense
to the Word under the claim that ‘‘ the letter killeth,”’ and that the Spirit is specially
given to them, thus manufacturing a Bible of their own out of the Word consistent with
their own conceptions of what truth demands. We can, alas, point to large organized
bodies setting up antagonistic claims in this manner, while all denominations are,
more or less, leavened by its spirit and practice. Admitting the principle to be a cor-
rect one, how can you meet in argument those who claim that they have the Spirit
equally with yourself? You cannot appeal to the letter, for that ‘‘ killeth ;’ you cannot
appeal to the Spirit, for both profess to possess it. In fact, it leaves us no solid crite-
rion by which to judge.

Obs. 8. While urging a literal interpretation, we are, as already

intimated, equally opposed to that ultra-literalism which makes no allow-
ance for the figures of speech incident to all language. Tropical usage is
by no means an evidence of ambiguity or weakness ; it is rather that of
clearness and strength, for according to the decided testimony of rhetori-
cians, its design and province is (Blair’s Rhet., 8. 14) to “illustrate a sub-
ject, or throw light upon it,”’ or (Jamieson’s Fhet., p. 138) “ to give us,
frequently, a much clearer and more striking view,’’ ete. Hence to
reject them is to evince a childish play, such a puerile literalism as was
exemplified in Origen’s unfortunate emasculation (how much had this to
do with the after-development of his threefold sense ?), and even in the
contest between the great reformers Luther and Zwingli on the words
instituting the Supper. This disclaimer is the more necessary, since in
numerous books, reviews, and newspapers, it is alleged that Millenarians
confine themselves to the exclusive, rigid, literal sense, admitting no other,
and denying that of figure. One writer even, Dr. Spring, made the utterly
unwarranted assertion that we “affirm that the prophetic and apoca-
lyptic writings which speak of the Millennium are free from figures,
symbols, and are altogether literal.’’* The simple truth is, that not a
single Millenarian author, from the days of the apostles down, holds to
such an opinion ; all of them, without exception, fully recognize symbols,
types, and figures of speech, notice their peculiarities, and discriminate
them from the strictly literal. It is their plain, wnanimous statement that
language must be interpreted by the laws which produce and regulate it :
if symbolic, it is to be interpreted by the laws governing symbols; if
typical, then by the Jaws underlying types; if figurative, then by the
rules controlling figures ; and if rigidly literal, then by the laws of unfig-
urative speech. Works specially directing attention to these rules are
presented by Millenarian writers, as e.g. Brookes, Bickersteth, Lord,
Winthrop, etc.’
1 The Literary and Theological Journal of D. N. Lord, while published, did good
service in correcting such unjust representations, both in showing their groundlessness
and in advocating the direct converse. To this journal the reader is referred for numer-
ous examples of misrepresentations (like Spring’s, etc.), corrected, for illustrations of the
manner in which passages are explained by us and our opponents, and for the opinions
of Duffield, McNeile, and others on the subject. Bickersteth’s Guide, Brooke’s Hlements
of Prophetic Interpretation, The Prophetic Times, etc., may also be consulted with advantage.
2 It is not necessary to reproduce the rules adopted by us, for these are found in our
grammars and rhetorics, introductions to the-Bible (as Horne 8, etc.), and in the writ-
ings of the class mentioned. Let us add, that the grammatical interpretation of figure,
symbol, type, is not the spiritual interpretation that we condemn; but after the lawful
interpretation of such figure, etc., has been ascertained, to leave this and fasten another
64 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 4.

upon it —this so-called spiritual sense we resist. While the literal may be unlawfully
made figurative, and the figurative by violence be made literal—mistakes to which all
are liable—a legitimate literal and figurative interpretation is not to be set aside for
another and representative sense of something that the words do noi express. It is amus-
ing to notice writers who cannot distinguish between their special superadded spiritual
sense and a figurative one ; and who, blundering, call figure, symbol, and type spiritual
language, or else overlook the fact that as figurative language falls in with the purely
grammatical, they cannot justly charge us with error in making it such, when we hold to
a literal fulfilment of the same after it has been interpreted by the rules of language.
We hold that rigid literal language, symbol, type, and figure in their plain grammatical
interpretation often teach us spiritual facts, etc., but this they do in the plain sense con-
veyed. Even allegory we receive where it is plainly contained in the language ; and in
reference to the expression of Paul (Gal. 4 : 24), this is no criterion to be followed by us,
as is clearly stated by Albert Barnes (Vom. loci.), to, which the reader is referred, coming
as it does from one who favored spiritualizing.

Obs. 9. To prove that our proposition is wrong in limiting the inter-

pretation of the Bible by the laws of language, as universally held, it must
be shown: 1. That the Bible in its usage of language is an exception to
all other books. 2. That the subject-matter, superior to that contained
in other books, is not conveyed to us through the common channel of
language in the ordinary way. 3. That ascnse beyond that given by the
rules of language is a legitimate one, and either, in some manner, drawn
from language itself or found incorporated or announced in the Word.
4. Some rules or directions for ascertaining and applying this additional
sense, so that it may be easily recognized and not arbitrarily used. 5.
Some decided—not inferential—examples of such a sense being determined
and enforced by the Bible, in order to elevate it to a justly recognizable
rank. In this way we may, perhaps, be enabled to appreciate that over-
whelming stream of scholasticism, mysticism, and spiritualism pervading
our theological literature. Men laughingly refer to those enormous
summaries of Divinity concocted in past ages, with their violations of
Scripture language, while they themselves, unconsciously, approvingly
quote and endorse in their formative theology many of the erroneous
interpretations of the Thomists, Scotists, Occamites, etc. Having a
system of interpretation identical in many respects with the scholastics,
etc., it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to rid themselves entirely of their
interpretations.’
Another feature must also be discarded. It has become quite fashion-
able with recent writers, in their efforts to find arguments against us, to
practically lower the prophetical portion of the Word by placing the non-
prophetical of the New Testament in the scale as far superior to the former,
etc. (so eg. Waldegrave, comp. Lord’s Journal, Ap. 1857). Now, when-
ever a system is forced, in self-defence, to thus discriminate between the
Scriptures and portions of them, exalting one part above the other as
more worthy of reception or credence, instead of receiving the whole as
standing upon the same ground of being a revelation of God’s will and
purpose (comp. Prop. 16), it is evidence—decisive—of weakness and.
imperfection. A substantial method does not need such unstable prop-
ping. Notwithstanding its plausible and authoritative air, it becomes, by
its disintegrating qualities, a dangerous instrumentality. It is the weapon
so freely employed by German Rationalists and others to invalidate the
credibility and authority of the prophetic writings, and to graft upon them
any desired meaning. ‘To make one portion of scripture to be the sole
Prop. 4.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 65
and exclusive arbiter and interpreter of the Bible, is subversive of the
light givenin a general analogy and a continuous Divine plan. Sucha
course is like to that of a person who, in a large room containing a
number of windows, contents himself with the light of one when all are
available ; and then, owing to the quantity of light received, distinguishing
things imperfectly, still contends that such is their true and only appear-
ance.*
1 Hence Le Roy Pope (Modern Fancies and Follies, p. 337) takes the position, owing
to the variety of interpretation, that the true meaning of the Bible cannot be obtained
from the language of Scripture, asserting : ‘‘ The only light which can afford us this in-
dispensable aid, and bring the religious world, which has gone so far astray, buck to true
religion, is the light of nature.” But he forgets ; 1. That the variety of interpretation
springs not so much from the grammatical sense as from the system of spiritualizing the
language ; 2. That no other book must call in “‘ the light of nature” in order to have its
true sense presented ; 3. That the advocates of this ‘‘ light of nature’ also bring in an
endless variety of interpretations ; 4. And that he thus makes, allowing the claims of the
Bible, the lesser to be the guide and instructor of the greater.
? Other points worthy of notice might be presented, but we briefly advert to another,
very common, viz., boldly to assert a sweeping accusation without giving any reasons or
facts to sustain it. Thus e.g. Fairbairn (a valuable writer) On Prophecy, Append. G, p.
497, approvingly quotes Hengstenberg, attempting to make the literal interpretation
odious, saying, ‘‘ that its strongest condemnation consists in its being the very method
of interpretation which led to the crucifixion of Christ.’’ If this is its ‘* strongest con-
demnation,” we are abundantly satisfied to retain it. Allusion is evidently had to Jesus
being charged with His being a king, etc., but let the objector bear in mind that Jesus
never denied the charge, but appropriated the factas applicable. This will be developed
under its appropriate head hereafter ; now it may be said, the Jews rejected the literal
fulfilment of prophecy in Christ's forerunner, in Christ’s birth, life, miracles, entry into
Jerusalem, crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. The apostles accuse
them of such conduct, and hence their unbelief is represented as the more inexcusable.
Their hatred toward and their erncifixion of Christ, according to the testimony, was basea
neither on the literal nor the spiritual interpretation of prophecy, but on their unbelief,
hardness of heart, apprehension of the people leaving them for Christ, etc., thus leading
to false and malicious charges. The best possible refutation of Fairbairn is given by
himself, p. 223-226 of the same work, where the literal fulfilment of prophecy is lauded,
and we are told that ‘‘ it is necessary to compare together prophecy and history” to see
the literal authentication.

Obs. 10. In our Introductions to the Bible it is a generally admitted

rinciple that no important doctrine should be solely based on figurative
anguage ; that to give it certainty it ought to be founded on the literal
meaning of the words, This is a necessity, notwithstanding the theoriz-
ing, so much impressed, that in every promulgation of doctrine, men will
instinctively feel that if they can secure the literal sense in their favor, che
strongest possible proof is thus obtained. Why reject this when we come
to the doctrine of the kingdom? Surely, if there is a doctrine in the
Bible that ought to be sustained by ¢he clearest evidence, it is the leading
one of the kingdom. This is abundantly provided, if we will only consider
and receive it. Its simplicity should not deter us; this feature ought
rather to recommend it to our special notice. More than this: if we
reject it we will be held responsible for the same, just as Jesus held the
Jews accountable for the literal understanding of the Scriptures. We
certainly are not amenable to a still ‘‘ higher sense ’’of interpretation,
whose laws are not given; and certainly we are not to be condemned for
rejecting that which is said by men to be concealed, hidden under the
letter, and which it is impossible to perceive in the letter by the rules
66 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 4.

regulating that letter. Thus eg. out of the many meanings engrafted
upon the kingdom by the adoption of a hidden germ, etc., which sense
ought we then to adopt, and what assurance have we that it is, after all,
the eorrect one? No! we are only answerable to God’s demand, how we
have treated the very letter committed to our trust, and this obligation presses
alike upon the learned and unlearned. Our doctrine, firmly adhering to one
system of interpretation, is found equally in both Old and New ‘Testament.
Our opponents tell us that the Jews understood the Old Testament too liter-
ally, and in place of their belief we are informed (Lssays and Reviews, 8.
7, p. 406), that it is necessary for the salvation of the world to introduce
new truths into the Old Testament in place of the old. Others plead
that the primitive Church comprehended the New ‘Testament too literally
(Neander, etc.), but that this was merely a transition stage before ‘* the
husk ’’ was thrown off and the genuine truth revealed. Once for all let us
say, that as reverent believers in the Word, it is impossible to credit such
explanations, condemnatory of God’s Word, justice, and love, and cruelly
unjust to His ancient people, as if they were in faith a deceived people,
and the deception grew out of God’s mode of teaching. Never can we
accept, however sincere its advocates, of such consequential, evil-tending
teaching. We desire not to endorse a system which, in the hands of a
God-fearing man, may result in comparative little injury, but which, in
the grasp of infidelity, becomes a power, widely felt, in subverting all the
distinctive orthodox doctrines, the most cherished hopes of the Church,
and the true idea of the kingdom of God.
The literal interpretation is especially valuable in argument. It gives the only solid
foundation for the expression of opinion ; for a sense that language bears upon its very
surface is undoubtedly the one intended by the author, and however unwilling persons
are to admit it, yet they, notwithstanding, feel its force. Even mystics, etc., in explain-
ing the added spiritual sense, wish us to receive their own explanations in this way. To
resort to added senses, engenders doubt, or impresses the mind that something evasive
exists. Coleridge (Aids to Reflection, p. 82) justly observes that, ‘‘in arguing with in-
fidels, or the weak in faith, it is the part of religious prudence, no less than of religious
morality, to avoid whatever looks like an evasion. ‘To retain the literal sense, whenever
the harmony of Scripture permits, and reason does not forbid, is ever the honester and,
nine times in ten, the more rational and pregnant interpretation. The contrary plan is an
easy and approved way of getting rid of a difficulty ; but, nine times in ten, a bad way of
solving it.’’ Ellicott (Aids to Fuith, Essay 9) well says: ‘‘ The true and honest method
of interpreting the Word of God—the literal, historical, and grammatical—has been recog-
nized in every age, and the results are seen in the agreement of numberless passages of
importance that may be found in expositors of all periods,” and it is this agreement,
thus cemented by a common bond, that adds force in argument.

Obs. 11. All believers ask for the aid of the Spirit in understanding the
Scriptures, but this aid or enlightenment is not outside of the scriptural
truth, but of it. Faith, in its influence upon the heart, qualifies the
believer to appreciate the Word; for its truths can only be properly
estimated by him who practically receives them and experiences their
power iu heart and life. The higher our experience of God’s promises,
the more we are enabled to understand Holy Writ containing them. The
Author of the Scriptures is the Spirit : we honor Him by asking His assist-
ance to comprehend them, and such honor and reliance is only properly
exhibited by a personal study of them. Human helps are valuable, and
the Spirit will certainly (as experience testifies) use them in impressing
the truth, provided the chief reliance is placed on the Scriptures them-
Prop. 4.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 67

selves as given by Him and the moral enlightenment resulting from their
reception. ‘This distinguishes a mere student from a believer, for a man
may be learned and able, and yet utterly fail to receive the truth as
intended (thus failing in his apprehension), while an unlearned believer,
cordially accepting and appropriating personally the Scriptures, experi-
ences their power in his own heart and life. (‘‘If any man will do His
will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God,’’ John 7 : 17);
but doth combined, learning and religious experience, elevates the man to
the highest plane.
Whatever principle of interpretation is adopted, without appropriating practical faith
and the resultant fruits, we cannot get the understanding that God commends. Unless
the Scriptures make us “‘ wise to salvation’ (2 Tim. 2 : 15), all our theoretical knowledge
is vain (e.g. Matt. 7 : 21-23 ; 1 Cor. 13 : 1-3, etc.), and only increases our condemnation
(e.g. John 3:18, 19, and 12: 47, 48, etc.). The grand truths contained in the plain
grammatical sense must—.as God intended—lead to a heart-felt obedience, with a coex-
istent moral, religious, spiritual influence, and then its preciousness will be self-evident.
It is certain that the Christian consciousness possesses the Witness of the Spirit, but
this witness is not given independently of the truth, but always connected therewith, and
hence is evidenced in the ordinary religious experience—not by a direct but indirect, not
by an immediate but mediate testimony—by the work it performs, the fruits it bestows,
the experience it gives, the controlling love that it imparts. Any other view opens—as
history sadly shows—the door to fanaticism and ten thousand visionary interpretations.
Let us remember, that the Witness of the Spirit, the Sealing of the Spirit, the Mind
which was in Christ, are all the same (comp. President Edwards’ On the Affections), and
it materially aids us in estimating the effect that the Scriptures should have upon our-
selves by the Spirit’s help, and in ridding ourselves of that vast body of interpretation
presented to us under the claim of a special, supernatural, inward teaching of the Spirit.
An observance of the rules common to language, practical sense, a due regard to the an-
alogy of Scripture and Faith, an observance of the historical application in reference to
opinions and views held, an unprejudiced mind and a heart willing, irrespective of pre-
conceived ideas, to bring forth the real meaning and intent of the writer—these, in con-
nection with a personal experience of the truth, are requisites to constitute a good in-
terpreter.
68 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 5.

Proposition 5. Zhe doctrine of the kingdom is based on the

inspiration of the Word of God.
The authenticity and credibility of the Scriptures has been ably
defended in special treatises, so that, in order to define our posi-
tion, it is only necessary to give a few observations on the connec-
tion that this kingdom sustains to inspiration. At the conclusion
of this work, the subject will be resumed (e.g. Prop. 182), and, as a
result, the credibility and inspiration of the Scriptures be evi-
denced by the continuous Divine purpose as shown in the king-
dom. ;
Inspiration, while including, is not based on the genuineness and authenticity of the
Bible, as Froude (Short Studies) has noticed ; it is not established even fully by miracle
and prophecy, although essential to the supernatural, for all religions claim these ; but
it is to be found (satisfactory to reason) in a revealed Divine purpose or plan, clearly an-
nounced, carried on for ages in the form and manner previously stated, the same being
recognizable at any period in the existing history of the world, etc. Hence, e.g., Froude
makes little of Colenso’s attack on the Pentateuch and of the replies to him, asserting
that the genuineness and authenticity in ascription of human authorship has no rele-
vancy to the deeper one of inspiration. He takes'the position of a writer ip the West-
minster Review that any proof (as that derived from the discoveries of Rawlinson) of
the truthfulness or knowledge of the Bible record, is no proof of Divine inspiration. It
must be admitted that the orthodox party have sometimes too hastily concluded the in-
spiration of the Word from such isolated cases (seeing that a historical fact announced in
the Bible may also be one in possession of fallible man); but, on the other hand,
Froude and others forget that they themselves would employ historical inaccuracy as
evidence against inspiration. The latter embraces the former. The truth is, that noth-
ing will satisfy a class of critics ; prove the genuineness and authenticity, and the reply
is, that such may be the case, but it still is the sole work of man ; prove the inspiration
from doctrine, unity, design, etc., and the answer is, that the genuineness and authen-
ticity is not yet proven, thus refusing, what they concede to be, the greater to include
the lesser. Ebrard (Gospel Hist., p. 600) aptly says: ‘‘ We are far from denying that
there are men to whom no one could demonstrate the genuineness of the New Testament
writings. He who will not believe in the Risen One will seek with unwearied diligence
for loopholes by which he may escape from the positive proofs of the genuineness of the
Gospel writings and the truth of Gospel history. The Gospel still remains to the Jews
a stumbling-block and to the Greeks foolishness ; and conversion and regeneration still
form the porch of the understanding, even to the literary understanding, of the Script-
ures. The Gospel, as Lange has well said, is so inexorably a critic to everything that
springs from the flesh, that the flesh is stimulated to bring its negative criticism to bear
against the Gospel in return.”

Obs. 1. All that we know of the covenanted kingdom was spoken by

holy men of old as they were professedly moved by the Holy Spirit. The
Bible, which contains the doctrine of the kingdom, asserts this as a fact.
How is this fact to be fully recognized? When the man of science looks
at the long-protracted labors of nature, how, in periods far distant, in
countries far apart, in century after century, she has been uniform in her
work, indicating continued unity of design and purpose amid the exist-
Prop: 5.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 69
ing diversity, he reasonably concludes that the unseen but felt (in results)
laws, by which she operates and controls all things, truly exist. The
invisibility of them forms no objection to believing in them, because their
effects are visible and commend themselves to him as satisfactory and
conclusive evidence. The uniformity of their operation, especially, forces
upon him the irresistible conviction of their reality. The Bible claims the
same treatment. It is the product of what we call < inspiration ;”’ and it
asserts that the same invisible force or power that produced this “ inspira-
tion’’ is constantly exerted in its verification. Now, if we test this
Biblical claim as we do the invisible laws of nature, it will also be found
to possess a majestic reality. But how is this test to be applied? Surely
not to the invisible law itself, for that cannot be handled, but to the
effects that it produces, or to the results which it accomplishes. This can
be done in two ways: either to have the effects or results personally
appropriated, as in nature to see, touch, taste, and feel the same, and in
religion to experience its force and power by reception of the truth; or
else to imitate the man of science as above indicated. Taking the latter
mode : as the scientist looks at nature, so let him survey the Word, and
see how men, separated by ages, countries, languages, customs, habits,
education, intelligence, position and rank, have continuously unfolded a
redemptive plan; how they have stated and predicted the same things
with a remarkable unity amid a diversity of style, language, etc.; how,
when comparison is instituted, and the additions of one are attached to the
other, a unity of Divine purpose is exhibited; how this unity was
preserved in the events that occurred, in the religion that was established,
in the Christianity that was founded, in the personal experience of
believers, in the hostility of the enemies of the truth, in the progress of
the Gospel, in the internal and external aspect of the Word itself: and
then let him give an adequate cause for all these results. It has become
prevalent in some quarters to leave the prophetical portion of the Word
out of the question, on the ground that it would be difficult to show,
either that the events were not antecedent to prediction, or that man had
not shaped their course influenced by previous prophecy. Without yield-
ing the solid and unanswerable arguments based on the past fulfilment of
prophecy (to which God appeals), uttered as it was hundreds of years
previously and fulfilled in persons and nations unconscious of their anterior
defined destiny, we ask the reader to consider the present results of
professedly inspired prophecy. Does not prophecy find its mate to-day?
Look at prophecy what 1t foretells, and is it not verified in the continued
present removal of the Jews from their land, in their scattering among
the nations, in the existing times of the Gentiles, in Jerusalem and Pales-
and sadly cursed, in
tine remaining under Gentile control, down-trodden
the Arabs continuing in their semi-civilized condition, in the existing
Turkish rule,in the divided state and headless condition of the Roman
Empire, in the Church with its institutions and ordinances, the gathering
of an elect, the Antichrists or characters and powers portrayed in their
antagonism. Compare these and similar fulfilments with the Record, and are
they not described as things that shall occur ; delineated too by writers,
some of whom lived thousands of years and others at least eighteen
hundred years ago ; and realized in persons and nations who either know
nothing of the predictions, or care nothing about them, or deny their
credibility. If these things exist, and stand thus related to the Word, is
70 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 5.
it unreasonable to admit the claim of that Word—viz., that they were fore-
told by God through men who were inspired by God, and thus enabled to
give them through the medium of language. Man himself has no power
to foresee the distant future ; God alone possesses it, and in aiding man
respecting the unknown, He gives play to what is called ‘‘ inspiration’’—
which is, an employing of powers and language, already existing, in stat-
ing Divine things, or things known only toGod. Such a line of argument,
briefly indicated, alone convinces us that the Bible is an inspired book,
confirmed, as it is, by its reasonableness, necessity, historical and moral
unity, worthiness of the Divine character, tendency and perfection.
These are given in Horne’s Introduction, Birk’s Bible and Modern Thought, Stowe’s
Books of the Bible, Christlieb’s Modern Doubt, Elliott’s Treatise, Alexander’s Ev-
idences, Spring’s bible Not of Man, Butler’s Analogy, etc. We are old-fashioned
enough to believe, with the primitive Church and a long line of revered names, that
inspiration was confined to a few chosen individuals (2 Tim. 3:16; Acts 1:16 ;2 : 30;
Heb. 3:7;9:8; 10:15; 1 Pet. 1:11; 2 Pet.1:21, etc.), that instead of. being gen-
eral it was exceptional, confined to a limited number. And, moreover, so wedded
are we to ‘‘ the old ways,’’ that we believe that the highest possible proof of inspira-
tion is that found in a personal appropriation of the truth, so that self-consciousness
impressed by happy experience testifies in its favor. And in addition, we believe,
on the one hand, that if the heart is indisposed to obedience all the reasoning in the
world cannot change it to receive the Word as inspired ; and, on the other, that a heart
can be unaffected even when reason accepts of the Word as given by God. In reference
to the latter unhappy class, it may be well said, in the expressive language of Bernard
(Bampton Lec., The Progress of Doctrine, closing of Lec. 3d): ‘‘ Does it wound our
hearts to see this wondrous record misapprehended, its unity denied, its glory dark-
ened? Perhaps it is a sadder sight in the eye of Heaven, when its inspiration is vindi-
cated, its perfection appreciated, its majesty asserted by one who at the same time neg-
lects the great salvation. Such a case is not impossible, perhaps is not uncommon.
The day will declare it. At least, let it be remembered, that the study of the testimony
is one thing, and the enjoyment of the salvation is another, and that the record of the
things which Jesus did and said has attained 1ts end with those only who believing have
life through His name.”’

Obs. 2. The doctrine of the kingdom is based on inspiration, because it

is a doctrine which, as delineated, we ourselves, unaided, could never have
produced and developed. It embraces (Prop. 2.) a Divine purpose or
plan, extending from creation into the eternal ages. ‘The things per-
taining to the kingdom contain facts, preparatory stages, historical
connections, relations to the future, ideas above human capacity, that
could not possibly have been known if God had not revealed them.
The kingdom is simply that which the Almighty designs to have accom-
plished as the grand result of the Divine economy. From the nature of
it, its dependence upon God, its being the work of God and not of man,
its having a theocratic king, we must go to God Himself to learn what it
is, and how wt shall be manifested. Man can only throw light on it as he
gives us the ideas of Him who designed its establishment. The thoughts,
purposes, and works of the Creator are not ours, and can only be known
and appreciated to the extent in which He has deemed it proper to disclose
them. Realizing this, we cannot do otherwise than consider an appeal,
if well grounded, to the Scriptures on the subject, or a statement given by
the Bible respecting the kingdom, as the essential proof required. Our
belief has thus something to rest upon that does not come from fallible
man, but from Him who overrules all things. An authoritative argument
is, therefore, only founded on the express language of Scripture ; and to
Prop. 5.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 71
it, consequently, application will be made, claiming that only im so far as
the words of God are produced in substantiation of our doctrine, is assent
also to be given. The ground of such a position and claim lies in the
fact that ‘‘ the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God”’
(1 Cor. 2:11), and that hence man can only know them as that Spirit has
divulged them. Believing that ‘‘all scripture is given by inspiration of
God” (2 Tim. 3 : 16), that ‘* holy men spake as they were moved by the
Holy Ghost ”’ (2 Pet. 1 : 21), our doctrine is exclusively derived from such
inspired Scriptures. Through our entire argument this will be our
posture, and finally in the concluding propositions, after having passed
over the record, there will be submitted to the reader, as one of the
strongest proofs of inspiration, the harmony and intimate connection
existing in the historical progression relating to, and the doctrinal unity
of, the kingdom.

There is no half-way house on the inspiration of the prophets, the utterances per-
taining to doctrine and the Willof God. It is a dimming of the gold, a mere praising of
the counterfeit, for persons to profess to accept of the utterances of Jesus and the say-
ings of the prophets under the color of a universal human or intellectual inspiration, to
enlogize the same most highly, and yet deny a Divine inspiration. This, too, is done for
purposes that are dishonorable ;, it proving an insidious and expert way to undermine
Christianity. Simple honesty and integrity demand that such utterances and sayings
should be received under the claim assumed of being divinely inspired, or else they
should be rejected with the already declined belief in such inspiration. Alas, many are
critical only to find fault, friendly only to stab more severely, lauding only to lower and
demoralize ; these are prevalent characteristics of the present day. Transformations
into religious forms of thought, but meaning naturalistic things ; professed worship of
the divine but denoting nature ; reverence for law and redemption but referring to the
inexorable, immutable laws of the universe and human progress—these and similar
phases are exhibited in those who magnify inspiration, but mean by it intellectual power
or the force of genius. «A careful perusal of the books of such writers leaves the decided
impression that all such would greatly rejoice in the downfall of Christianity. The
laudation of such authors by the Church is a weakness ; for while disinclined to treat
them with scorn or abuse, yet those who dishonor Christ in this way deserve—however
they may praise Christ as a mighty genius, Reformer, etc.—no eulogy from believers.
If the Scriptures are to be received at all, they must, in consistency, be received as the
Word of God. This, and this reiterated, is their foundation, and it cannot be ignored
or transformed. And this too should not be applied to any other book ; hence those
theories which extend inspiration to eminent men are antagonistic to the truth. Re-
cently, in an edition of Bunyan’s works, we are gravely told : “ Bunyan’s thoughts are
inspiration of God,” an idea which Bunyan would have rejected as abhorrent. The
Christian Union (May 21st, 1877) makes inspiration to be in all things created, and it
“runs through all ages, all climes, all nations.’’ It scouts the idea of inspiration being
exceptional, and says: ‘‘ The Bible is more than a work of genius; it is the work of
God, but of God speaking in the experiences of the devoutest and best instructed
souls ; of a God who is not merely here and there, in special men and places, but is All
in all.’’ This Pio-pantheistic theory is very prevalent. The looseness with which ‘‘ in-
spiration”’ is attributed to all believers—the same in kind, but probably not in degree,
that was given to holy men of old—is well illustrated in Beecher’s sermon (Christian
Union, April 10th, 1878), ‘‘ Inspiration Immanent and Universal.”’ We reproduce but a
sentence : ‘‘So then, when you ask meif the inspiration which men receive from God
nowadays is the same which men received from Him in olden times, I say that it is the
same in kind. If you ask me, whether it is the same in authority, I say yes, so far. ag
their own conduct is concerned,” etc. Compare a criticism of Morell’s Philosophy of
Religion (North Brit. Review, August, 1849), who, while rejecting the extreme of Ger-
hard, Buxtorf, and others (who made even the vowel points inspired), falls into the
opposite one of making inspiration to consist, not in the communication of God’s
will but in reception. What distinction can be drawn between such utterances, and
those of confirmed unbelief, as expressed e.g. in F. W. Newman’s History of the Hebrew
Monarchy, or Greg’s Ureed of Christendom, which make inspiration to be a sort of
42 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 5,

“ divine afflatus ”” peculiar to all men, specially believers and men of genius. Thus Greg
(p. 226 and 235) remarks : ‘‘ When it is His will that mankind should make some great
step forward, should achieve some pregnant discovery, He calls into being some cerebral
organization of more than ordinary magnitude, as that of David, Isaiah, Plato, Shakes-
peare, Bacon, Newton, Luther, Pascal, which gives birth to new ideas and grander con-
ceptions of the truths vital to humanity.’’ ‘‘In a true and simple, but not orthodox
sense, we believe all the pure, wise, and mighty in soul to be inspired, and to be in-
spired for the instruction and elevation of mankind.’’ As illustrated in Greg himself.
This is but a reproduction of Parker, who affirmed: “ It (inspiration) is coextensive
with the faithful use of man’s natural powers. Now this inspiration is limited to no
sect, age, or nation. It is wide as the world, and common as God. It is not given to
a few men in the infancy of the world to monopolize inspiration and bar God out of the
soul,”

Obs. 3. Deny the inspiration of the Word, and then it becomes merely
the word or conjecture of man. The kingdom predicted in its pages may
then fail, because man is liable to mistake. It also will not answer to
save inspiration by the principle of accommodation (Farmer), or by
arbitrary exegesis(Storr), or by moral interpretation (Kant), or by allegori-
cal interpretation (Steir), or by pan-harmonic exposition (German), or by
confining it to essentials (Herder), or by embracing mere belief and eleva-
tion of soul (De Wette), or by making it talent developed by speculation
(Schelling), or by constituting it a rational spirit which receives more and
more its due form in succeeding works (Billroth), or by contending for a
verbal inspiration (Dick), or by restricting it to intuitional truths
(Morell), or by identifying it with genius under the influence of truth
(Parker)—because none of these find a support either in the grammatical
sense, or in the declarations respecting inspiration in the record itself,
or in the contents of the Scripture taken as a whole. Formerly, too,
inspiration was utterly denied and derided by ‘infidels ; at present, under
the assumed leverage of comparative religion, they have shifted their
ground, and in numerous works admit that it is inspired, but with the
same kind of inspiration that accompanies all truth and all human efforts ;
some even adding, that men have existed and now exist who possess this
inspiration to a greater degree than the prophets and apostles. Some,
through a refined pantheistic theorizing, make it to proceed from God and
loudly boast of their God-given, Spirit-derived inspiration. While all
this profession and misuse of old terms cannot affect the intelligent
believer, it is eminently calculated to deceive and mislead the multitude.
What makes the rebutting of such claims the more difficult is the
unfortunate and ill-considered position occupied by otherwise able leaders
of Christianity. On the one hand, the extreme so strenuously con-
tended .for by some, that even the words themselves were inspired,’ is
evidently burdening inspiration with a load that is unnecessary. Indeed,
in the light of the modest introduction of Luke (1 : 1-8), the request of
Paul for his mss. and cloak, the personal references of Paul and John,
the salutations, the special (1 Tim. 5 : 23) recommendation to Timothy,
the unimportant variations in the gospels, the differences in Mss., no two
being exactly alike, the retention of adistinctive personal style, the differ-
ence of relation of the same event—these things, dispassionately considered,
go far to show that we must not necessarily assume that every word or
sentence is inspired. On the other hand, the concessions made by many
intrude doubt and undermine confidence in the credibility and inspiration
of the Old and New Testaments. Some ey. maintain that only a small
 Prop. 5.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 73
portion is directly inspired, the rest being of human origin ; others, that
the record that we now have is given from recollection of a previous
inspired one ; some, that the main truths were given by revelation but are
incorporated with much that is human appended to it, including even
error ; others, that the inspiration only consisted in a restraining influence
from error in general, or a guidance into truth without removing the
possibility of falling into error; some that the moral portion is alone
inspired (which some contend is an inspiration common to all religions);
others, that it only consists in the Divine approval and adoption of writ-
ings composed by men, because of the important truths contained. The
most fanciful conjectures, without proof, are submitted as theories to
satisfy the demands of inspiration.* The only safe conclusion to which a
_ believer in the Word can come, amid the variety of conflicting opinions
and on a subject which certainly has its difficulties, is to adhere to the
utterances of the Word itself concerning it, and to frame a definition
which neither exceeds nor lessens the extent given to it by Scripture.
There is no reason why the definition given (eg. by Horne, vol. 1,
Introd. p. 92) long ago should be discarded—viz., that it is ‘‘ the impart-
ing such a degree of Divine assistance, influence, or guidance, as should
enable the authors of the Scriptures to communicate religious knowledge
to others, without error or mistake, whether the subjects of such com-
munications were things then immediately revealed to those who declared
them, or things with which they were before acquainted.’’ <A definition
which embraces the ideas taught, freedom from error, an essential unity
in teaching, sufficiently covers the ground.* Taking the Scriptures as
they teach, we must, if believers in the same, receive them as given, even
under the peculiar style, learning, disposition, etc., of the writers, through
a Divine guidance and aid, so that they contain revelations imparted,
through human mediums, by the Holy Spirit; and that the ideas or
truths are portrayed in words familiar to the writers, and sufficiently
precise in expression to give a correct meaning to what God intended.
Taking such a view, it is not necessary to insist that every specific word or
phrase or sentence is directly inspired ; that God gave no freedom to the
writer in choice of language, and no latitude in the manner of conveying
ideas. There may even here be an exception. In _
covenants, promises,
distinctive prophecies, etc., asserted to come directly from God in
messages to individuals, we may reasonably affirm, that being of special
importance and significance, and coming thus from God, the ideas them-
selves would be clad in language suggested by the Spirit. The longer a
student compares Scripture with Scripture, the more will he become
impressed that even in the very language of the more important and essen-
tial portions of the Word a peculiar care has been exercised in their
choice, resulting in a harmony that cannot otherwise be explained.*
1Thus e.g. Baylee, Verbal Inspiration, Tregelles in Preface to The Book of Revela-
tion, Gaussen’s Theopneustie, Haldane’s Verbal Inspiration, Lord’s Plenary Inspiration
of the Scriptures, and others. ‘‘The Believer’s Meeting for Bible Study” laid
down (The Truth, vol. 4, No. 10, p. 452) the following as essential : ‘‘ We believe ‘ that
all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,’ by which we understand the whole of
the book called the Bible ;nor do we take the statement in the sense in which it is
sometimes foolishly said that works of human genius are inspired, but in the sense that
the Holy Ghost gave the very words of the sacred writings to holy men of old; and that
His divine inspiration is not in different degrees, but extends equally and fully to all
parts of these writings, historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical, and to the smallest
74 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. (Prop. 5.

word and inflection of a word, provided such word is found in the original manuscripts.
2? Tim, 3>3.16, 17 ; 2 Pet. 1-:21;1 Cor. 2:13 ; Mark 12; 26, 36, and 138 : 11 ; Acts 1: 16,
and 2 :4.’’ These brethren, avoiding one extreme, certainly fall into another by press-
ing the word ‘‘all” (comp. usage in Scripture) to denote ‘* the very words” and ** the
smallest word and inflection of a word,” thus loading the doctrine of inspiration with a
burden that the Word does not impose. The statements in the Obs. already indicate this,
but it may be added, that the repetitions of the same ideas (said to have been delivered at
the same time and place, and stated to have been given “‘ in these words’’), with decided
verbal discrepancies, show that the thought was inspired and some latitude (covering style,
personal peculiarities) was allowed to its expression—the sense is the same, although
differently expressed. Moreover if this verbal theory be correct, then it plunges us ihto
the greatest difficulties to ascertain what is Scripture or inspired. No translations can
be really the Word of God, for the words in which the same was given are replaced by a
substitution. More than this: what original ms. is then authoritative and infallible,
seeing that no two (of the ancient) are alike in their verbal statements. (It seems to
the writer that if the theory were true, then God would have providentially preserved a
sufficient number of mss. to be indicative of the fact.) The reason assigned by Lord,
Carson, and others, in favor of verbal inspiration being founded on the supposition that
thoughts are only conveyed in words, is sufficiently met by various writers, e.g. article on
‘Inspiration ’’in M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia. Rev. Dr. Sprecher (Growwdwork of
Theol., p. 383, ete.) rejects a mere mechanical theory and adopts “‘ the Plenary Inspira-
tion of the Scriptures, as extending to words as well as things,’ but he explains and
modifies as follows: ‘‘ The Bible, with all its ideas and all its words, is God’s book of
revelation ; that is, He so moved, influenced, controlled, and used the faculties, the
mode of thought, and the style of language of the sacred writers, as to make them His
organs through which to give a written revelation of His Word, of the plan of salvation.
They did not speak as they were dictated to, but they did speak as they were moved by, the
Holy Ghost.’”? He thus unites the human and divine elements in a definition, which he
thinks (p. 385 and 389) is consistent with ‘‘ the little discrepancies and inaccuracies
which some think they see in the minor details of historical circumstances, ete.”
Being ‘‘ moved by the Holy Ghost ”’ does not necessarily imply that the Holy Ghost, in
all cases, taught or dictated the identical words used, for it seems that in connection
with inspiration (guarding the truths pertaining to salvation) an inspired man could, as
Paul evidences, introduce matter suggested by his own mind (e.g., in reference to mar-
riage, greetings, remembrances, direction to Timothy respecting his health, requests
concerning personal matters), Our position is fortified by Luke’s introduction to his
Gospel ; by the liberty allowed (preserving the idea) of quoting from the Septuagint when
differing (thus indicating mere human origin unless the translators were also divinely
inspired, which no one affirms) from, the Hebrew ; by the differing phraseology in which
the same language (said to have been uttered at the same time) and the same events are
recorded ; by the compression of detailed matter previously given ; and by the manner in
which some of the writers reter to their own writings, claiming a distinct personality in
their construction.
2 It is asad illustration of human infirmity to notice not only how inspiration has been
interpreted, but even claimed from the earliest period down to the Spiritualists and
Parker school. Between those who claimed (Prop. 4, Obs. 3 and notes) the direct Divine
influences of the Holy Spirit, and Parker (Discourses, p. 160-5), who asserted that God,
more or less, inspires all men, there are indeed great diversities, but they can all be
traced back to a mystical, transcendental, Gnostical element held in common. They
differ only as to the agency employed and the degree experienced. Parker, e.g. would
undoubtedly recoil from the extravagances of the Philadelphian Society established by
Pordage (1651), the mummeries of Antoinette Bourignon, Jane Lead, Poiset, Hoker, “‘ the
navel light’’ or illuminations mentioned by Dr. Young (Stilling), the vagaries of the
French prophets (1708-30), the Irvingites, the Inspiration Congregation of Wetteraw
(Kurtz, Ch. His., vol. 2, p. 277), the Shakers, the Mormons, Swedenborgians, Inspiration-
ists of Iowa (Nordhoft’s Communistic Societies), etc., but they all held to an “ inward
vision’’—a reception of the divine—and this is precisely what Parker and others do,
only in an ordinary manner and not in the extraordinary asserted by these enthusiasts.
The difference is, that the one occupies a lower plane than the other, but they all agree
that outside of the Bible, in their own persons, through a divine bestowal, they also have
inspiration. All that profess themselves to be inspired and not entirely dependent upon
the inspiration of the Word, can be legitimately placed in the same category. The
Renan, Parker idea of inspiration is only a revival of an old opinion. The Spiritualists
claim that through their mediums and writers they obtain ‘‘ Living Gospels from
 Prop. 5. | THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 75
Modern Saints.’’ A specimen can be seen in Davis’ Sacred Gospels of Arabula, form-
ing Inspirations of Original Saints. Owen, the most moderate, still asserts (Deb. Land,
p. 242, ete.), that this continued inspiration may be mixed with error. The Lon-
don Spiritual Magazine has for its motto: ‘It (Spiritualism) recognizes a continuous
divine inspiration in man.’’ A convention of Spiritualists at Rochester, N.Y., Septem-
ber, 1862, in a resolution said : ‘“‘ That no inspired communication in this or any other
age (whatever claims may be or have been set up as to its source) is authoritative any
further than it expresses truth to the individual consciousness—which last is the final
standard to which all inspired or spiritual teaching must be brought for judgment.
That inspiration, or the influx and promptings from the spiritual realm, is not a miracle
of a past age, but a perpetual fact, the ceaseless method of the divine economy for human
elevation.” The Lyceum (Toledo, O., vol. 1, No. 11) says inspiration is a product of
** the immortal souls of mortal men,” and says that instead of ceasing, ‘‘ inspiration has
increased, for man has attained higher spiritual development than he enjoyed in past
ages.” ‘There is a large and growing class of able writers (Dean Stanley, Robertson, Ser-
vice, Jukes, Brown, etc.), who endeavor to soften down and apologize for numerous
statements in the Word, on the ground of making allowance for the age, the traits of
character of the writers, ignorance, ete. To illustrate: Mozley’s Ruling Ideas in Early
Ages, and their Relation to Old Testament Faith, interprets the Old Testament in such
a manner, in accommodation to prevailing beliefs influencing the writers, that we must
often reject the letter, but still can—if we wish to—hold fast to the spirit. This sets
aside all inspiration, excepting that which is common to all books. German destructive
critics, in order to eulogize and magnify Naturalism (which to them is a sufficient divin-
ity), teach a ‘‘ Natural Inspiration,” because it can be made subservient to the removal
of the supernatural and miraculous element. “Broad Church Liberalism” in he
Monthly Religious Magazine, (quoted Princeton Review, January, 1861, p. 84) lauds the
writers of Essays and Reviews, whose pernicious tendencies are so apparent and wide-
spread, and gives the epitome of their teaching : ‘‘ Their doctrine is, that the race isa
collective man, to outgrow, in time, the regulative discipline of childhood, and be
moved by the spirit within, and not subject to authority without ; that the Bible is not
a book of plenary inspiration, or Christianity a universal religion, specially authenticated
in Palestine ; but that God inspires men ever and anywhere ; that there is only one
kind of inspiration, and all good men have it, as well as prophets and apostles ; and that
the doctrines of the Church, such as the Trinity and the fall of man, are to be held in
the light of a ‘ philosophical rendering.’’’ Gail Hamilton (What think ye of Christ?)
affirms an inspiration common to all men, and gives us no infallible, authoritative Word.
Greg (The Creed of Christendom) allows that in religious doctrine the writers may have
been guarded against error, but even vitiates this by allowing human judgment to decide
whatis, or is not, inspired. Thus writers from the earliest period down to Priestley, and
from him to Renan, have either denied inspiravion, or made it universal, or attached to
it such limitations as practically to lessen our confidence in scripture statements. This
work is widening and extending, men and women, talented and learned, unbelievers and
professedly believers, are engaged in it, presenting definitions and distinctions which
are designed to undermine and destroy the teaching of the Word. Heh
3 For alleged error and discrepancies, see works like Horne’s Introd., Birks Bible and
Mod. Thought, etc., specially devoted to their consideration. The argument of this work
is intended to develop from the doctrine of the kingdom alone, a sufficient proof for
inspiration in the remarkable unity of doctrinal teaching, and of the revealed Divine
Purpose. This materially confirms the reasoning of Birks, Horne, ete., and also shows
that the variations of mss. (pointed out by the warmest friends of inspiration, but now
seized by destructive criticism) are only incidental in transmission, and do not affect a
single doctrine. As illustrative of the diversity of views entertained,
the reader's atten-
tion is called to the six articles on the question ‘‘ What is Inspiration ?” in the North
American Review (1879). Rev. Dr. Hedges’ view virtually degrades the Bible, for, making
inspiration to be equivalent to faith and its expression, or the outgrowth of a divine
higher life, he reaches this conclusion : “‘ There are other Bibles than those which con-
tain the records and the types of the Jewish and Christian faiths.’’ This leaves us no
authoritative and infallible rule. Rev. Dr. Washburn denies a verbal inspiration ;
waives the question ‘‘ What is Inspiration ?”’ and simply appeals to Christian experience
as evidencing inspiration. Rev. Giles makes inspiration to consist in the truths revealed
by the Lord to man, and ‘‘ a man is inspired when the Lord takes such possession of his
mind and utterance, that he writes or speaks what the Lord commands him ; and what
he so writes or speaks is divine truth in natural forms.” He does not sufficiently dis.
criminate between inspiration and its resultant, and attaches to his view the Swedenbor-
76 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 5.

gian idea of ‘‘ correspondences.” Rev. Newman affirms inspiration to be ‘‘a divine

revelation” which did not depress or silence the individuality of the sacred writers, and
which led into all truth. Sometimes the thought was divine and the language human ;
again in some instances so direct was the influence of the Spirit that both thought and
language were divinely impressed ; and then again utterances were given without divine
aid, ‘‘as when St. Paul expressed his intention to visit Spain but was providentially
hindered, as when he had forgotten whether he had ‘ baptized any other,’ as when
St. John expressed the uncertainty of hope: ‘I hope to come to you.’” The sacred
writers were aided in ‘ recollection,” in “ suggestion,’ and in ‘‘ revelation,’’ and this
assistance presents us with an infallible record. The article is excellent, and the only
serious objection to be urged against it, is, that he allows a continuation of inspiration
by the same Spirit down to the present day, which (however guarded by the expression,
‘No original truth has been given since John wrote his Apocalypse’’) is too much in
favor of unbelieving, and special Spirit-derived, claims. The fifth article, by the Most
Rev. Gibbons (Archb. of Baltimore) says : ‘‘ To the question ‘ What is Inspiration?’ a
Catholic theologian would answer, that it is a supernatural help whereby God, at various
times, down to the end of the Apostolic age, enlightened the minds of certain men that
they might know the truths which He wished to deliver in writing to His Church, and
moved their wills to write them and nothing else. Thus raised to a supernatural level,
these penmen, through divine assistance, fulfilled with unerring accuracy the counsel
of God, and consequently is He truly said to be the author of these books.” (The criti-
cal student will be interested in noticing that he expressly asserts that no books, saving
those thus given, whatever truth they may contain, can become Scripture and thus infal-
lible authority—and that inspiration is limited ‘‘ to the end of the Apostolic age.” How
this bears upon making tradition authoritative with the Scriptures is easily seen, and
how it opposes the claim of his Church to continued inspiration can readily be appreci-
ated.) The article is excellent in many respects and ably meets some of the erroneous
statements made in the previous ones, but is vitiated by making the Church the infallible
interpreter of the inspired Word. The last article, by John Fiske, is from the unbelieving
stand-point, and makes the Bible the work of fallible men, denying divine inspiration
and refusing to look at the Scriptures as a whole. These and other attempts to de-
fine inspiration remind us that since the Scriptures are silent as to the modus operandi,
any effort to explain must simply remain conjecture. Whatever truth there might per-
tain to degrees in inspiration or to no degrees (simply quantity—so Whately) in the
same, to superintendence, suggestion, direct revelation, invigoration of memory, etc.,
one thing is self-evident that the Scriptures themselves claim—what we must allow—
a Plenary (i.e., full, complete) Inspiration, which being miraculous, is, as to mode, above
our comprehension, but commends itself to us by its results.as evidenced in the book it-
self, in the history of mankind, and in the personal experience of believers. (Comp. the
writings, on inspiration, of Elliott, Candlish, Harris, Eadie, Henderson, Wescott, Dick,
Lord. The North Brit. Review, Nov. 1st, 1852, Browne, Ellicott, Woods, Haldane, etc.)
4 Dean Alford’s (Gr. Test.) view of Inspiration, thus amended, seems to be near the
truth. Such an emendation is required by the greater importance of such portions over
others. Thus e.g. in the Covenant the singular ‘‘ seed’’ is purposely chosen instead of
the plural form, which would the most naturally suggest itself to man. The singular is
remarkably significant, and, as traced, demanded in God’s plan. Prof. Christlieb in his
address, ‘‘ Mod. Infidelity,’’ before the Ch. Alliance, has some good remarks on Inspiration
and also discriminates between portions of the Word. Compare Horne’s Introd. Ap. vol.
1, p. 443, ete., Knapp’s Theol., Birks’ Bible and Mod. Thought, Van Oosterzee’s Ch. Dogmat-
ics, etc. The human element must not be discarded, just as little as the language em-
ployed, but while this presents us peculiar, distinctive traits and characteristics, it at
the same time includes freedom from positive error. Hence Bp. Goodwin’s concession
that inspiration may be consistent with inaccuracy in physics, etc., must be rejected ;
for no inspited book can contain decided error, although, without explaining, it may
employ language and ideas, as currently understood and comprehended, which, from a
purely scientific view, is not scientifically correct. This is done, more or less, by all
writers, and is an accommodation to the human element. Hence Webster’s and Wilken-
son’s (Introd. Gr. Test.) definition is objectionable : ‘‘ It will be understood, that an in-
spiration which may be truly characterized as direct, personal, independent, plenary, is
consistent with the use of an inferior or provincial dialect, with ignorance of scientific
facts and other secular matters, with mistakes in historical allusions or references, and
mistakes in conduct, and with circumstances forming discrepancies between inspired per-
sons in relating discourses, conversations, or events.’’ We fail to see how all this can be
consistent with inspiration. If true, it leaves us no infallible guide. The truth lies ina due
Prop. 5.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 77

medium between those extreme views, recognizing the human element on the one hand,
and on the other the Divine, and the latter as so controlling that nothing is presented to
justify decided error.
Prof. Stowe (The Books of the Bible, p. 19) after stating that the Bible is not a specimen
of God’s skill as a writer, adds : “ It is not the words of the Bible that were inspired ; it
is not the thoughts of the Bible that were inspired ; it is the men who wrote the Bible
that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man’s words, not on the man’s thoughts,
but on the man himself ; so that he, by his own spontaneity, under the impulse of the
Holy Ghost, conceives certain thoughts and gives utterance to them in certain words,
both the words and thoughts receiving the peculiar impress of the mind which conceived
and uttered them, and being in fact just as really his own, as they could have been if
there had been no inspiration at all in the case. The birth and nature of Christ afford
an exact illustration. The holy Infant in the womb of the Virgin, though begotten of
God directly without any human father (as it was said, ‘ The Holy Ghost shall come upon
thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee’)—this Infant lived by his
mother’s life, and grew by the mother’s growth, and partook of the mother’s nature, and
was just as much her child as he could have been if Joseph had been his father, the
human and the divine in most intimate and inseparable conjunction. It is this very
fact of the commingled and inseparable union of the human and divine which consti-
tutes the utility, which makes out the adaptedness to the wants of men, both of the in-
carnation of Christ and of the gift of the Word. Inspiration generally is a purifying and
an elevation and an intensification of the human intellect subjectively rather than an
objective suggestion and communication ; though suggestion and communication are
not excluded.”

Obs. 4. Occupying this position at the outset, we insist uponit that the
apostles were fully and accurately acquainted with the doctrine of the
kingdom, 7.¢., as to its nature, and hence were qualified to teach it.
Aside from their being specially called to preach the kingdom, this in-
spiration influence bestowed upon them (¢.g., Luke 12 : 12, John 16 :13,
14, 15, Luke 24:49, 1 Cor. 2:12, 13, Eph. 3:4, 1 Pet. 1: 12, etc.)
would most certainly preserve them from error on this great, leading sub-
ject of the Bible. This becomes the more _important, seeing that
unbelievers, on all sides, declare that they were mistaken, pointing to the
history of the Church as proof ; and that many of the greatest Christian
Apologists (Neander, etc.) admit that they misconceived the subject, mis-
apprehended the doctrine, and refer us to the same history as evidence,
but endeavor to save the credit of the apostles by a philosophical develop-
ment theory. The express declarations of the apostles themselves that
they were guided by the Spirit, the positive promises given to them to
guide them into the truth, forbid our receiving such estimates of the
apostles’ knowledge. While they undoubtedly could receive additional
revelation from time to time as circumstances demanded, yet this has
The
nothing to do with their knowledge of the nature of the kingdom.death of
gospel of the kingdom was preached by them before and after the
and therefore
Jesus ; it was a familiar subject, leading and fundamental,
sufficiently to describe it without mistake
one that they must have known
error. The object of this work of ours is to show this, by an
or decided guide,
sense as our
appeal to Scripture, receiving the plain grammatical
against the
and thus vindicate the inspired teaching of the apostles both The
concessions of Apologists.
charges of infidels and the unwarranted himself
the entire proof presented, can see for
reader, after passing over
whether this is successfully done or not. It would be premature to decide
the
on the amount of knowledge possessed by the apostles respecting in
without first allowing the testimony contained
nature of the kingdom,
the Bible to be duly considered and weighed.
78 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 5.

There is a large and growing class of works (like e.g. Draper's, Leckey’s, etc.) which
endeavors to break the force of Scriptural inspiration by caricaturing Religion and Chris-
tianity. The latter are made synonymous with bigotry, intolerance, superstition, igno-
rance, and persecution, and this caricature —which is not Christianity—is attacked and
in their own way satisfactorily demolished. The unreflecting—who never consider that
inspiration itself long before foretold these things and warned us against them—are im-
pressed by the illogical reasoning and deductions. It is sufficient to say that all the
painful evidences of human infirmity and passion, so learnedly paraded by these men,
are most pointedly condemned by inspiration. (In view of this, Cook-—Lects. on Biology,
p. 183—ealls Draper's ‘‘ His. of Conflict,’ ete., ‘‘ a most painfully unfair volume.” Fiske
in the Unseen World-—himself an unbeliever—severely criticises Draper's method, saying :
“ the word ‘ religion ’ is to him a symbol which stands for unenlightened bigotry or nar-
row-minded unwillingness to look facts in the face,” adding : ‘‘ it is nevertheless a very
superficial conception, and no book which is vitiated by it can have much philosophical
value.’’) The perversions and misinterpretations of Christianity are not Christianity ;
the tares mixed with the wheat do not change the latter ; religion because abused and
distorted is not the less a reality ; the multitude (Matt. 7 : 22, 23, etc.) who simply pro-
fess to do God’s will and do it not, only stand in contrast (Matt. 7 : 24-27, etc.) with “ the
few’’ (Matt. 7:14; 20: 16, etc.) that are truly obedient and faithful.

Obs. 5. The reader, also, is urged to suspend his judgment until he

comes to the majestic end designed by the kingdom of God, received in
its strict grammatical sense. Unbelief is not willing to wait until the
mystery of God is finished ; it is not desirous of contemplating the grand
end designed; it is afraid to study the Divine plan as unfolded in this
doctrine of the kingdom to its consummation, but (as Strauss, Bauer,
Renan, Froude, etc.) criticises details without noticing their connection
with the end contemplated, and rejects the whole without due examination
because of alleged flaws in the individual parts. The design intended is
kept out of view, and the Divine plan which binds all together is
sedulously ignored. The building which God determines to erect is not
observed, but attention is directed exclusively to the material gathered,
the preparations made, etc., without observing the architectural plan and
the connection that such gathering and preparation sustain to the end.
Is this wise or prudent? Is it doing justice to the Word of God? Per-
fection, completeness, is not found in transmissions, transcriptions, trans-
lations, human language, details, etc., but only when the whole plan,
entire design, is received. It has been justly observed by Martensen (Ch.
Dog., p. %7), that ‘‘the teleological is the fundamental category of
thought in its developed state,’’ and ‘‘ in its deepest significance it is the
category of Christianity itself.’? The deepest thinkers take this ground,
that immediate causes or present agencies must be considered as moved
‘* by the eternal rational ends’’ which God purposed, and that we cannot
even properly appreciate present realities without looking into the future
to see what results are to be gained by them. This gives prophecy—
which points to the end to be attained—and eschatology—which portrays
the end—a deep significance and prominency.
Apologists (e.g. Row, Ch. Hvid., p. 92, etc.) have well stated that Christianity differs
from all other religions in that it 1s based on the personal life of its Founder, and not,
as others, on mere dogmatic teaching. The founders of other religions (over whom
unbelief professes to go into ecstacies, provided they can be employed to disparage the
life of Jesus) may be left out of their respective systems without affecting them, but
Jesus, ‘‘ the Christ,’’ cannot possibly be removed without destroying Christianity. Upon
this fact, valuable proof corroborating Divine inspiration is based. But we assert that
the doctrine of the Theocratic Kingdom, in which Jesus is the central figure, brings forth
equally forcible evidence in behalf of the same, seeing that in this kingdom exists the
PRop.d.| THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 79

realization of that for which He came, labored, died, etc., and for which He shall return
again, The apologetic argument limits itself too much to the past and present, and
overlooks the life of David’s Son in His own inheritance as predicted ;whereas we
extend our view to the future life as portrayed to us in this kingdom, and, from the per-
jected Redemption and the consummated Glory revealed, draw forth additional reasons favor-
ing the special inspiration of God’s Word. We admire the admirable spirit of Ellicott
(Aids to Faith, Ep. 9—Comp. Ep. 8), who makes inspiration to embrace such an influence
ot the Spirit that the will and counsels of God are made a matter of knowledge, so that
through the human media the truth is made recognizable, and that, while the individ-
uality of the writer is conserved, the subject matter is presented in the fittest manner
consistent with its commendation and reception. But to show—as in the doctrine of
the kingdom—the Will and Counsel of God as fitted in all respects to commend itself to
our reception, because most wonderfully adapted to man’s necessities, to society’s need,
to a nation’s want, to the Church’s help and exaltation, to the saint’s happiness, and to
God’s honor and glory—is forcibly extending such a definition in the line indicated by
it. This we propose to perform.
80 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 6.

Propostrion 6. The kingdom of heaven is intimately connected

with the supernatural.
The whole Bible, whose leading theme is the kingdom, is
grounded on the supernatural. Remove this, and you destroy, if
not the book itself, the chief characteristic, the distinguishing ex-
cellency of the Scriptures.
By ‘‘the Supernatural” we include both the existence of God as the great First
Cause of all things, and that He is able to, and does, work above, in and through what
are known as ‘‘ the laws of Nature.’’ It is more than ‘‘ the Superhuman,’’ since the
latter is found in Nature itself (i.e., in exerting powers, introducing forces, and bringing
forth results beyond man’s ability and comprehension), while the former exists inde-
pendent of Nature (i.e., the seen and experienced in Creation) and yet sustains to the
Natural a most intimate relationship as its framer and upholder.

Obs. 1. The Word begins with the supernatural (the presence of God)
and the natural in harmony. It shows how an antagonism was produced,
causing the withdrawal of the supernatural from the sight of man, and yet
how in mercy it at times exhibited itself to man, in and through and for
man, especially in giving revelations of its will. It even condescends,
in order to secure redemption, to veil itself in humanity and manifest the
fact by suitable demonstrations. It indicates its presence by fulfilment of
predictions and promises, by the conversion of men, by the existence of
the Church, by the consciousness of man excited in contact with truth and
providence. It will, in a still more striking and direct way, exhibit itself
in the future, after all the preliminary preparations are made, in order to
fulfil the remainder of Holy Writ. Now the kingdom being designed to
restore and manifest the original concord once existing between the
natural and supernatural, the Bible closes with that kingdom in such
accordance. Without the supernatural the kingdom cannot be produced,
for it requires, as predicted, a supernatural king, who has been provided in
a supernatural manner, and rulers who have experienced a supernatural
transforming power. Even in its conception and the preparatory
measures, aS well as in its final manifestation, is it indissolubly bound
with the Divine. Death, which is to be destroyed in it, tears, which are
to be wiped away in it, nature which is to be fashioned anew in it, these,
as well as a multitude of other promises, can never be realized without the
attending supernatural. The kingdom and the supernatural cannot possi-
bly be dissevered. The inception of it arises from the supernatural, and
under the guidance of the same, consistently with human freedom, not —
only revelations are given, manifestations of its reality are vouchsafed,
exhibitions of its power are foreshown, but that all these are mere shadow-
ings, foretastes of a living, vital relationship, now invisibly maintained,
which shall ultimately de visibly shown in the kingdom itself by affinity
no longer concealed, owing to the mediumship of a glorified humanity,
Prop. 6.] THE ‘THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 81
which serves as the connecting link between the visible and invisible. The
supernatural is held in abeyance as to its outward manifestation until the
time arrives for the restoration of the forfeited blessing, the personal
dwelling of God with man, which will be experienced in this kingdom.
When Jesus, of supernatural origin and glorified by supernatural power,
shall come the second time unto salvation, His supernatural might shall
be exerted in behalf of this kingdom in the most astounding manner.
Holy Writ constantly appeals to ¢his wnion, and no scriptural conception
of it can be obtained without conceding this fact.
When science confines itself to the material universe, making law or force the result
of nature and not of intelligent will; when it rests satisfied with the material and
ignores a higher sphere indicative of conscious relationship to the Infinite—then it can
and must (in logical consistency) deny the Supernatural. (Comp. Dr. Sprecher’s Ground-
work of Theol. Div. 2, ch. 6.) But we are not thus bound, preferring ‘‘ the old paths,”’
which alone impart comfort, hope, strength, and blessing. It is still true, as Theirs
(Pressense’s Relig. and Reign of Terror, p. 326) remarked : ‘It is the privilege of intelli-
gence to recognize marks of intelligence in the Universe ; anda great mind is more capa-
ble than a narrow one of seeing God in His works.’’ The host of intelligent men, who
in the past have substantiated this declaration, are witnesses that such a reverent recog-
nition 1s in accord with the highest mental development. Nature, Religion, Christianity,
man’s moral nature, Personal experience, all unite in calling for a Higher Will, Higher Rea-
son, a God, whom we gratefully acknowledge as our dependence—our Allin All. Prof.
Bowen (Modern Philosophy), reviewing the phases of philosophy from Descartes down to
Hartman, informs us: “ I accept with unhesitating conviction and belief the doctrine of
the being of one personal God, the creator and governor of the world, and of one Lord
Jesus Christ in whom ‘ dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily’; and I have
found nothing whatever in the literature of modern infidelity which, to my mind, casts
even the slightest doubt about that belief.” Just as in Nature, nature herself is sus-
tained and interpenetrated by forces which come from vast distances beyond the earth,
and to which she gives conscious evidence in light, growth, etc., so in moral and spiritual
things influences come from heaven itself which sustain light, life, growth, etc., and to
which man—if receptive-—consciously responds. To this self-consciousness the Bible
confidently appeals (Comp. e.g. Williamson’s Rud. Theol. and Mor. Science, ch. 9), as teach-
ing the Supernatural.

Obs. 2. Men may call this foolishness, incredible, etc., and we admit
that it is a ‘‘ strange work”? (Isa. 28 : 21), ‘‘a marvellous work and a
wonder, for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understand-
ing of their prudent men shall be hid ’’ because “‘ their fear toward me is
taught by the precept of men’’ (Isa. 29:13, 14). Moreover, such a
‘« strange work ”’ as required if the heart-felt longings of suffering human-
ity, and the exceeding precious promises, the only consolation we possess
in the darkest hours of trial, are to be realized. It is admitted, that out-
side of Revelation, we have no decided promises that the groanings of crea-
tion can ever be removed, and that, if this is ever performed (¢.g. death
abolished), it must be done by a higher power than is now manifested in
and through nature. The necessity for such a power is allowed by all;
the desirableness of securing information and knowledge on the subject is
granted by all; why not then tolerate the reasonableness of the Bible on
these points until a clearer, brighter light is found? In looking over the
extended field of controversy between faith and unbelief—while admitting
that faith, in its eagerness to vindicate God’s Word, has sometimes, urged
on by the consciousness of personal experience, employed arguments that
are logically inadmissible, yet we can apologize for the same on the
ground that it evinced ‘ zeal without knowledge ”’ in an ill-directed effort
82 THE TILEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 6.

to sustain truth. On the other hand, unbelief has too often shown a swift-
ness and unnatural avidity to bring discredit upon the same Word ;
resorting to a most unscholarly criticism, employing arguments often
refuted, without the least notice of attempted refutations, ignoring what is
alleged in vindication, etc., for which we can make no apology, seeing
that the effort itself, and the peculiar spirit in which it is made, is indica-
tive of a bitter hostility to the Gospel. We might the more readily excuse
them if, in place of the faith and hope so rudely and remorselessly
destroyed, they could bring us light to dispel the darkness which otherwise
overshadows man’s destiny. But instead of light they only give us
increased darkness.
It has become quite fashionable to designate the old method of proving the existence
of God and of the supernatural by an appeal to design, contrivance, the adaptation of
means to an end, etc., as ‘* the production of a clock-making Divinity.’’ While it is true
that the moral nature of man affords us the most decisive proof of a higher agency and
of the moral nature of the Being who has called us into existence, yet man is not yet so
far adyanced in knowledge that he can do without the argument that God in His wisdom
appeals to, and which has commanded the reason and strengthened the hearts of multi-
tudes. If the argument in proof of the Divine Existence drawn from design in Nature
commends itself even to such men as John Stuart Mill (Cook’s Lect. Hualey and Tyndall
on Evolution, p. 30), then surely the far more comprehensive argument that can be founded
on evidences of design in the Divine Purpose (as e.g. seen in the redemptive arrange-
ments, the Theocratic ordering, etc.) ought specially to be of force. Besides this : when
the much lauded criticism of unbelief plants itself upon the broad platform ‘‘ that the
Great First Cause never breaks through the chain of finite causes by an immediate exer-
tion of power,” it is certainly right to wait for the proof of sucha position. If the
boasted intellectual groundwork of unbelief can produce nothing better than mere
assumption to sustain such a position, men of reflection may well ask, Who informed the
creature that God never interferes, over against the testimony of the past and the gen-
eral conviction, impressed by moral consciousness, that He can do so? Suppose this to
be a fact, and that unbelievers are gifted with superior wisdom, it then follows : (1) that
man is firmly bound in an eternal chain of necessity and fatalism ; (2) that the motives
presented by religion and morality are all vain, being under the power of irreversible
destiny ; (3) that the First Cause elevates His work to an equality with Himself, or, at
least, subordinates Himself to a constituted necessity ; (4) that a power inherent in a
Creator (the will or pleasure to do as He pleases) is thus lost and bound up in that
which is created ; (5) and that we attribute to God less control over His work than man
exerts over the labor of his hands. Strauss lays it down as an axiom, “‘ that, according
to sound philosophy, as well as experience, the regular chain of conditional causes is never
interrupted by the absolute Causality through special acts.’’ The question, however,
is whether sound philosophy or common-sense requires that the great Cause must thus
be rigorously bound by His own creation? Does such a limitation of ‘‘ the Absolute”
really constitute Him or ‘‘it’’ the Absolute? Does it require, admitting the existence of
evil and the desirableness of its removal, that this Cause should feel no interest in the
removal of evil existing in creation? Does it insist upon a God, stern, inflexible, cold
and distant, binding humanity by unalterable law to a sad, dreary, consecutive fate, or
can it bring this Cause into vital relationship with intelligence, morality, religion, the
noblest feelings, impulses, aspirations and hopes of man ?

Obs. 3. If we had a Revelation and a kingdom proposed by it, without a

supernatural element claimed and exerted, then the objection would be
urged, without the possibility of contradiction, that it was merely of
human origin. God knew this, and hence stamps the one given with
something above nature and the power of man. Somecharge us with super-
stition and a low, degrading belief when, acquiescing in the supernatural,
we look beyond the natural law to its Creator or Institutor. But justly
the charge cannot be preferred against us, seeing that it is not we who,
stopping short at the natural laws, regarding them as the real causation of
Prop. 6. ] THE TIHEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 83
all things, and utterly unalterable in their workings, tender to the laws
what reverence and worship we are capable of, so that the laws virtually
become owr gods, our eternal divinities, and in their sum, totality,
constitute the high-sounding ‘‘ Absolute.’? Who is the most superstitious
or who has faith the lowest in the scale, the one who bows down to physi-
cal law, or the other who looks beyond such laws to the Lawgiver Him-
self? Can it beshown, without mere assertion, that the supernatural never
exerted its power in creation—that these laws were self-producing, eternal
—that man never comes under its influence—that it is not needed—that its
manifestations are physically impossible—that they are morally impracti-
cable—that it is unworthy of God or man, etc.? These and similar ques-
tions must be fairly answered before we can give up a precious faith and
hope, affording the richest of consolations and blessings needed in our
pilgrimage here.
Unbelief makes much of Natural Religion, but as Christian apologists (e.g. Bp. But-
ler’s Analogy) have abundantly shown, it is insufficient (as unbelief sadly confesses) to
solve the most essential problems concerning the present and the future in reference to
mans happiness. Now when Christianity does not destroy Natural Religion, but con-
firms it, adding to it that which it was impossible for it to produce, is it not strange that
men devote themselves to a persistent, life-long exertion to demolish the labors of intel-
ligent, pious men, without the least effort—owing to, sometimes confessed, inability
to substitute something better? Is it not remarkable that such will deliberately deny
the fundamental ideas underlying our subjection to moral government, simply because
such are constantly appealed to in Scripture—no matter how destructive their repeal
would be to society? The Realism, Utilitarianism, Naturalism of the day does not stop
to consider how necessary to man’s welfare the Supernatural is, in order to insure deliver-
ance, complete and continued, from evil. A Religion that proposes such a Supernatural-
ism connected with redemption (which unbelief acknowledges, in view of the permanency
of natural law, is not to be found in Nature) surely should be met with respect and not
with unrelenting bitterness.

Obs. 4. The objection that a supernatural interference would argue

imperfection in creation and Providence, is purely one-sided. It has its
limits, and when pressed too far is at once forged into a double-edged
sword which cuts both ways. Imperfection is found in nature, but this
is overlooked ; it is found in man, but this is ignored, in order to find it in
the plan of redemption, and not in the creature and creation which it is
designed to save.' Is this wise? If the theory is correct, then those eter-
nal laws, so magnified, should have avoided imperfection—those complete
and perfect forces of nature should have removed the ills and woes and
sufferings and antagonisms now so abundantly prevalent—those unchange-
able and eternal laws should, long before this, from the beginning have
elevated man to knowledge, truth and happiness, removing from him igno-
rance, error, and misery. But not satisfied with this objection, another is
brought from the opposite extreme (showing how easily objections are
formed when the heart desires them) viz., that fixed and invariable law
without intervention indicates the absolute sovereignty of God, His
wisdom, goodness (so Dr. Draper and others), etc. In the one case, inter-
vention indicates imperfection in the work performed by God; in the
other it shows the same in the Creator Himself. Law unchangeable, etc.,
certainly gives us a high opinion of God, of His absolute power, sover-
eignty, wisdom, etc., that was able thus to constitute them. Butwe have
still a higher and more majestic view of God, if we regard (as the Bible) the
same power, sovereignty, etc., equal to adding to, or controlling, or
84 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 6.

reversing, or altering, or staying fora brief period any of the laws or

forces which He has constituted. In the general invariableness is a fact
established to enforce His government, to provide for and contribute to
the happiness of His creatures, but in every particular instance it is not
true ; for if that-were the case it would limit His own power, and make
the laws equal to if not superior to the Lawgiver. If we could place
Christianity and the kingdom which is to result from it under such law
without Divine interposition or aid, the foundation of all hope would not
only be overturned, but men would justly say, you can expect nothing
more than what these laws can give ; God’s sovereignty is only in them,
He can do no more for you, and therefore it is idle to pray, to expect a
resurrection, to hope for freedom from evil, etc. (This many do say at
the present time.) In brief, such a theory, put into its mildest form,
places God in the posture of a cruel Being, giving us unchangeable law
from which we can see no escape from misery, and this law being eternal,
we dare not comfort ourselves with the idea that evil is temporary, that
God will ultimately remove and destroy it. From such hope-crushing
reasoning, we turn with relief and joy to the comforting doctrine of the
Word, that while God has created this world and man, placed them under
laws which in the general are unchangeable, yet when the time arrives
that the necessity of man or the Divine purpose requires it, He can exert a
higher law still—His Omnipotent Will—and control or bend or reverse,
in short, do what He pleases with His own creation. Man cannot describe
a greater, more perfect, more absolute sovereign than the Bible in its
simplicity does, when it makes Him so all-powerful that He is able, and
does, at any time He chooses, intervene in His own workmanship. To
deny this is to degrade and not ennoble God. Believers in the Bible are
warned against just such reasoning. ‘Thus eg. 2 Pet. 3:5, 4, unmis-
takably foretells that ‘‘ scoffers’’* will arise who shall claim that ‘all
things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation ’’ (most
probably with the plea that otherwise imperfection exists either in the
works or in the Creator). The same apostle traces its origin to willingly
are ignorant of—t.e.—wilful ignorance—desiring, wishing, willing it ; and
charges us that it is worthy of marked, special attention (‘‘ knowing this
Jirst,’’ etc.,) being a distinguishing characteristic of the last days.”
1 Excepting by Mill, and some others, who, however, to account for the evil, boldly
argue (as in “ Literature and Dogma’) that the Creator or First Cause was limited in ability
to create—thus making an imperfect, weak God, the product of their reason over against
the majestic, perfect God of the Bible. Another class also admit the evil, and find no
hope, advocating a despairing fate or nihilism over against the cheering prospects held
forth by the Word of God. Generally, however, the position is assumed as stated in the
text. In the Art. “‘ Immortality,’’ in Littell’s Liv. Age for 1872, taken from Brit. Quarterly
Review, the Optimist Philosophy, that evil will be eradicated, is opposed.
2 In the paper contributed by Merle D’Aubigne to Christ. Alliance at New York, refer-
ence is made to the wide-spread nature of infidelity and the critical posture of the
times, and to the remarkable characteristic of infidelity of the present period : “‘ Until
now, the eighteenth century—the age of Voltaire—was regarded as the epoch of most
decided infidelity, but: how far does the present time surpass it in this respect. Voltaire
himself protested against the philosophy which he called atheistic, and said, ‘ God is
necessarily the Great, the Only, the Eternal Artificer of all nature.’ (Dialogues, xxv.) But

* The earliest and most reliable mss. make it still more emphatic, ‘‘scoffers in scoff-
ing.” —Tischendorf’s N. T.
Prop. 6.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 85
the pretended philosophers of our day leave such ideas far behind, and regard them as
antiquated superstitions,’’ etc. Taking Prof. Tyndall’s eloquent address in favor of
materialism, it almost seems that we have his atomic theory fulfilled in himself, viz.,
that the atoms formerly composing Democritus have conjoined again in forming a Tyn-
dall. The Egyptian transmigration theory, modernized to suit prevailing tastes, may, for
aught we know, again be revived.

Obs. 5. Before entering upon the consideration of the miraculous, it is

necessary, first of all, to come to a decision respecting the supernatural ;
whether indeed a Higher Power exists in addition to nature which can in-
troduce the miraculous. The Bible takes this for granted as something
indirectly taught by nature itself (in works, design, etc.), but more directly
by our mental and moral constitution (in moral and religious impulses, a
consciousness of being under moral law, etc.). The simplicity of the Bible
teaching, corroborated by the religious feeling, prayer tendency, and
experience of ages, has not been invalidated by the recent prevailing attacks
of unbelief, because reason itself, unbiased, must, in the contest now rag-
ing, determine in favor of the Scriptures. Which, e.g., is the most
reasonable, to believe in a Creator who takes a continued interest in His
creatures, and can at pleasure exert His power in their behalf; or to
believe that nature has no intelligent personal Producer, or if it has such
an One, that He keeps aloof from His own workmanship? Which is the
most reasonable, to affirm that the world is produced by God, who can
order and control it according to His will; or to say that it is somehow
unexplained, the result of natural laws (also unexplained), and that such
laws are alone causative and operative? Which is the most reasonable, to
declare that an intelligent Designer, with an ultimate glorious end in view,
created all things, and, to indicate and vindicate the intended end, gives
intimations of His power and goodness ; or to say that atoms (necessarily
endued with intelligence) come together by forces (also intelligent), and
combine to form an intelligent, related design (as seen), and this goes on
eternally?! Which is the most reasonable, to announce that reason
existed before the creation of the world, designed it, and evidences itself
in the varied works thereof, and that the same reason has access to its
work, and can, in accordance with an announced plan, manifest its pres-
ence in -new acts and new performances; or to assert that reason is
only (Biichner) in nature? (Zollman in The Bible and Natural Science
justly observes, that such a theory virtually makes the atoms individually
possess the greatest reasoning power because of their forming combinations
which man is incapable of wholly searching out and understanding.)
Which is the most in accord with reason, to acknowledge that the world
has a personal Sovereign Ruler, or that impersonal, wnexplained forces and
laws form such a Ruler? Reason, as evidenced in the gifted intellects
which have bowed in reverence to revelation and in the studious sons of
science who have made nature subservient to the Word, can cordially
receive, as the highest reason, the biblical idea of a God, the biblical con-
ception of the power and freedom of intelligence, the biblical will as mani-
fested in a divine purpose unfolding toward redemption. It is assuming
too much to suppose, that the reasoning In favor of the supernatural from
the earliest days down to more recent writers (as Butler, Argyle, McCosh,
Cook, etc.), and that the concessions even of the ablest opponents of the
miraculous, of a great first cause, existing prior to, and forming, nature,
should be but folly. The assumption, by its absurdity and antagonism to
86 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 6.

reason, defeats itself. Independent of the Scriptures, relying simply upon

the constitution of nature and man, our deepest thinkers of all classes and
ages, even those unprepared to receive the entire biblical conception, have
still taught a theism.? The acknowledgment of the supernatural prepares
us for the next proposition. Admit the supernatural, of a higher power of
existence and intelligence over and above nature, and then the way is pre-
pared for reason to accept of this power manifesting itself in that sphere
relating to the highest interests of man. Reason finds a sufficient cause in
the God of the Bible to explain not only the existence and continued
operation of law, but how the Creator of law can exhibit His all-pervading
power and presence, at any desired moment, through the electric flashes of
a Divine Providence, thus visibly manifesting that the creative spirit is a
God, not afar off but nigh at hand.’

1 To indicate the contrast between our views and those of the free-thinking class, we
select a recent writer, Winwood Reade, who (Martyrdom of Man) thus gives the final
result of making man an atom, a cell growth of nature: ‘‘ We teach that there is a
heaven in the ages far away, but not for us single corpuscules, not for us dots of ani-
mated jelly ; but for the One (i.e. Humanity) of whom we are the elements, and who,
though we perish, never dies, but grows from period to period, and by the united efforts
of single molecules called men, or of those cell groups called nations, is raised toward
the Divine power which he will finally attain. Our Religion, therefore, is Virtue - our
Hope is placed in the happiness of Posterity ;our Faith is the perfectibility of Man.”’
With this view is allied the teaching that we are the product of natural laws, that we
cannot discover or define the Creator or First Cause (if there is such), and that the
Supreme Power is “‘ something for which we have no words, something for which we have
no ideas,” “to whom it is profanity to pray, of whom it is idle and irreverent to argue
and debate, of whom we should never presume to think save with humility and awe,
being that ‘ Unknown God,’”’ etc. What admirable humility and convenient ignoring
of the testimony of man’s moral nature and God’s revelation !
2? Man cannot without violence to the history of the past and to his own moral nature
refuse such a view of a Power existing above Nature. ‘The religions of the past and the
present, the experience of the civilized and uncivilized, the expressed opinions of a
Plato and a Newton, a Socrates and a Kant, a Xenophon and an Anselm, a Cicero and a
Descartes, a Galen anda Leibnitz, an Aristotle and a Fenelon, besides an innumerable
multitude, clearly indicate this feature. ven Pantheism, in its varied forms, however
it may neutralize the biblical idea, still admits and enforces the notion of a superior,
infinite intelligence, all pervading, etc. Pure Atheism is something rare, and forms an
exception, seldom found, to a general, universal rule. Those alleged to be decided
atheists sometimes (as Voltaire, J. Priestley, etc.) express themselves in a manner indic-
ative of Theistical notions. Hence such a challenge as ‘‘ Asmodeus’’ gives in the Cin.
Commercial of Dec. 27th, 1875, is simply ridiculous, viz., for any one to prove the exist-
ence of a God and His Personality, the existence of the soul (allowing only “a higher
physical organization’), and the existence of sin. This is simply ignoring, with the
utmost self-complacency, what the leaders of intelligence have presented on the subject.
Some of the followers of Darwin have been exercised that he has not excluded the idea
that a personal God may have created the first forms of vegetable and animal being, thus
still leaving a bond of union between him and Kepler, Newton, Davy, Haller, Cuvier,
the Wagners, Liebig, etc.
? No mythology, no philosophy, no human production has ever presented such a sub-
lime portraiture of the Deity and His attributes as the Scriptures give us. Take the
Bible conception and contrast it e.g. with Mill’s imperfect, impotent God, and what an
immense distance exists between them. Contrast the same with a thousand others, and
the God of the Bible stands forth immeasurably grand and complete—lacking nothing.
Contrast the perfect, lovely, holy Redeemer Jesus, so simply but strikingly presented to
us, with the Saviour tendered by unbelief, and the former is light in the midst of dark-
ness. This alone is sufficient, as Apologists have noticed, to vindicate the Supernatural
(e.g. Roger's Superhuman Origin of the Bible). But allow this God (as Creator and Re-
deemer) to present the Divine Purpose, the Hnd, contemplated by creation, then He is
seen in a new aspect commending itself to reason and the moral nature of man. Sucha
PRop. 6.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 87
presentation makes a necessity of revelation supernaturally given and supported ; for the
Creator, and not the creature, must inform us what are the ends contemplated by an
Infinite Mind. Hence the basis of Revelation, indicating the intelligent moral purposes
held in view, commends itself to us as the one required, and as proof of its being God-
given. ‘This feature has additional weight given to it when it is observed that God
works after a definitely laid down Plan—a Plan, too, extending through many centuries,
evidencing foresight, provisions, providences, etc. This Plan, whose origin cannot be
accounted for as proceeding from the Jewish race ; which makes God and His glory the
dominant idea ;which brings Him in sympathy with man and expresses the highest
possible evidence to promote man’s welfare ; which subordinates ethics to theology (the
former being derived from the idea of God, His will, and our relations to Him) and
enforces as essential morality and piety ; which appeals (as to a thing self-evident) to the
self-consciousness implanted by moral nature and recognized by society ;which opens
before us the most exalted destiny and eternal inheritance, must, in the very nature of
the case, demand, what unbelief so persistently objects to, a cordial recognition of the
Divine rights and claims, and of the dependence, obligations, and obedience of the crea-
ture. If Revelation occupied a lower plane in its delineation of God and in its demands,
infidelity would be the first to indicate it as a radical defect. A Divine Revelation with
God and His interest in, and relationship to, His own Creation stricken out, would
remove its heart-and life, leaving the creature in ignorance and hopeless. Man, bur-
dened by the influence of evil, subject to calamity and death, looking for some way of
deliverance, finds in the Scriptures and in the doctrine of this kingdom a Revelation
most honorable to God Himself, and most conducive to the highest interests and happi-
ness of His creatures. Many receiving this in the past, have found peace and joy ; many
rejecting, have realized unrest and unhappiness. Humility, such as becomes a creature,
is fundamental to gain the former position ; pride, such as makes the Creator subject
to the creature’s judgment, is invariably conducive to the latter. In reference to the
teaching of Science, its very statements respecting the inability of discovering the intelli-
gent power back of nature and natural law, only indicates, as the Bible claims, the
necessity of a Revelation to bring man to a correct and ample comprehension of that
great Power. So also the confession of seeing no hope of release from death, the grave,
etc., through the fixedness of law ; that man being in possession of a moral nature needs
more than the facts of nature ; that if God exists the possibility of a revelation must be
admitted ; that the non-existence of a God is not susceptible of definite proof ; that if
an intelligent reason is back of nature, it would be desirable for such reason to reveal
itself ; that if such a revelation would be made, it is reasonable to suppose that it would
present us things that man cannot discover, etc.—these confirm our position. Whatever
difficulties—as alleged—on the side of pure reason there may be to prove the existence
and the revelation of God, far greater difficulties are met in the effort to show that there
is no God or no Revelation, for the latter leaves nature, man, world, the Universe an in-
scrutable enigma. .
88 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 7.

Proposition 7. The kingdom being a manifestation of the super-

natural, miracles are connected with tt.
Miracles are not to be regarded simply as evidences of the truth
—this it indeed subserves—but as necessary parts of revelation
itself, evincing with a fulness, stronger than language can impress,
that the supernatural is indispensable for the establishment of the
kingdom, and that it will be exerted in miraculous power when-
ever required. It is plainly declared in numerous passages, that
before this kingdom is set up, events of an astounding miraculous
nature, far exceeding the ordinary power of nature, directly occur-
ring through Divine agency, shall be witnessed. In a book record-
ing such anticipated occurrences, there would be an evident lack, a
sad deficiency—which infidelity would eagerly seize if it existed—
if it contained no statements of miracles. Especially would this be
the case, when He who is the King of the promised kingdom ap-
pears. The grave question then, if no miracles were given, would
inevitably arise: What assurance have you that those miraculous
events predicted to take place in the future—so intimately con-
nected with the highest welfare and happiness of man—shall ever
be realized, when we have none heretofore displayed and described,
and none combined with the previous personal coming of the
King? The cry would be triumphantly raised: Your King once
came, and as He performed no miracles, although they are so in-
timately blended with His kingdom, none can be reasonably
expected.
The correct position in reference to miracles is that taken by some recent writers.
Thus e.g. Fuchs (Bremen Lectures, L. 3) says that “ the world’s course requires miracles’’
owiag to the introduction of sin and evil, and to indicate and enforce the Plan devised
for the removal of the same ; and that hence “‘ into the world's history of sin and death
the golden threads of Salvation have been interwoven, a continued chain of divine acts of
revelation for the saving of the world, which form a living organism of miracles.” Christ
Himself, in this connected series, is the greatest miracle. Such an attitude, sustained by
a personal experience of the preciousness of the greatest miracle, Christ, is impregnable.
Our line of argument is designed to uphold the miraculous as a necessity in the world’s
Redemption through the Theocratic Kingdom; and therefore only presses the relationship
that the one sustains to the other. When Prof. Powell (Essays and Reviews) tells us that
** miracles were, in the estimation of a former age, among the chief supports of Christi-
anity ; they are at present among the main difficulties and hindrances to its acceptance,”’
the reply is, that they still remain chief supports, and that the latter arises from over-
looking the indispensable connection that they sustain to the whole Divine Plan. Con-
sidering miracles isolated from the intent they subserve, is but a narrow view ; and if
they did not exist in a Book relating to the Supernatural, this would be speedily claimed
as a main difficulty to its acceptance. It will not answer to simply contend, as Rohr (so
Castellar), that we need not give the miraculous to Christ, it being sufficient to follow
Him, for this utterly destroys the distinctive Biblical Christ. It is the miraculous, mira-
cle-working Christ, or none ; there is no half-way reception possible with consistency.
PROP. THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 89
Hence the position of some Christian writers is fatal to the integrity of Scripture. Thus
e.g. The Ch. Union (July 11th, 1877) regards miracles as unessential ; so that Jonah’s
account (referred to and indorsed by Jesus) may be rejected without detriment, and so
Elisha’s miracle of the axe-head, etc. Such laxity invalidates Scripture, engendering
grave doubt, etc. (Comp. Art. Recent Rationalism in the Church of England, in the North
Brit. Review, 1860) ; and the antagonism resulting is not lessened when it is said that
*‘ the miracles are historic fact, but they are not proofs of Christianity” (so J. Freeman
Clarke in The Ch. Union, Sept. 12th, 1877). Unbelief and doubt is, as predicted (see
Prop. 180), extending itself. Leathes (The Religion of Christ, Pref. p. 49, etc.), in reply
to the author of Supern. Religion, who declares ‘‘ the Revelation rests upon miracles,
which have nothing to rest upon but the Revelation,’’ shows how the establishment of
Christianity, before and since the New Test. literature was given, in and through Jesus
Christ, is corroborative of the miraculous, and that the miraculous must, as an antecedent,
have preceded in order to account for the literature and the results. Various writers
(e.g. Row, Ev. Chris. p. 137) have remarked that those unbelievers who attribute, owing
to the introduction of miracles, so much credulity, superstition, and ignorance to the
Jews and primitive Christians, only ‘‘ increase the difficulty of accounting for the moral
teaching of the New Test. as the natural product of the soil.’”’ The greater the
abuse heaped upon the inspired writers, the greater the embarrassments of unbelief to
explain how such could possibly give us the doctrines produced. This obstacle to consist-
ency is evidently felt by unbelievers, and, therefore, some of them (as Renan and others)
highly eulogize before condemning, praise in eloquent terms while undermining the mi-
raculous. Dr. Sprecher (Groundw. Theol. Div. 2) points out the contradictions, conces-
sions, etc., in which unbelieving Theists involve themselves in trying to invalidate the
historical evidence of miracles, and to explain Evangelical history without their admis-
sion. In this able Apology in behalf of Divine Revelation and the Supernatural, he con-
trasts the vast revolution produced by the same in human life and society with the
teachings and results of the great philosophers, and asks how we are to account for the
great difference, whether through Naturalism or through Christian ideas given by special
revelation and supported by the miraculous.

Obs. 1. God in kindness accommodates Himself to human weakness;

for telling us that the supernatural is closely allied with the natural in the
kingdom ; that the kingdom itself shall be pervaded with a power above
nature in order to control, recreate, and make nature subserve the Divine
purpose ; He, knowing that if direct testimony is not given a serious flaw
will remain, bestows us evidences, through miracles, of the all-pervading
supernatural. These are so related to the kingdom that they cannot be
separated from it without mutual defacement. Thus it is represented by
Jesus Himself (Matt. 12:28), ‘‘ But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of
God, then the kingdom of God is come unto (or as some, upon) you.”’
Here we have, 1. The relationship existing between the kingdom and
miracles ; that without -the latter the former cannot be revealed. 2. That
miracles are a manifestation of possessed power, which Jesus will exert
when He establishes His kingdom. 3. That the miraculous casting out
of devils, or Satan, is an event connected with the kingdom, and its accom-
plishment through Jesus is thus verified as predicted, e.g., Rev. 20 : 1-6.
4. That the miraculous casting out of devils by Jesus is a_ premonition,
anticipating, foreshowing, or foreshadowing (Greek, Lange, Com. vol. 1, p.
223, conveys idea of anticipating, etc.), like the transfiguration, of the
kingdom itself. The miracles then are assurances vouchsafed that the
kingdom will come as it is predicted. The miracles of Jesus are so varied
and significant in the light of the kingdom that it can be readily perceived
how they give us the needed confidencein its several requirements and
aspects. The resurrection of dead ones 1s connected with the kingdom ;
that the keys of death hang at Christ’s girdle is shown in the miracles of
the raising of the daughter of Jairus, the widow’s son, and of Lazarus,
 90 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. | [PRop. 7.

when just dead, carried out to burial, and already in the corrupting em-
brace of the tomb. Sickness and death are banished from the inheritors
of the kingdom ; the numerous miracles of healing various sicknesses and
of restoring’ the dying, establish the power existing that can perform it.
The utmost perfection of body is to be enjoyed in the kingdom; this is
foreshadowed by the removal of blindness, lameness, deafness, and dumb-
ness. Hunger, thirst, famine, etc., give place to plenty in the kingdom ;
the miracles of feediug thousands attest to the predicted power that wall
accomplish it. The natural world is to be completely under the Messiah’s
control in that kingdom ; the miracles of the draught of fishes, the tem-
pest stilled, the ship at its destination, the walking on the sea, the fish
bringing the tribute money, thesbarren fig-tree destroyed, and the much-
ridiculed one of water changed into wine, indicate that He who sets up
this kingdom has indeed power over nature. The spiritual, unseen, invis1-
ble world is to be, as foretold, in contact and communication with this
kingdom ; and this Jesus verifies by the miracles of the transfiguration,
the demoniac cured, the legion of devils cast out, passing unseen through
the multitude, and by those of His own death, resurrection and ascension.
Indeed there is scarcely a feature of this kingdom foretold which is to be
formed by the special work of the Divine, that is not also confirmed to us
by some glimpses of the Power that shall bring them forth. The kingdom
—the end—is designed to remove the curse from man and nature, and to
impart the most extraordinary blessings to renewed man and nature, but
all this is to be done through One who, it is said, shall exert supernatural
power to perform it. It is therefore reasonable to expect that as part of
the developing of the plan itself, that when He first comes, through whom
man and nature are to be regenerated, a manifestation of power—more
abundant and superior to everything preceding—over man and nature
should be exhibited, ¢o confirm our faith in Him and in His kingdom.
This is done, and an appeal is made to it. We are confident that the best,
most logical defence of the miracles of Christ and of the Bible is in the
line here stated, viz., regarding them as indicative and corroborative of
God’s promises relating to the future destiny of the Church and world.
The miracles are thus found to be essential, to answer a divine purpose, to
supply a requisite evidence ; and hence in the Scriptures they are called
‘“signs’’ (onueta) of something else intended ; signs that the Word shall be
fulfilled in the exertion of power.
We do not hold with Paley and others that the miracles were only indispensable
as the credentials of the divine mission of Jesus. At the same time we have no sympa-
thy with those who assert (Essays and Reviews) that miracles cannot prove that men are
divinely sent as messengers or teachers. As to the former, they subservemuch more ; and
as to the latter, it is sufficient to oppose Christ’s sayings, Matt. 11:5, 20; John 5:36;
Matt. 10 :1-8 ; John 20 :30, 31, and 10 : 25, 37, 38; Acts 2:22, ete. They possess this
tendency to a certain extent (for, after all, He was rejected as unbelievers have remarked,
Duke of Somerset’s Ch. Theol. p. 48), but they retain a higher significancy which in-
cludes that of His coming from the Father and the Father being in Him, viz., that He
truly possessed the power to establish the kingdom as foretold ; and therefore these creden-
tials are operative, for believers, to the time when this same power will again in large ©
measure be manifested. Wardlaw (On Miracles) takes the position that the miracle
proves the doctrine, while French (On Miracles) makes the doctrine prove the miracle.
Our view combines the two, seeing that they are inseparably related (Comp. Art. Miracles
and their Counterfeits, Princeton Review, 1856). Doctrine, as contained in prophecy and
promise, brought forth the miracle, and the latter confirms the truthfulness of the
former, The doctrine developed the “ signs,’’ and the ‘“‘ signs” are a testimony of the
Prop. 7.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 91
verification of the doctrine. The miracle-working power of Jesus was the more neces-
sarily exerted in view, as we shall show hereafter, of the postponement of the kingdom,
For, the Power not being exerted in erecting the kingdom as predicted by the prophets,
—a kingdom free from all suffering and evil—a sufficiency (John 14 : 11) is shown to con-
vince the thoughtful and reflecting that it will yet be accomplished ; that the teaching of
the Bible leads us to expect miracles, and that their occurrence shows that we do not
misapprehend the things taught. They consequently have force only with those who are
willing to receive the Bible in its connected teaching. They are not, in themselves, pri-
mary truths, but are given to attest to and enlarge truth previously given, and which
still remains to be fulfilled. Such is their position in Revelation itself, that they attest
to its trathfulness, not only to the past (e.g. that creation is a miracle, that prophecy is a
miracle, etc.), but to the future (e.g. the kingdom), and become part of the truth itself,
revealing and manifesting the agency through which the promises of God are to be real-
ized. Fred: Den. Maurice, in his works, has well observed that the signs of the kingdom
are identical with the miracles of the kingdom, but he misapprehends the nature of the
kingdom and makes the signs emblematical of the coming of a spiritual power. They,
of course, include a spiritual power through which they are exerted, but the work itself,
as all prophecy and promise insists, will be externally manifested. The miracles, there-
fore, are not types of something else, but signs, real earnests, inchoate foretastes, of some-
thing in the same line, greater, in the future. Thus, e.g., the much sneered at miracle of
Cana, which some writers, in the West. Review, assert cannot have any moral teaching,
most strikingly shows Christ’s power over nature, its subjection to His control, and one
too which is necessary to be wielded if the Millennial predictions are ever to be realized
(Comp. Farrar, Life of Christ, vol. 1, ch. 11). Therefore the attack against miracles is also
one of primary importance ; if those attacks are successful and miracles are to be dis-
carded, then the truths which lead to the miracles, and to which the miracles attest,
suffer ; Christ’s power is lessened and no assurance is given of His ability to fulfil the
prophets. The miraculous, however some semi-believers may close their eyes to the
tact, is a vilal one. But to make the attack complete and the defence perfect, the real
point for both is too much overlooked, viz., Does the kingdom which the Bible predicts
as the Divine Purpose, really require miraculous intervention, and is such akingdom, in
its Plan and adaptation to the wants of humanity, worthy of credence? If it can be
shown that the kingdom does not demand them, that they are not desirable to be pressed
into the service for man and nature, that there is some other way to secure the blessings
contemplated by them instead of a resort, to the Supernatural, then the miraculous may
be discarded as a superfluity, an excrescence ; otherwise, until this can be alleged, pru-
dence and wisdom dictate that they be regarded as an indispensable portion of a con-
nected Divine Plan, an integral part of Revelation, the'main purpose of which is to instruct
us concerning the kingdom, giving us confidence in its ultimate establishment. If man
and nature can form such a kingdom, free from existing evils, without miraculous power,
or if such a kingdom manifested by miraculous power is not desirable, not what man
craves, not worthy of man and God, let this be established by adducing proof, and it will
at once destroy, what other arguments fail to do, the credibility of miracles. Until this
is done it would be folly to yield up that which is founded on the very nature and mani-
festation of the kingdom of God. The deliverance and entrance of the Jews into the
promised land, Canaan, was preceded by miraculous events of the most astounding
nature ; these are only “‘ signs” of those of a still more extraordinary character, under
the One greater than Moses, at the future deliverance and entrance of the people of God
into the promised inheritance of the kingdom. The Head ofa Theocracy is a Supernatu-
ral Being, and when sucha Theocracy is established, the Supernatural will, more or less,
exhibit itself in behalf of the same, and as indicative of the existing Rulership. But
however much we may advance this reasoning in favor of the miraculous, it must ever be
remembered that an appeal to reason can never overcome prejudice excited against the
supernatural, through aversion to moral and religious truth, so intimately blended with
it. Jesus, who knew man, teaches us, in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the
impotency of miracles to benefit those who wilfully turn away from the truth already
given. The fact is, that to appreciate miracles properly, there must first be some knowl-
edge of other and preceding truths.

Obs. 2. The number and variety of definitions given to miracles indicate

the limited nature of human knowledge ; we are not greatly concerned in
the adoption of any one specially, seeing that from our standpoint we could
 A

92 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 7.

accept of nearly all, even of some of those given by infidels. Strauss’s

might be received, viz., that a miracle is ‘‘an event which, inexplicable
from the operation of finite causalities, appears to be an immediate inter-
ference of the Supreme, Infinite Cause, or of God Himself.’’ Renan’s
might be adopted, saving the word ‘‘ deranging ’’ (which unbelief suggests),
viz., that it is ‘‘ the special interposition of Deity in the physical and
psychological order of the world, deranging the course of events.’’ To
oppose the attacks of unbelieving scientists, some writers (as e.g. Birks
in The Bible and Modern Thought) oppose the old idea that miracles
are a reversal or suspension of nature, contending for a higher law operat-
ing in union and harmony with nature, and that it is not requisite to insist
in any case upon “‘ a direct act of God in contrast to all agency of second
causes, and by an exercise of power strictly and exclusively divine,’’ on the
ground that it would otherwise require too great knowledge both of nature
and God to tell when a miracle is performed. Hence miracles are divided
into immediate, mediate, and improper, and a definition, sufficiently com-
prehensive, to include them is given: that they are “‘ unusual events not
within the ordinary power of man, nor capable of being foreseen by man’s
actual knowledge of second causes, and wrought or announced by professed
messengers of God to confirm the reality of the message.’’ The explana-
tions of the older theologians (excepting Augustine’s and a few others) are
discarded as not covering objections. The interesting and valuable
writings of the Duke of Argyle (The Reign of Law), Dr. McCosh (The
Supernatural in Relation to the Natural), Thompson (Ch. Theism), etc.,
take the position, undoubtedly correct, that laws exist outside of those
known, and that the Divine Will can employ such laws whenever it is de-
sirable. Others (e.g. Proctor, Other Worlds than Ours) make miracles
a resultant of physical law, being included in the predetermined scheme.
The miraculous is therefore made a resultant of the exercise of other un-
known laws superior to those known in nature. Whatever truth there is
in such a position, and however admirably adapted to meet the objections
of unbelieving philosophy, the biblical statement (e.g. Acts 2:22, Jno.
3:2, Rom, 15:19, etc.) does not require it. The following reasons urge
us to discard the commendable and suggestive efforts in this direction:
1. It too much limits the power of God, exalting law in place of God.
For the Bible, on its face, assumes (Ex. 10 : 2, Eph. 3 : 20) that God is able
both to work with existing, seen and unseen, means, agencies, and laws,
and to create and perform through His will alone (Heb. 2:4, 1 Cor. 12:11,
Dan. 4:35) all things, even, if necessary, to introduce new laws (Matt.
19:26, Mark 10:25, Luke 1:37, and 18:27), etc. We are expressly
told not to limit the ability of God and not to place the Creator in an atti-
tude which binds Him subserviently to His own creation, even if the latter
be law. 2. It in a great measure destroys the personality (e.g. Deut.
4:32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, Ex. 15:11, Deut. 3:24) of Divine interference,
attributing that to law which the Bible represents as the result of personal
Divine attributes (e.g. Dan. 2 :19-23, Ex. 7:5, and 15:1). 3. It dimin-
ishes the force of scripture language that expressly asserts the immediate
agency of God (eg. Ex. 3:20 and 6:6, 7, Phil. 3:21, Gen. 18:19).
4. It is to some extent contradictory, since it in some cases allows imme-
diate miracles. 5. It lowers the validity of miracles by making them the
results of causes now beyond our knowledge, but which as knowledge in-
creases may, after all, be found natural. 6. With all the concessions
Prop. 7.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 93
that it makes, it is unable to point out the Jaws through which the miracles
are performed, and asks us to take them for granted. ‘% But the main
reason which leads us to a rejection of prevailing theories is the following :
miracles are designed to throw light upon, and confirm the predictions of
God relating to the final result, the glorious, miraculous establishment of
the kingdom. Now in the prophecies pertaining to this kingdom we have
the most explicit declarations that Jesus Christ Himself will chan ge, renew,
re-create all things ; that laws of nature now existing shall be reversed, or
modified, or suspended ; that new laws and new forces shall be introduced ;
that the present order of things shall give place to a renewed order ; and
that the power which produces all this is not found in nature or in laws
outside of nature, but only in God. Jesus is represented as personally
coming (just as God personally came at the establishment of the theocracy
at Mt. Sinai), and directly intervening in the performance of this mighty
work of restoring forfeited blessings and adding new ones, and this is
claimed as a peculiar, distinctive personal prerogative. Looking thus at
the contemplated end, and seeing how the miraculous power then exerted
is so far removed from such definitions, it is impossible to receive entirely
explanations which attribute to law what the Word applies to Christ per-
sonally—thus introducing a defect, which, ¢f logically carried onward, for-
bids our receiving the predictions relating to the future as presented. ‘The
final manifestation of the miraculous, which includes a re-creation, a
removal of law under which a sin-cursed earth groans, determines for us
that the miraculous proofs given to show that it will be realized are pre-
cisely in the same category, and thus confirmatory of it. The unity of
Scripture is thus preserved. By this attitude it is not denied that God
may and does also work through higher laws already established and be-
yond our present domain of knowledge (which Birks, Dr. McCosh, ete.,
have eloquently portrayed), but with this it is insisted that He may and
does, independently of established law, exercise His power in the suspen-
sion, reversal, or removal of existing law, or, in other words, that His
power as Creator, in the domain of the miraculous, is not limited by
what He has done or has established, but is exercised according to
His own pleasure. It seems to us, according to the biblical idea, a low
estimate of God, which would make, either in nature or in that beyond it,
all things under fixed, invariable, unchangeable laws, through which alone
the Divine Institutor of them can work.

This position of the author may be regarded as ‘ ultra’”’ or ‘‘ old-fashioned ”’ after so

many recent writers making miracle no violation or suspension of the laws of Nature, but
simply ‘‘ the intervention of some higher law, superseding the action of some lower
one.’’ This definition may indeed (Woollaston, Butler, Babbage, Arnold) apply to some
cases, but it is too sweeping to embrace all ; it is opposed to the notion of miracle as
entertained by the ordinary Bible reader, and to the conception of Omnipotence as given
in the Word. No one, unless urged to it by a theory, can fail to see that the power to
work a miracle is ascribed to direct Divine power, for with God, it is alleged, all things
are possible, nothing is too hard, and He is placed above all existing laws, able to sus-
pend, control, etc., them at Will. The appeal only to a higher law, however truein some
instances, is not sustained by the spirit of the narratives. Thus, ¢.g., Jesus is repre-
sented as possessing the power of working wonders in Himself, and not as using and
applying some existing but hitherto unknown law. The resurrection of the dead, the
miraculous conception of Jesus, etc., are not claimed as the exertion of some higher law
making miracles ‘‘ parts of some more comprehensive system, but as the result of direct
Divine power, introducing a new arrangement according with a previous plan. The
94 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [RROP."7.

of miracles,
primitive and ordinary Church view (e.g. Bacon, Boyle, Newton, Locke)
gives a more
ascribing them to God’s power, making all laws subservient to His will, modernized
more
exaited and ennobling conception of God, superior to all law, etc., than convert
ideas. All concessions, away from the Biblical notion, will never make a single
the Scripture, and
of unbelievers, since such are wise enough to see the departure from The
an inference.*
they feel that the laws, so much insisted upon, are to be received as
evidence or
Word, if it possesses any force whatever, does teach that miracles are the
which, notwithstand-
result of Divine interposition, of the direct interference of a Power
to
ing the ordinary laws of nature in existence, is able to do all things. The opposition s to un-
this Biblical conception is varied, extending from gross unbelief to concession
tricks;
belief. Thus, e.g., we have miracles (1) denounced as imposition or juggling rejected
(2) denied as impossible and incredible, owing to the fixed laws of nature the ; (3)
Creator;
on the ground, not of impossibility but of weakness, imperfection in of
(4) resulting from the intelligence of the parties performing them taking advantage
to exalt
laws of Nature, etc., unknown to their fellows ; (5) mythical, being introduced
and of
certain characters ; (6) the product of a superior knowledge of the laws of nature m,
spirit, being wrought in harmony with both ; (7) the work of mesmerism, spiritualis
; (8) phenomena (Proctor) that occurred in a fixed series through laws which are
etc.
e;
above our comprehension but act in unison with those of which we have cognizanc
(9) a preformation (Bonnet) ‘‘ according to which God has priori included the miracles
in the course of nature ;’’ (10) a “‘ quickening of the processes of nature’’—what
Olshausen applies to some are made by others to suit all ; (11) left undecided (Kant),
‘‘ it being neither possible absolutely to prove the reality of miracles, nor can their pos-
sibility be absolutely denied ;” (12) deviating (so Augustine, Hagenbach’s His. of Dog.
vol. 1, s. 118, and adopted by Schleiermacher) not so much from the order of nature in
general as from that particular order of nature known to us ; (13) the results of higher
and unknown laws either in nature or in the spiritual world. These and others (Comp.
e.g. Lange’s Com. vol. 1, pp. 266 and 271) are all opposed to the Biblical idea. This is
seen (a) in the Scripture language ; (6) in the definitions so generally and at one time
universally held as the teaching of the Bible, and which were only modified to suit mod-
ee a ee
I faegine re ee

* Christian Apologists, who make such dangerous concessions to unbelief (under the
delusive hope of conciliating), may learn a lesson from the acknowledgments of un-
believers. Thus, e.g. Dr. Carpenter in his Art. On the Fallacies of Testimony respect-
ing the Supernatural (Pop. Science Monthly March, 1876) denounces the miraculous, and,
referring to these Apologists who deem it requisite to justify them by weakening their
force, scornfully remarks that ‘‘ orthodox theologians” are regarding ‘‘ the miracles of
the New Test. rather as incumbrances than as props to what is essential to Chris-
tianity.” While rejecting miracles as a delusion, he frankly makes this acknowledg-
ment: ‘‘ But the Scientific Theist who regards the so-called ‘ laws of Nature’ as nothing
else than man’s expressions of so much of the divine order as it lies within his power to
discern, and who looks at the interruptedness of this order as the highest evidence of its
original perfection, need find (as it seems to me) no abstract difficulty in the conception
that the Author of Nature can, if He will, occasionally depart from it. And hence, as I
deem it presumptuous to deny that there might be occasions which, in his wisdom, may
require such departure, I am not conscious of any such scientific ‘ prepossessions’
against miracles as would prevent me from accepting them as facts. if trustworthy evi-
dence of their reality could be adduced. The question with me, therefore, is simply,
‘ Have we any adequate historical ground for the belief that such departure has ever
taken place?’’’ Heshields himself behind the ‘‘ prepossessions’’ of the writers and wit-
nesses, and makes a parade of contemporary wonders (arising from spiritualism, mesmer-
ism, ctc.), which cannot endure scientific scrutiny (being explained by odylism, electro-
biology, physic-force, etc., as natural results), thus ignoring the higher testimony, ap-
pealing to reason in favor of miracles, viz., their relation to a historical Divine ‘Plan
which corroborates and enforces the witnesses. He confines himself to a continuity and
perpetuity of nature which (as Mansel says of Schleiermacher’s position) makes nature
rigid, not elastic, opposed to the introduction of new forces and incapable of adapta-
tion—an opinion contrary to experience, as seen in the voluntary actions of men.
(Comp. Cook’s Lec. “ Huxley and Tyndall on Evolution,’ M’Cosh’s ‘‘ Supernatural in
relation to the Natural,’’ Fisher's ‘‘ Supernatural Origin of Relicion,” Fowler's ‘‘ Moz-
ley and rep on Miracles,’’ the Archb. of York on “ Limits of Philosophical In-
quiry,’’ etc.
 PRop. 7.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 95
ern thought; and (c) in the fact that the most determined attacks upon the miracles,
from the days of Spinoza and Hume. proceed on the assumption that
if they can be dis-
credited, it goes far to prove that there is no overruling Supernatural Power
which can
and does control all things. Miracles too are invariably represented as dependent upon
God, and not as the result of a fortuitous or happy coincidence. Hence such definitions
as given by the Spiritualist Convention, held at Rochester, N.Y., 1868,
must be dis-
carded, viz., that they ‘‘ have been produced in harmony with Universal laws,
and hence
may be repeated at any time under suitable conditions.’ A number of miracles are in
direct opposition to the harmonious working of existing natural law, as,
e.g., in the resur-
rection of dead ones, etc., so that to make miracles “‘ nature transfigured by the spirit,”’
“nature controlled by the will,’ or ‘‘ nature determined by the Spirit,”’ is mere
fancy,
so long as it excludes the direct power of God. Therefore those definitions which in-
clude a reference to the Divine power are alone in accord with the Scriptures. One of
the best is given by Van Oosterzee (Uh. Dog. vol. 1, p. 127): ‘“ A miracle is an entirely
extraordinary phenomenon in the domain of natural or spiritual life, which cannot
be
explained from the course of nature as it is known to us, and must therefore have been
brought about by a direct operation of God’s Almighty Will, in order to attain unto a defi-
nite object.” Oosterzee justly remarks that the definition must be to some extent defect-
ive from our inability to see one side of the miracle, viz., its operating cause. This
defect, however, is supplied to the believer by the Word, viz., that it is the exertion of
God’s power either directly or as communicated to others. Fuchs’ definition (Bremen
Lectures, Lec. 3) opposes the defectiveness of the current view that ‘“‘a miracle is an
event which cannot be explained from the known laws of nature” on the ground that
(1) it draws no firm line between the miraculous and the natural, leaving the way open
of having, as knowledge progresses, all the former resolved into the latter ; and (2) that
it is only a negative definition, telling us what a miracle is not, and leaving the nature of
the miracle untouched. Hence he gives the following : ‘“‘ A miracle is the entrance of the
Supernatural into the connection of the natural, the intervention of a higher order of
things into the lower, the immediate interposition of a God above the world in the course of
the world and nature.’’ Looking at the kingdom, which is ultimately to be inaugurated
by the special intervention of the Supernatural in the Person of the Theocratic King,it is
easy to see that the ‘‘ signs” proceed from the same Supernatural source. Christlieb’s
(Mod. Doubt) definition is excellent with the exception of the last clause. He says:
“* Miracles are unique and extraordinary manifestations of divine power, which influence
nature in a manner incomprehensible to our empirical knowledge, but always in accord-
ance with some moral or spiritual end. Or, more exactly, they are creative acts of God,
i.e., supernatural exertions of power upon certain points of Nature’s domain, through which,
by virtue of His own might already working in the course of nature, God, for the further-
ance of His kingdom, brings forth some new thing which natural substances or causali-
ties could not have produced by themselves, but which—and this must not be overlooked
—as soon as they have taken place, range themselves in the natural course of things, with-
out any disturbance arising on their account.’’ He correctly argues them to be “ the
effects of God’s power,’ ‘‘ supernatural phenomena,” “* isolated manifestations of a
higher order of things,’’ ‘‘a pledge of His truth and faithfulness ; an earnest of the
future consummation of His kingdom,”’ ete., but the last clause, ““ range themselves in
the natural course of things,’’ is liable to misinterpretation. If he means that they still
retain, while thus connected with the natural, their specific miraculous character, he is
correct ; but if he conveys the idea that they must necessarily, when performed, thus
range themselves with the natural, be in harmony with it, he is evidently wrong, as seen,
e.g. in the Sun’s standing still (a temporary miracle), in the transfiguration (a prefigura-
tion miracle), ete. We are not concerned in attempting to show that a miracle does not
disturb or violate natural law ; indeed when we look at the End, and see that under the
mighty power of the wonder-working Messiah natural law, which is now so conducive to
disease, death, and corruption, shall be disturbed, violated, and rooted out, it is not
difficult to believe that many of the miraculous “ signs”’ were a disturbing of natural law,
showing how by such a disturbance the cause could be removed, and the kingdom with
its mestimable blessings be introduced. The truth ‘seems to be, that believers them-
selves do not fully catch the spirit and intent of those miracles, and are too much disposed
to have them shorn of some of their strength in order to conciliate unbelievers, Let
such place themselves at the proper stand-point from which to view the miraculous, and
this will be noticed : Briefly, this world is under a curse—evil abounds with the good—
it forms one vast cemetery with its crushed hopes, blasted life, dust-returned bodies,
etc., and all this goes on under natural law instituted by God. The world needs restora-
tion, and the Bible starts with this idea, a fallen world needing Redemption, and it ends
96 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRoP. 7%.

with a fallen world Redeemed. The kingdom of God is designed to secure this deliver-
ance, but to do this it must necessarily embrace a Supernatural interference.as predicted.
It was God that entailed the curse, set its limits, enforced it by natural law, and it must
be God again who removes the same ; but when He does this we are told that He breaks
down the barriers set up by Himself through natural law. Hence Supernatural interfer-
ence (i.e., miracles), in the nature of the case, given as *‘ signs’’ of that which is prom-
ised, and is to come, is really and truly an interference, a suspension, or controlling, for
the time being, of natural law. They are “‘ signs’’ of redemption from the power of natu-
ral law which now enchains us, and not, as many suppose, ‘‘ signs” which are only to
co-operate with natural law. Surveying the entire Redemptive Plan, and seeing that the
miraculous is the assurance given to us of an ultimate freedom from laws under which
the millions upon millions, including the saints, of earth’s inhabitants have groaned for
ages, it is a lack of faith to say that miracles do not come in direct conflict with natural
law and by the force of the Supernatural in them overcome in the blessed examples given,
leaving the natural law, after these isolated checks, to run onits allotted course until the
Supernatural comes in the Person of Jesus, at the Second Advent, to ** maie all things new.”
Therefore it is that we can so cordially receive nearly all definitions, because a miracle
is to be regarded as an act of Divine power (so Nast, Introd. Com. Matt.), an event which
the material laws of nature, without the Divine agency, could not possibly effect, which
event is a ‘‘ sign” or indication what the Divine power will do hereafter when natural
law shall be modified, changed, etc., in ‘‘ the world to come.’’ Hence we can receive
Dr. Schmucker’s (Pop. Theol., p. 29) definition : ‘* A miracle is a superhuman effect, an
event transcending the power of man, produced or occurring contrary to the well-known
and ordinary course of nature ;” or Horne’s (Introd. vol. 1, p. 93), that ‘‘ A miracle is
av effect or event contrary to the established constitution or course of things, or a sensi-
ble suspension, or controlment of, or deviation from, the known laws of nature, wrought
either, by the immediate act, or by the assistance, or by the permission of God, and
accompanied with a previous notice or declaration that it is performed according to the
purpose and by the power of God, for the proof or evidence of some particular doctrine,
or in attestation of the authority or divine mission of some particular person (Comp. defi-
nitions, Dr. Wardlaw On Miracles, Ency. Relig. Knowl., Smith’s Bib. Dic., Alexander's Evi-
dences, Glieg’s His. Bible, etc.). Those writers (as eg. Knapp, Theol. p. 59, M‘Clin-
tock and Strong’s Cyclop. Art. ‘* Miracles’’) who are anxious to conciliate objections, and
therefore make the miracles to be accomplished ‘‘ by means of nature’’ without altering,
disturbing, or counteracting natural law, constantly overlook not only of what really the
miracles are ‘‘ signs,’’ but that many of the miracles are the direct opposite of that
which would result from natural law. The continued force of natural law and the exist-
ence of a miracle are in antagonism, as seen, e.g., in natural law producing death and
retaining the victim in corruption and dissolution, while a life-giving miracle for the
time, breaks this law, suspends it, etc. The older definitions of theologians are conse-
quently nearer the truth than many (e.g. Princeton Review, Oct., 1853 ; Row’s ‘* Ch. Evi-
dences*;’ 1877, ‘* The Unseen Universe,’’) of the modern ones. And finally may we add,
that the use made (e.g. by Rob. Dale Owen and others) of this concession to natural law
not now recognized, is bearing its logical fruit in the denial of any miraculous power to
Christ, and in the assertion that the powers exercised by Him were all ‘‘ natural, as
occurring strictly under law.’’ * Our position closes the door against all such deductions,
exalting the immediate agency and Will of God. For miracles are designated ‘‘ powers”

* Thus, e.g., Potter (‘‘ Christianity and its Definitions”), speaking of the changes in be-
lief, remarks : “ Rarely now by any scholarly writer of any sect do we find the old idea
of miracle advocated. Instead of being regarded as a direct abrogation of natural law
by supernatural will, miracle is now pretty generally interpreted as the temporary action
of some higher law just as natural though rarer in its operations ; and some theological
writers even go so far.as to affirm that reason may yet explain miracles—a concession that
substantially abandons the miracle-idea ; as does also the use by many modern theologians
of the word supernatural in the sense of spiritual.’’ Interesting remarks illustrative of
this spirit, and in opposition to it, will be found in Uhlhorn’s ‘‘ Modern Repres. of the
Life of Jesus,’ Harless’s ‘‘ Life of Jesus,’’ Tholuck’s ‘‘ Credibility of the Gospel His-
tory,’’ Hofman’s ‘‘ Examination of the Life of Jesus by Strauss,” Smith’s ‘‘ Faith and
Philosophy,’’ and the writings on “ Miracles’’ by Collyer, Penrose, Evans, Litton, Mount-
ford, Upham, Belcher, Le Bas, Mansel, Haven, Rogers, Twesten, and many others, in-
cluding works on ‘‘ Evidences ;’ as Norton, Ebrard, etc., ete.
 PRop7, | THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 97
(dunameis), evidencing the potency of the Messianic King to introduce the Mill. era;
they are called “works’’ (erga), ‘‘ the works of God,’’ illustrating the divine ability to
accomplish all the promises of God, and, therefore, instead of shrinking from the Biblical
idea of a miracle, we accept of it with hope and joy, as indicative of glorious deliver-
ance. The miracles of the Old Test., the subject of special ridicule (such as ‘“‘ the
speaking ass,’’ Samson’s exploits, the destruction of the cities of the plain, etc.), are to
be regarded in this light, viz., showing how God’s power will be exerted in the future.

Obs. 3. Miracles are necessary to a revelation pertaining to the kingdom,

a kingdom which is to be set up by an astounding miraculous display.
They become parts, essential parts of the revelation, exhibiting the earnests
of power that is ultimately to accomplish it. If they were missing, an
important link would be gone. God engages to establish a kingdom and
one too in which the supernatural shall introduce mighty changes ; He
promises a Messiah who is to perform this work, and who, consequently,
must possess miraculous power ; the forces now at work in nature, instead
of tending toward it, cannot possibly accomplish what is foretold of the
future, and so long as they remain unchanged the promises of God con-
tinue unrealized ; when Jesus comes in accordance with Divine purpose He
must necessarily, not only in person, life, etc., but in actual exerted power
exhibit His ability to be the fuilfiller of prophecy ; His attestations of the
possession of such power are sustained by their connection with the Divine
plan, past and future prediction, moral aim, lack of self-contradiction,
public performance, etc. ; the power displayed is of a character corre-
sponding with that required by the predictions, power over nature, over
evil, over all things ; the unity of the Word, promising restoration from
evil now suffered under natural law, makes these miraculous representa-
tions essential, so that we can have faith and hope in the promised king-
dom, in His being the promised Messiah, who shall set it up, and in the
certainty of a future miraculous demonstration in our behalf in that king-
dom—all which is again corroborated by the fallen condition of man requir-
ing Divine interposition, by the necessity of its possession to constitute a
perfect Redeemer, by the personal experience of believers in receiving a
moral and providential ‘‘ earnest’? (comp. remarks by Haton, Perm. of
Christianity, ‘‘ On General and Special Providence’’), and by reason con-
ceding that a Divine purpose, extending from creation into the eternal ages
and embracing restitution as its glorious end, cannot possibly do without
them. The general sentiment of mankind has always expressed itself as
favorable to the idea of the miraculous, because deliverance from evil, now
entailed by natural law, has ever been felt as the special work of the super-
natural. Hence the miraculous incorporated, more or less, with all relig-
ions.
Designing simply to direct attention to the relation that the miraculous sustains to
the kingdom, several features of the subject are left for other Propositions, as, e.g. the
Patristic miracles (Prop. 168), the miracles of the Old Test. (Prop. 182). Some addi-
tional reflections may be presented respecting the methods employed to depreciate mira-
cles. We are told by Renan and others that the miraculous occurred. to persons who
believed in the same, whose faith and credulity made them incapable of a proper judg-
ment. Such, however, overlook (1) that ‘‘ ignorant” men should be able to incorporate
them as essentials in a developed plan of Redemption ; (2) that they do this without
eulogy, only stating the simple facts without enlarging ; (3) that they do this against
their strongest Jewish and national prejudices, as, e.g., in ascribing these to a dead,
crucified Jesus, in the miraculous conversion of Paul, in showing how little effect they
had upon the nation, etc.; (4) that this was done when it had the tendency to crush the
fond expectations of a present kingdom as anticipated, to turn them from the prejudiced
98 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 7.
nation to the Gentiles, to yield up all and proclaim ruin, etc., to the chosen nation ;
(5) that only after the crowning miracle of the resurrection of Jesus showed them that
the Divine Procedure as covenarted made these miracles indispensable links to a compre-
hension of the Redemptive Plan in the Messiah, did they unhesitatingly receive and
indorse them as the highest proofs of the Christship of Jesus. Froude (Short Studies, p.
187) informs us that the question about miracles is simply ‘“‘ one of evidence,’’ and de-
mands more evidence because ‘‘ antecedently improbable.’’ By this evidence he means,
as his Essay indicates, ‘‘ human testimony,” which he proceeds to undermine and render
worthless by saying : ‘‘ Human testimony, we repeat, under the most favorable circum-
stances imaginable knows nothing of absolute certainty.” Hence no testimony, no number
of witnesses can have any weight with this class, for they tell us, as Renan, that the
crucial test of ‘‘ conditions which science can accept” (i.e., a repeated scientific examina-
tion or investigation by unbelievers) has not been complied with, and therefore they can-
not beaccepted. (It isa wonder that such do not propose to subject the Plan of Redemp-
tion to a scientific investigation.) The old argument of Hume’s is revived and steadily
urged without considering the arguments of Butler, Campbell, Vince, Adam, Douglass,
Alexander, Horne, and others, while Froude, Renan, etv., in their published works con-
tradict themselves in the acceptance of testimony on all subjects outside of the miracu-
lous. It is true that the main reason alleged for such a rejection of testimony arises
from its supposed disagreement to the uniform, unchangeable laws of nature.* But are
those laws so unalterably fixed as these mentell us? If so, then ‘‘ the unchangeable laws
of nature” that produced the naturalistic origin of man, beasts, etc. (now such a favorite
with this class) ought to have remained ‘‘ unchangeable,” and they ought to-day under
our own observation to originate such men, beasts, ete. At least we ought to behold
some of the radical transformations, new modifications, etc., going on ; for (Comp.
Martensen, Ch. Dog. S. 77) eternal laws ought certainly to work as favorably and effect-
ively now as in ages past. Here then at the very outset something is taken for granted
as a false premise. Again, it certainly requires great assurance in any man who is utterly
unable to explain the nature, extent, source of power, etc., of natural laws to arrogate to
himself the ability of deciding that those in part known to himself by experience are the
only source of power ; that nothing higher, able to modify, shape, or suspend these laws,
is inexistence. Itis arguing in asmall circle : the testimony of a limited, personal expe-
rience is employed to upset the testimony of others’ experience ; for it is Hume’s,
Froude’s, Renan’s experience over against Paul’s, Peter’s, and John’s. The circle of the
former, like the Asiatic who refused to believe that water is changed to ice, refuse all
that is opposed to their experience or notion of experience, and in the act deliberately
shut out avenues of knowledge, seeing how largely man is dependent upon testimony.
If general experience is appealed to, that is simply a begging of the question, seeing that
the question at issue is that the experience of some has made them conversant with
miracles. Leaving this question of testimony and experience for Treatises specially de-
voted to its discussion, let the reader observe two things: (1) That the uniformity of
nature’s operations through established law is one of the essentials to enable us to dis-
criminate a miracle, i.e., the latter is based on and confirmed by the former. A uni-
formity suddenly arrested, and in isolated instances broken, and then again resumed, is

* J.S. Mill, in his Essay on ‘‘ Theism” (and “ Logic’’), himself unfriendly to the mi-
raculous, declares that Hume’s argument against miracles, based on testimony, is of no
weight, provided the existence of God is assumed and a sufficient exigency arises for
His making an interposition. This concession, from such a source, is valuable, although
Mill refuses to consider the higher testimony, viz., the connection of miracles to the
whole. Even the Spiritualists reject Hume’s reasoning, as seen, e.g., in Owen’s *‘ Foot-
falls,” etce., ch. 3, on ‘‘ The Miraculous.” Rev. Dr. Sprecher (Groundwork of Theol.
Div. 2) in a masterly argument shows that when a theistic position is assumed, it is
utterly inconsistent to deny the possibility of miracles, which alone can be done from a
naturalistic ground, introducing a hard mechanical theory, such, e.g., as Fiske proposes
in his “ Unseen World,” Art. 5, “A Word about Miracles.’’ (Hume has been an-
swered by Brown, ‘‘On Cause and Effect,” Campbell, “ Diss. on Miracles,” Whately’s
‘* Logic” (Ap.) and “ Historic Doubts,” Farrar’s “ Crit. His. of Free Thought,” Trench’s
“Notes on Miracles,’’ and others. Comp. Rev. Powell’s ‘‘Order of Nature considered in
reference to the Claims of Revelation,’ in which Hume’s argument is reproduced, and
then, in reply, the Art, in the North Brit. Review, by Prof. Baden Powell, ‘‘ The Order
of Nature.’’) ‘
 LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA
a tiie sre ct
te my Us fe

Prop. 7] THE THEOORATIC KINGDOM. 99

requisite. Uniformity then is one of the conditions required in order that a true
may appear. miracle
(2) That to say, as Science does through some of its representatives,
this uniformity is forever unchangeably the same, that it cannot be intermitted that
pass from the domain of facts (as evidenced in the naturalistic theory of the , is to
things when, it is asserted, law produced what it does not now) observed, into
origin of
that of mere
inference and deduction, which may or may not be true. It is only gross materialism
that assumes this to be true, and against materialism other arguments indicative
of
Divine Reason, Will, etc., are requisite before that of miracles is touched.
A writer in
Blackwood’s Mag. (1873) on ‘‘ The Issues raised ” by the Prot. Synod of France, briefly,
but well expresses these last features. But, after all, the miracles of the Bible are not
dependent on witnesses, for there is evidence immeasurably more satisfactory in their be-
half than that derived from mere human lestimony. Passing by that which satisfies
the
believer (viz., an experimental knowledge of the truth that it has power, etc.—for that
truth and the miraculous are united) it may be remarked : (1) That if the Divine Purpose
is carried on for ages in accordance with the Word given, then the Supernatural element
which brings forth and carries on the said Purpose amply covers the subordinate
ground of the miraculous,as the greater includes the lesser. (2) That miracles in virtue of
such a Divine Purpose being carried out are not “ antecedently improbable,” but the most
reasonable, being in full accord with the purposed Plan. (3) That the Divine Purpose
being not intended for a scientific test, the adjuncts, as, e.g., miracles, were not designed
for the same, but that they are to be regarded as necessary developments to insure faith
and hope in the Redemptive scheme. (4) Hence, they can only, in the nature of the
case, he confirmatory of the faith and hope of those who receive the Redemptive Plan.
(5) And that such adjuncts are sustained (a) by a Plan that we now see progressing toward
completion just as predicted, and (b) by individual features pertaining to the Divine Pur-
pose, as, e.g., in the condition of the Jews, the city of Jerusalem, the Church, ete. It is
unscholarly when dealing with miracles to refuse to look at that Divine Plan which de-
velops them, at the intent ascribed to them, and at the events connected with them
and still perpetuated. It is uncritical to overlook that miracles are addressed to an
already exercised faith in the Redemptive Purpose. It is uncandid to separate the mira-
cles from the Being and the Mission of Jesus Christ as represented in a continuous
Divine Worle.
The efforts to undermine miracles are suggested by the most opposite inferences. The
objection that a miracle is beyond our comprehension and therefore contrary to reason
(which Scientists waive when they propose a scientific test), is now in many quarters
superseded in the attempt to lessen their value by approvingly quoting Augustine as say-
ing that they are not suited to every age and mind, being designed as proof only for the
ignorant and not for the wise. In the one objection reason cannot grasp them, and in
the other they are only suitable for the lowest reason. And we have been pained in
noticing semi-believers and believers so influenced by this leaven that they disparage the
use of the miraculous. Thus even Farrar (in his excellent Life of Christ, Pref. p. 16) says
that “‘ to us such evidence is needless. To the Apostles they were the credentials of
Christ’s mission ; to us they are but fresh revelations of His Will. To us they are works
rather than signs, revelations rather than portents.” (In the body of the work, how-
ever, Farrar makes them both, and neutralizes his concession, as, ¢.g., p. 170, when mak-
ing “ the miracles of Christ as resulting from the fact of His Being and mission no less
naturally and inevitably than the rays of light stream outward from the sun.””) Regard-
ing them ds essential parts of a consistent Revelation, and as earnests of the fulfilment of
God’s Word, such lowering concessions of the miraculous, and such a questioning of the
adaptability of the same must be discarded. They are just as necessary for the wise’
as for the ignorant ; and if they were missing certain ‘“ wise’ ones would speedily detect
their essential nature, and would be the first to raise a cry at their absence, and learnedly
show that a revelation claiming to come from a Supernatural source and a kingdom pro-
posed to be set up by Supernatural power must have, as necessary proof or adjuncts,
some indications of the miraculous. No man is so wise or learned that he can possibly
dispense with miracles. Reason, common-sense, tell us that if lacking it would prove a
grave defect. Thus, e.g. what assurance could we have respecting the fulfilment of the
Redemptive Plan, as given, if the miracles of Christ’s birth, person, and resurrection were
wanting? How could the Scriptures be fulfilled without them? Suppose prophecy and
miracle were stricken out of the Record, what would be the hope that the future could
inspire? Let men bring forth all the reasons that hostile ingenuity can frame to lower
and degrade the miracles from their prominent position ; let them, like Strauss, Bauer,
and Renan, declare that the Absolute Cause “ never disturbs the chain of secondary causes
by single arbitrary acts of intervention,’ that God never interposes by “‘ any particular
100 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 7%.

intervention,’’ but that all things fall under eternal unchangeable laws ; we fail to see
how wisdom is justified in a course of reasoning (which coming from a creature indicates
‘* arbitrary freedom’’) that removes by one stroke the most positive knowledge that we
have of an existing God (for if God never intervenes, our knowledge of Him must be
solely inferential), and that if logically carried out, destroys the connection existing be-
tween the Creator and creation, God and man, crushes the fondest hopes of humanity in
the giant arms of irresistible Fate. The truth is, that in a subject connected, as it must
be (for no one can explain how the miracles were performed) with difficulty, no explana-
tion, or reasoning, or argument can be so complete but objections can be urged against
it if the heart desires it to be done. If this is true of the simplest propositions, how
much more is this so in a subject which in some of its aspects exceeds human compre-
hension—the latter a feature, too, that is requisite in order to be indicative of a Super-
natural element and not of mere human origin. Hence the part of wisdom is, while can-
didly weighing objections, not to allow a destructive process, which removes from man
the most cherished hopes—sustained by moral law—unless they can be replaced by more
substantial ones. To deride the faith or belief of any one, without being uble to point
out a better one, more solidly based, is certainly not characteristic either of wisdom or
prudence. To sit as Judge over God and decide what is proper and what improper for
Him to do in reference to His Creation or Purpose, is, to say the least, to arrogate to our-
selves a lofty, giddy position,

Obs. 4. The solution of miracles is found then in their connection with

God and Hisexpressed Will. This Will is especially noticeable in the doc-
trine of the kingdom. The kingdom, as the product of the supernatural,
demands miracles ; so that faith and hope in the kingdom, as covenanted
and predicted, requires belief in the miraculous. Faith in miracles is em-
braced in an intelligent utterance of the prayer, ‘‘ le¢é Thy will be done on
earth as tt is in heaven,’’ and the assurance that the same will ultimately
be realized is expressed in “‘ Thine is the power.’’ The believer gratefully
acknowledges his indebtedness to miracles ; for proceeding from the Divine
Will, they teach us in the most forcible manner that in this Will all forces,
all life, all things exist ; that in this Will is found an overruling, all-per-
vading Providence capable of general and special energy and supervision ;
and that in it will be found the most ample resources to meet the require-
mentsas predicted and promised, of the blessed kingdom itself. The mira-
cles strengthen faith, enliven hope, and, amid the pressure of natural laws
which entail evil, cheer the heart of the pilgrim with joy at a comin
miraculous restitution. 'The Scriptures can never, never be fulfilled with-
out miracle ; the earth can never, never be freed from its curse without
miracle ; man can never, never be delivered without miracle ; and, there-
fore, the Redeemer in whom we trust for redemption is, as history to-day
attests in the minute and wondrous fulfilment of His miraculous words, a
miracle-working Saviour. Let infidelity separate God and the world from
each other (and even deny that the latter had a Creator), so that the one is
not directly interested in the other, it may content itsclf with the unrea-
sonable, cold, cheerless, dark prospect that this view imparts, its darkness
only deepened by the loudly sung deceptive praises of ‘‘ cosmic force’’ and
a death-devoted humanity ; faith in preference takes the soul-inspiring
Biblical conception of a creation that has its origin and continuance in a
personal, intelligent, loving, all-powerful God; that this is sufficiently »
indicated in the Word, in miracles of knowledge and work, in history indi-
cating a progressive plan, in the personal experience of the believer, in the
person, doctrine, and works of the Messiah ; and that this will ultimately
be visibly manifested in the kingdom of God, when God again dwells with
man, man is rescued from his ruined condition, and placed in a renewed
Prop. 7.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 101

ce hee where no (unalterable) natural law shall exist to burden him with
evil,
Such is the importance of this subject that some additional remarks are in place.
With the author of ‘‘ Supernatural Religion,” we have no sympathy with the argument
of Dr. Irons and others, that the miraculous is to be received on the authority of the
Church. Nor do we rest, as shown, the miraculous upon mere human evidence; for
while the latter is a necessary adjunct, yet testimony, as Hume assumed, may be false.
Nor do we propose simply to exalt the credibility of the miracle by the doctrine that it
sustains, however important the union between them. Miracles are placed on higher
ground, viz., as reasonable, requisite features or parts of a developing and progressing
Divine Plan (fuliy announced) which is now in actual course of unfolding and in a cer-
tain stage of advancement, so that the ultimate End intended by the Plan is insured by
the progress already made. The test to be applied to the miracles, therefore, is the fol-
lowing : (1) Observe the nature of the Redemptive Plan, especially as revealed in its con-
summation as contemplated ; (2) notice the fact that its completion demands the miracu-
lous, seeing that it proposes to do what natural law in itself can never accomplish;
(3) hence, the importance and necessity of sustaining faith and hope in the Divine Pur-
pose by indications, especially in the Person of the King, of the miraculous. In this
way reason appreciates their pertinency and force, for their reality is evidenced by the
just relationship that they sustain to a proposed perfected Redemption—teaching us, more
strongly than words that (being “‘ signs” or appendages) the Supernatural will not be lack-
ing in power at the culminating period or time of manifestation. Locke in the Common-
place Book (pub. by Lord King) gives this aphorism : ‘‘ The doctrine proves the miracles,
rather than the miracles the doctrine.’’ Our view is this : The doctrine of the kingdom
(the contemplated Theocratic ordering) demands the miracles, and the miracles are added
to enforce our faith in the doctrine. Hence the twofold appeal in the Scriptures, viz.,
to believe the miraculous because of the doctrine associated with it, and to believe in
the doctrine because of its being justified by the miraculous connected with it. Taylor
has even in the title of his work (The Miracles: Helps to Faith, not Hindrances) expressed
an important truth, for it is pre-eminently true that our faith in the doctrine delivered
is sustained by the miracle of knowledge evidenced in the prophecies, in the Person and
Life of Jesus, in the signs or earnests given of a glorious future. These form the basis
of a firm hope of ultimate deliverance, making the promises of a Sec. Advent, resur-
rection, renewed earth, etc., realities. To all this is added the corroborative personal
experience of every one who receives and obeys the truth, which is amply conclusive evi-
dence to every one, even the most ignorant, unable to see how the miraculous is an essen-
tial part of a related consecutive Divine Plan in actual course of development and fulfil-
ment. (Comp. Experimental evidence as presented, e.g., in Rogers’ Eclipse of Fuiih,
Mozley’s Bampton Lects., Chalmers’ ‘* Evidences,” etc.) The self-appropriation of the
truth (inseparably united with the miraculous), and the resultant experience in the heart
and life, amid the trials and sorrows of earth, is in itself so satisfactory that the child
and the philosopher, the unlettered and the learned, alike feel and admit its force. The
lapse of time instead of weakening (as some assert), really adds power to the testimony
favorable to miracles, seeing that the personal experience of many has verified, century
after century, the truth of revelation. Reason and Faith both confirm the miraculous.
As Walker (Philos. of the Plan of Salvation, ch. 3) has well enforced by interesting consid-
erations, ‘‘ Man cannot, in the present constitution of his mind, believe that religion has
a divine origin, unless it be accompanied by miracles.” Bushnell (Nature and Supernatu-
ral) has well placed, as a conclusive proof in behalf of the miraculous, faith (experiment-
ally realized in its transforming power) in the Superhuman character and work of Christ,
‘These two united —reason appreciating the Divine Plan and its relations, and faith realiz-
ing the earnest bestowed—are irresistible, —soul-satisfying.
102 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 8.

Proposition 8. The doctrine of the kingdom presupposes that of

sin, the apostasy of man.
The prophets with one voice proclaim, that this kingdom is to be
established in order that in it man may find complete, perfect de-
liverance from sin and evil. The kingdom is to be set up, so that
man and nature may be happily rescued from the curse entailed by
sin under which both labor and groan.
Obs. 1. It is needless to discuss the difficult problem of sin ; the fact of
its presence and power is amply sufficient. It is a fundamental fact, and
the superstructure of the Bible is in a measure’ reared upon it ; for the
Bible is a revelation of God’s plan to save man from his fallen condition.
The kingdom in its conception, preparation, and ultimate establishment
implies, and constantly keeps in view, a recovery from sin and its resultant
evil. The kingdom originates in God’s merciful desire to deliver us from
the reign and power of sin ; to bring us back into a state of entire restitu-
tion and perfect salvation. It is the manifestation of such salvation, in
which man’s will shall be in accord with God’s, and in which unspeakable
blessedness, flowing from such a restoration, shall be realized. It has for
its chief ruler a Saviour who saves from sin, and for its associated rulers
and subjects those who are redeemed from sin. It is a kingdom which in
its preparatory measures calls for repentance of sin (Matt. 3:1), donver-
sion from sin (Matt. 18 :3), self-denial of sin (Mark 9 : 47), perseverance
against sin (Luke 9 : 62), and most emphatically refuses admittance into
the kingdom of those who indulge in sin (1 Cor. 6:9, 10). The scheme
of redemption is founded upon the principle annunciated by Jesus : ‘‘ The
that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.’’ The disease,
as well as the physician and remedy, must be kept in view in order to ap-
preciate the provision made for us.’
! Hence Schleiermacher, as Tholuck (in Address to Evang. Alliance, N. Y., Harper’s
Ed.) remarks : ‘‘ All philosophical terms and definitions, all physical investigations, all
theses whatever, that could not be derived by strict inference from the profound feeling
of sinfulness and the certainty of redemption, were excluded from the dogmatical system
of Schleiermacher.” Fred. Den. Maurice regards it as a defect in theology that it should
start from and build on sin instead of proceeding from God. While there is force in the
objection, and while we show in this work that the idea or Plan of the kingdom was
something anterior to the fall of man, yet it must also be admitted that this Plan is pro-
jected and developed in accordance with the foreknown fall. As the Bible is a book
given to indicate the recovery of man from the fall—hence beginning with the fall and
ending with the recovery—the fact of the fall should certainly be allowed its due promi-
nency without however overlooking and discarding the antecedent facts. The true basis
is the Kdenic state and what it contemplated. Sin intervened, but the Divine Purpose is
to restore man to the state forfeited by sin. Hence the Bible opens with Paradise and
ends with Panadise ; it does not begin with sin and end with sin.
2 A believer in the Scriptures must concede that without freely admitting the fallen,
sinful, ruined condition of man, the kingdom itself cannot be appreciated ; that the
Prop. 8.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 103
latter contains within itself perfected Redemption, completed Salvation from the former
and its direful results. Sin with its deadly train of evils is found at the opening of the
Bible ; the kingdom, with its attendant deliverance and blessings of restitution at its
close ; creation comes to us marred by sin, travails in pain waiting for its rescue, when
the sons and daughters of the kingdom are manifested. The one precedes the other;
and the one calls forth the love and mercy of God to produce the other. While the
kingdom antedates sin and evil so far as the Divine Purpose is concerned, practically it
follows as a delivering medium.

Obs. 2. The introduction of sin and its continued existence is a deep

mystery." The strongest intellects have endeavored to solve it, but in vain.
The most subtle theories respecting its eternity, its necessity, its natural-
ism, its fatalism, its relation to a moral system, its ‘‘ creational imper-
fection,’’ its phenomenal nature, its tendency asa trial of faith, etc., are
presented, but none of them entirely remove the difficulties connected with
the subject. It still remains an unexplained mystery, so much so that
Mill, rejecting the Biblical conception of the mighty God, explains (Dogma
and Interature) the introduction of evil by limiting the power of the God he
reverences, and thus leaves the dreary, hopeless prospect of no future de-
liverance. The Bible makes no effort to explain it ; only speaking of it as
a painful fact, allowed by the permission of an Omnipotent God, and
which shall be by His power ultimately crushed. No labored effort in the
way of proof is given by inspiration, but a constant appeal is made fo our
own consciousness of the necessity and truthfulness of Divine interposition
in view of the sense of moral guilt, the evils to which we are subject, the
helplessness and limited duration of man, the otherwise inexorable embrace
of nature, etc. A fundamental teaching on almost every page is this: that
man wnaided cannot deliver himself from sin and its sad consequences, but
imperatively requires Divine help in his need. This is most unmistakably
presented in the Word ; in the conditions and limitations surrounding us ;
and in the experience and life of every person who will but take time for
reflection and self-appropriation of the truth. If sin, its results, and the
need of a Redeemer are ignored or denied after the dreadful and merciful
language of the Bible; after the costly provision made for us through
Jesus Christ ; after the testimony given by conscience and the world’s his-
tory ; after the universal distinction observed between natural and moral
evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, merit and demerit, praise and
blame ; after the propitiatory sacrifices of the ancients and heathen ; after
the manifested antagonism to that which is good and holy exhibitedin the
strife between duty and passion, love and selfishness, moral obligation and
a violated conscience ; after the confessions of the most devoted and pious
of mankind ; after the ten thousand warnings, threats, appeals, and invita-
tions pressed home to a respondent consciousness by the Supreme Ruler
Himself, then nothing that we can add will influence the heart and mind of
the unbeliever.?
1 Compare the candid remarks of Hudson (Debi and Grace, p. 20): ‘ It (sin) is essen-
tially without reason—an act of unreason. To assign a good reason for it would be to
justify it as a thing reasonable, which is contrary to its nature. It knows no rational or
logical connection. It knows no law ; it is pure anomaly. It is the surd quantity which
no theologic algebra can determine. It can be reduced to no intelligible principle ; it
baffles explanation.” Hudson aptly quotes Neander (Pl. of Vh. B. 6, ch. 1, note) as say-
ing : “‘ According to my conviction, the origin of evil can only be understood as.a fact—a
fact possible by virtue of the freedom belonging to a created being, but not to be other.
wise deduced or explained. It lies in the idea of evil that it is an utterly inexplicable thing,
104 THE TIHEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 8.

and whoever would explain it nullifies the very idea of it. It is not the limits of our
knowledge which make the origin of sin something inexplicable to us, but it follows
from the essential nature of sin as an act of free-will that it must remain to all eternity
an inexplicable fact. It can only be understood empirically by means of the moral self-
consciousness.” Julius Miiller (The Ch. Doc. of Sin), with Neander, holds that the exist-
ence of evil is inconceivable in its actuality—that the abuse of free-will is essentially irra-
tional, an act of unreason. Bushnell (Nat. and Supernat. p. 128) concludes: ‘‘ We find
then—this is the result of our search—that sin can nowise be accounted for ; there are
no positive grounds, or principles back of it, whence it may have come.” Schlegel
(Philos. of His. p. 391) calls it “ the greatest historical mystery—the deepest and most
compheated enigma of the world.’”’ (Comp. Martensen, Ch. Dog.) The student's atten-
tion is directed to Keerl’s His. of Ureation and Doc. of Paradise, and Art. in Bib. Sacra,
Oct. 1863, Doctrine of the Full of the World (with which Comp. Kurtz’s Bible and Astron-
omy, Beecher’s Conflict of Ages, etc.) Keerl claims many eminent Philosophers, Natural-
ists and Theologians as holding to the idea that physical disorders and evil resulted
from the fall of a previous (to this one) holy earth, which was precipitated into a chaotic
state, owing to the fallen estate of Satan and his angels. However such a line of defence
may be adapted to remove some naturalistic objections (as, e.g., in reference to death
existing previous to the trial of Adam, etc.), yet every appeal to a pre-existent state only
shifts the mystery farther back and leaves it unsolved.
* Alas, many taking advantage of the mystery of evil, and overlooking how the terrible
fact is supported by incontestible evidence, even in their own experience, ntterly deny
the existence of sin, and pronounce evil to be simply an imperfection of nature. Mate-
rialistic views, as, e.g., in Moleschott, Paine, Vogt, etc., necessarily lead to such contra-
dictory conclusions, making conscience a delusion, the sense of moral obligation a vain
deceit, and thus overriding the respect shown by ages to moral law and man’s self-con-
sciousness. It is only extremists, who make little of the Supernatural, that take such a
position ; for multitudes who deny the authority of the Bible, still cling, under the sense
that some kind of Religion is a necessity, to the notion that sin and evil, however
explained, are a resultant of our connection with a Power outside of us—a Supernatural
source—that has placed us under moral law, and made us susceptible to its behests. No
matter how the origin of it is explained, as an imperfection, or a dualistic antagonism, or
an eternal corruption, or a necessary offset of free-will, or a developer of good, trial, dis-
cipline, divine attributes, etc., or the result of temptation, or the necessary accompani-
ment of a moral system, etc., both unbelief and belief cannot fathom the mystery. Un-
belief cannot do it, for it leaves us in the dark why it should be introduced in the man-
ner asserted by it ; and belief is equally powerless to assign a satisfactory reason. The
difficulty, so long as we allow aSupreme Being of Love and mercy to have heen the Origi-
nator of all things, is beyond our solution, and perhaps Laurentius Calla (quoted by Hud-
son) was not far wrong when he said, ‘‘I doubt if the angels themselves know it.’’ Dr.
Johnson (Works, vol. 2, p. 604), in reviewing the reasons assigned for the Origin of evil,
concludes : “ For the Evils of Life there is some good reason, and in confession that the
reason cannot be found,”’

Obs. 3. The wisdom of the Bible is justified by its silence respecting the
origin of evil. Had it condescended to such explanations as are given in
various theodicies, it would have indicated a mere human opinion, and
not a divine inspiration. <A painful defect would then be visible, which
infidelity would eagerly seize, and urge against its authority.
The Bible, therefore, in its reticence shows itself superior to the vain, limited efforts
of man in this direction ; it simply states the fact, explains the nature of sin (as the
transgression of the law, the perverse act of the free-will, etc.), tells us that it was per-
mitted by God, and that He has graciously made provision against it. The Scriptures
teach that sin and its results are hateful to God; that they exist only through divine
sufferance ; that forbearance and mercy now allow their manifestation ; that enduring
long-suffering will at an appointed time end ; and both shall be rooted out of this world.
Pascal (quoted by Dr. M’Cosh in reply to Huxley), after showing that man has both great-
ness and misery, and that his condition is not one of absolute grandeur or of hopeless
degradation, adds : “So manifest is it that we were once in a state of perfection from
which we are now unhappily fallen. It is astonishing that the mystery which is the
farthest removed from our knowledge--I mean the transmission of original sin—should
Prop. 8.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 105

be that without which we can have no true knowledge of ourselves. It is in this abyss
that the clue to our condition takes its turnings and windings, insomuch that man is
more incomprehensible without this mystery than this mystery is incomprehensible to
man.’’ The painful, sad fact is one of general conviction, however explained by
ancients and moderns (Leathes’ Relig. of Christ, sec. 1). Williamson (Theol. and Moral
Science, p. 118, etc.), a Universalist writer, fully admits a natural conflict, into which
every man falls, between the law of love and the law of animal nature, from which per-
sonal sin arises, and declares, “ that conflict exists as a constitutional fact in every human
being ;’’ hence, as all men, more or less, violate the law of love in this conflict, all men
are sinners. However we may attempt to expound this subject, the Biblical conception
that we are sinners needing Redemption is one enforced by moral consciousness, provided
the truth as given by God is allowed to exert its designed influence by self-appropriation.
Rogers (Superhuman Origin of the Bible, sec. 2) assigns as one of the reasons that the
Bible is given by God, that the moral portrait of man as presented in it is one utierly
opposed to the natural man. The indictment that all have gone astray, that all are sin-
ners, that all are worthy of condemnation, is too sweeping for man—owing to pride, etc.
—alone to have generated. To this we add, thatif man had produced this portrait within
his own knowledge, he would, as multitudes in their efforts attest, have entered into
explanations, definitions, interpretations, opening out endless metaphysical and philo-
sophical discussions. The admirable simplicity and silence of the Bible upon a subject,
which, in the nature of the case, demands the highest intellectual development, is a col-
lateral and decided proof of its divine origin. Man, unsupported and unguided, would
have overstepped the limits assigned, and introduced confusion and difficulties.

Obs. 4. The problem of evil, which has so greatly exercised and per-
plexed the wisest of men, is connected with the mystery that will be fin-
ished (Rev. 10:7). Until that predicted period arrives, unsatisfactory
conjectures must suffice. God has not yet seen fit to give us the reasons
for its origin and continued existence, excepting in broken hints respect-
ing free agency, trial, mercy, long-suffering, etc., preferring to deal with
it as a constantly experienced fact. With this we must rest content,
assured of one thing, that in some way it will be found promotive of His
own glory. Reason can already gather and assign (as various writers,
Miller, Tholuck, Oosterzee, etc., have done) considerations and arguments
indicative of the same, but as our object is merely to direct attention to
those derived from the kingdom, such may be passed by without remark,
The kingdom being designed to restore the harmony existing before the fall
between God and man, and man and nature, it also deals with the fact of
evil without entering into its origin. Looking at the final result, the end
as attained in the kingdom, it may well be allowed that God permitted the
entrance of evil and its continuance because He could overrule it gloriously.
Sin is opposed to the theocratic idea, it is hostile to it, but God seeing that
He could still, with honor to Himself, restore the designed theocracy even in
a most splendid manner, permitted sin,’ only restraining it within certain
limits by entailed evils. Sin brought forth, as a counteracting potent
agency through extended love and mercy, the humanity of Jesus, the
Christ, 2.e. it created the necessity, in order to produce a successful and
powerful theocratic kingdom, of God identifying Himself with man in the
Son of David, thus bringing Him into a nearer and most intimate relation-
ship with humanity, and preparing the way for a manifested theocratic
rule over the world. In brief, it led to the bringing forthaGod-man as the
theocratic King who should, in virtue of His distinguished position, be
able to deliver us from all evil. God’s forbearance and love is justified in
this wonderful union of the divine and human, and the correspondent
restoration of His theocratic rule in the form best adapted and most
honorable to humanity.’
106 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 8.

1 We cannot limit the power of God. Thus, e.g., Williamson (Theol. and Moral Science,
p. 204, ete.) endeavors to vindicate God by making evil a necessary result of creation,
and conceives it impossible for God to have created a universe like ours, limited in space
and conditioned by time, ‘‘ without involving the necessity of the relations of evil that
emerge from its process and movements.’’ This, however—while not so derogatory as
Mill’s impotent God—is too sweeping, being forbidden by a previous Paradisaical state,
God’s abhorrence of sin, iis entailed curse, and the future deliverance of creation. We must fall
back upon the position assumed by Leibnitz (Knapp’s Theol. p. 265) in his Theodicy,
viz., to look at the end attained, which, in view of the good results produced (e.g., in
the King brought vs, in the kings and priests developed, in the Theocracy it establishes,
in the Redemption of the race it brings forth, in the praise and glory it causes, etc.),
influenced God, who knoweth all things, to aliow its introduction. (Comp. Oosterzee’s
Ch. Dog., Herzog’s Ency., Art. “ Sin,’ Julius Miiller’s ‘‘ Ch. Doc. of Sin.’’)
The permission of sin—however it may be founded, as eminent writers endeavor to
show, on personal liberty, free-will-—is certainly based on the fact—as taught in the
Bible—that God can and does overrule it to be ultimately promotive of His own glory
(so, e.g., “* Greybeard’’ (Graff), “Lay Sermons,’’ No. 42, on *‘ The blessings of the Fall’) ;
otherwise He would not have tolerated its existence for so many burdened centuries.
2 God’s ways, however mysterious to us now, will be justified in ‘‘ the age to come ;”
and that justification will be found in the Kingdom as constituted under the Messiah.
Sin has beaten down and perverted the Theocratic ordering of God as originally
designed, and anciently unfolded in its initiatory ; it caused the postponement of the
same for many centuries ; it will resist with increased power at the period of its revela-
tion ; it will band the kings of the earth and their armies against the Theocratic King,
but it will ultimately be vanquished, and then the deep mystery will be unfolded. Then
it will be seen that the strength of sin is so great that nothing short of Omnipotence can
meet and destroy it ;that nothing less than unspeakable love and mercy can provide
means commensurate to overcoming it ; that nothing but the Theocratic power lodged
in King Jesus can triumphantly resist and crush it. The co-heirs with Christ have shown
their qualification by a voluntary renunciation of sin for co-rulership in a kingdom
which is expressly designed to destroy all evil. When this time comes, then all will be
made manifest ; until then patience and hope must be ours. Now we see “‘ througha glass
darkly,’’ but then—after a few thousand years’ experience showing that without God’s
personal government, the race cannot be happy—all will be explained—just as Joseph’s
antecedent trials—consistently with the Divine Sovereignty and a superintending Provi-
dence. Faith, with child-like trust, receives the fact, and leaves the explanation with a
returning God.

Obs. 5. Taking the Bible account of sin and its results, it is important
to notice what are the forfeited blessings, and then to see whether the
kingdom, which embraces the practical realization of the plan of redemp-
tion, restores all that the race lost. The enumeration of the most weighty
are the followmg: 1. The loss of moral purity; 2. The entailment of
physical degeneracy ; 3. Subjection to toil, disease, death, and corrup-
tion; 4. The withdrawal of the personal presence of God; 5. Divine
intercommunication with angelic beings removed ; 6. The infliction of a
curse upon creation ; 7. A struggle for life and its blessings under uniform
natural law, 7.¢e. the special provision of Eden under the supernatural no
longer afforded ; 8. The loss of Eden itself; 9. The non-perpetuation of
the race in a state of innocency and purity ; 10. The non-erection of a
perfect government because of resultant depravity. These are the sad
fruits of sin, impressed by the consciousness of guilt. Now the primitive
Church doctrine of the kingdom, fully sustained by the plain teaching of
the Scriptures, affirms a complete restoration of all these blessings. The
reader’s indulgence is asked until we pass over the doctrine as given in the
Word, and by the early Church. This much, however, may be said,
1. That such blessings forfeited can only be restored through Divine inter-
ference; 2. That such a restitution indicates the completeness of the
 Prop. 8.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 107
Divine plan ; 3. That such a removal of evil shows forth the might and
perfection of the Saviour ; 4. That such a Divine purpose contained in the
Bible and established by the inestimable gift of a Redeemer, ever keeping
in view this completeness, never contradicting itself, extending through
every book of the Scriptures, and given in successive ages and by men in
varied circumstances and conditions of life, must be, as claimed, an
inspired one.
In addition : Observing the ultimate end contemplated by the Divine Purpose, and
noticing the remarkable provision made already for the removal of sin and evil, several
things, resulting from a consideration of the dealings of God in preparing for the con-
summation, must be impressed upon our minds. (1.) The remedial measures introduced
and enforced by Divine Sovereignty, finding their climax in the sacrificial death of Jesus
Christ, show that man must have fallen from his former estate, thus making them neces-
sary. (2.) The call to repentance and faith to conform to the remediul provisions, indi-
cates in the trial given to man that sin is voluntary. (3.) A Plan of Redemption
culminating in the blessings of the Kingdom, and flowing from God’s wisdom, love, and
mercy, is eminently worthy of man’s consideration and acceptance. (4.) This Plan to
be properly appreciated ought to be contemplated as a whole, and not merely in some of
its particulars. (5.) That if the Plan, as a whole, is adapted to secure the end designed,
and if carried out will inevitably produce the result (Redemption perfected) aimed at,
then the subsidiary parts (including the fall, etc.) are also worthy of reception as
being related to it—the greater including the lesser. (6.) The manifestation of a visi-
ble Theocratic ordering is alone capable of crushing sin and removing it from the
world. (7.) That evil under which man and the world labors—however subservient as
a punishment, as testing faith, character, etc.—is the result of God’s disapprobation of
sin, and is only tolerated in view of the ultimate result that God brings forth from
its existence.
The favorite theory of many (Lubbock, and others), to invalidate the Biblical account
of a fall from a higher to a lower position, is to advocate a constant and invariable rise
and progression from a lower to a higher state, i.e., from the lowest savageism to the
highest civilization. But this is only recognizing one factor in the past, viz., that such
a rise and progress can be the result of favorable circumstances and proper moral
and religious appliances. But another factor, that vitiates the universality of the theory,
is purposely overlooked, viz., that man has also degenerated into savage life, dwindled
from power into weakness, from vast numbers into a small number and even into extinc-
tion, —as exemplified in the works of past ages, the labors of extinct races, the remains of
past nations, Assyrian, Egyptian, Persian, Roman, Mound-workers, etc. Man (as e.g.
Frothingham, Art. in North Amer. Review, 1878, p. 46, ‘Is man a depraved creature ?’’)
may deny the natural depravity of man, and designate the first Adam “ a fiction” and
‘“myth,” a ‘‘ creature of speculation, and as a creature of speculation his existence dates
back no farther than a century or so (!) before Christ.’’ Our line of argument will amply
meet such heart-wrought objections ; for the present it is sufficient to observe that
upon this ‘‘ myth’’ is based by “‘ ignorant and designing men” a most wonderful plan of
restitution, with such a unity, so astounding in its manifestations through many centu-
ries, and so well attested by a continued and existing fulfilment of prophecy and of per-
sonal experience, that. such writers are utterly unable to account for “‘ the fiction” that
so many esteem the precious truth.

Obs. 6. Latterly it has become fashionable in the works of Naturalists,

Free Religionists, etc., to ignore evil and enter into a laudation of nature,
its harmony, its goodness, uniform beneficence, etc. ‘This is purposely
done, so that Christianity, which holds forth, in connection with the good,
the dark side of nature, may suffer by the comparison. The contrast,
however, is imperfect ;and the spirit suggesting it, if not dislike to the
Bible, at least does injustice to its teachings. The ostrich is said to deem
itself out of danger when its head is thrust into the sand and its pursuer for
the time is unseen ; so these, by simply closing their eyes to the inevitable
of nature, consider themselyes the highly favored sons and daughters of
108 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 8.

natural law and development. The suffering, misery, sorrow, destructive

agencies, voracious grave entailed by and experienced through nature, are
sedulously kept out of view, and nature or the absolute is nothing but
manifested, realized love, while in Christianity the God, who is repre-
sented as making provision for deliverance from such evil, is nothing but
a tyrant, a gloomy despot! Is this fair or candid? Without pausing to
inquire how far theology with its deductions and inferences added to the
Word is responsible for driving men into such a state of antagonism, it is
sufficient to say : if nature, or the absolute, is all that they claim, although
evil and death are allowed, why not apply the same criticism to the God of
Revelation, who also has permitted the same, that they do to nature? And
the more so, because the God of the Bible proposes a recovery from evil
which the other, in no shape or form, suggests? Evidently, because it
does not suit their purpose; and because it would inevitably weaken and
destroy their own argument. Before applying their destructive criticism
to Revelation, let them first reconcile with their own theory of love, etc.,
the evil that is in nature, its destroying forces, diseases, pestilences, agony,
and devouring death. If they cannot reconcile this with their own notion
of a loving nature or absolute, let them frankly confess it; if they can
explain and reconcile all this with their theory of goodness, thousands
would gladly welcome the solution. Until such a solution is given, they
of all others, because relying upon reason, should not object to the mystery
of evil as related to Divine revelation. Ifa reconciliation were attempted,
avoiding ultra naturalism and admitting an intelligent first cause, it would
evidently fall in the line of those attempted in behalf of the God of the
Bible. We are content to receive the Biblical account that evil is the
resultant of a rejection of the theocratic idea (7.e., a violation of God’s
rule), that it continues until God has, by a course of testing, gathered out
all the material requisite to establish the theocracy in a most glorious and
triumphant manner, and that when all things are prepared, the postpone-
ment caused by sin will close by the complete overthrow of evil through the
appointed King and His co-rulers.
It is true that those who advocate the Nihilism of the individual man, his perishing,
admit the evil in Nature, and from it, owing to unchangeable law, are forced into their
theory of gloom. But even such are again divided into two classes. One party, as some
German writers, present no hope of the future, being logically driven to it by the fact
that the evils are so inexorably related to eternal natural law that they are beyond man’s
power of removal. Another party, however (as e.g. Winwood Reade in Martyrdom of
Man), while giving no hope to the individual man (mere “‘ animated jelly’’), somehow, in
a Pantheistic idealism, dream of a glorious future for Humanity. How illogical this is,
needs no explanation, seeing that inevitable natural law which promises no deliverance
from evil for the individual, presents none for humanity in the future. Rather than
humbly to receive the Word of God, men will seek out and-trust in the most extravagant
theories.
It is worthy of notice that some unbelieving philosophers give as dark a portraiture of
human nature as the most ultra theologian. Passing by the Nihilists, we select e.g.
Mill, who, in one of his Essays, remarks: ‘‘ Man, viewed as a simple production of
nature, has in him but one good thing, the capacity of improvement ; he is naturally
devoid of a sense of truth, a coward, cruel, selfish, and even a lover of dirt. The truth
is, there is hardly a point of excellence belonging to human character which is not
decidedly repugnant to the untutored feelings of human nature.’’ ‘* Whatever good
thing man now possesses, either in himself or in his outward surroundings, he has
attained not from the gift of nature but from his having conquered and subdued her.”’
Then contrast the laments of Nihilism, and the shading of the picture is immensely
darker than that given by the Word ; and yet men accuse the Bible of gloom, etc. Now
Prop. 8.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 109

which class of our opponents are we to credit? The one, that eulogizes, or the other,
that depreciates human nature? Or, is it the safest to take the medium and explanation
given in the Word, viz., that man, although fallen, possesses noble characteristics
worthy of being redeemed and employed in his Creator’s service ; that fallen, he is
unable to deliver himself from the sinfulness and evil entailed without Divine Help ;
and that accepting such aid, tendered in love and mercy, it restores him to a position of
moral worthiness and excellence by directing his capacities and powers in the way of
holiness and love.
A word of caution in conclusion : The attacks of unbelief come from all sides, and one
of the most despicable that has fallen under our observation is that which endeavors to,
charge the Word of God with advocating sin cr rather fleshly lusts. Whatever may have
been the sinful practices of professors or of the church in the past, the Bible pointedly
condemns all such, warns us that they shall be witnessed, and urges us to purity and holi-
ness. This is so plain, that he who denies it does deliberate violence to a distinguishing
characteristic of the Scriptures. The Word, which provides so costly a provision for
sin, cannot and does not indulge it. Now it happens that recently some writers (as e.g.
the author of Ancient See Worship) endeavor to show that the fleshly tendency in human
nature to worship the sexual organs as emblematic, etc., is, more or less endorsed by
Christianity. This offensive manner of bringing discredit upon the Word by linking
with it the excesses of sex worship, defeats itself in the estimation of every reflecting
and sensible mind, because the Bible so pointedly condemns all fleshly lusts and posi-
tively declares that those entertaining them shall never inherit the Kingdom of God.
110 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PROP: 9.

Proposition 9. The nature of, and the things pertaining to the

kingdom, can only be ascertained within the limits of Scripture.
This kingdom is God’s kingdom; it is one that He proposes to
establish, and being the outgrowth of His Divine purpose, we must
apply to Him for information respecting it. This He extends to us
in His Word, and what He has said, being the only One capable of
imparting knowledge on the subject, is to be received in preference
to human opinions. The kingdom itself, the subject of a thousand
prophecies pertaining to the future, is, as delineated by God, a pre-
diction of that which is to come, and hence beyond human ability
to portray, unless God's description of it is carefully studied and
copied. Outside of the Scriptures, nothing reliable is to be found,
only excepting in so far as it may be in accord with Holy Writ.
Scripture, and that alone, contains the reliable, authoritative infor-
mation ; and therefore, instead of going to second sources, applica-
tion should be made to the fountain-head itself to appreciate and
enjoy the issuing pure stream of covenant and prophecy. God’s
words in describing what He intends to perform, are most certainly
to be preferred to man’s. We are justified in thus placing confi-
dence alone in the Word of God, seeing that, when this kingdom is
to be manifested in all its glory, the King Himself has the signifi-
cant name (Rev. 19:18), in addition to the one upon His vesture
and thigh, ‘‘T7he Word of God,” for it is in Him, by Him, and
through Him that the Word is fulfilled and realized.
One of the distinguishing results of the Reformation was ‘‘ the resurrection of the
Bible,’ making it, as in the Apostolic era, the object of constant citation and appeal.
In view of this Chillingworth (Works, c. 4) said: ‘‘ The Bible only is the Religion of
Protestants,’ and Dorner (His. Prot. Theol. 1, 2) remarks: ‘* Protestanti8m seeks,
indeed, its ultimate foundation in the nature of Christianity, as it is handed down to us
in a documentary form in the Scriptures.’’ With this may be compared the utterances
of Protestant Confessions and Symbolical books, as e.g. Westminster Conf., Art. of
Church of Eng., Conf. Hel., Book of Concord, Neth. Confess., Heidelberg Cat., ete. For
the opinions of Luther, Zwingie, Calvin, etc., see Hagenbach’s His. of Doclrines, Vol. 2,
sec. 240, who also informs us (Vol. 1, sec. 212) that ‘‘ the formal principle of the Refor-
mation, of Protestantism is subjection to the authority of Scripture.’’ Dr. Schaff (The
Principle of Protestantism, p. 70, etc.) discusses this ‘‘ formal or knowledge principle” in
an interesting manner, asserting: ‘‘If there be then any unerring fountain of truth,
needed to satisfy religious want, it can be found only in the Word of God, who is himself
the truth ; and this becomes thus consequently the highest norm and rule, by which to
measure all human truth, all ecclesiastical tradition, and all synodical decrees.” (Comp.
Art. ‘‘ The Apostles’ Creed,’’ Princeton Review, 1852.) Dr. Schaff justly shows how this
was a revival of the position occupied by the early’church, by some of the later Fathers,
and even, however obscured and fettered by subsequent tradition, by some of the Roman
Catholic divines, forcibly quoting Moehler, etc. The usual Romish view is expressed by
Bellarmine, making the Church superior to the Bible, its judge ; and this is exemplified
e.g. in Heefert (Hagenbach’s His. of Doc. Vol. 1, p. 424) pronouncing the doctrinal posi-
Prop. 9.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. aie

tion of Wycliffe and Huss at their trials (viz., as solely founded on the Scriptures), ‘‘ the
Alpha and Omega of error.’’ Hippolytus (Bunsen’s Lippolytus, Vol. 2, p. 144), says:
“There is one God, my brethren, and Him we know only by the Holy Scriptures. For
in a like manner as he who wishes to learn the wisdom of this world cannot accomplish
it without studying the doctrines of the philosophers, thus all who wish to practise
divine wisdom will not learn it from any other source than from the Word of God. Let
us therefore see what the Holy Scriptures pronounce ; let us understand what they
teach ; and let us believe what the Father wishes to be believed, and praise the Son as
He wishes to be praised, and accept the Holy Spirit as He wishes to be given. Not
according to our own will, nor according to our own reason, nor forcing what God has
given, but let us see all this as He has willed to shew it by the Holy Scriptures.”

Obs. 1. The doctrine of the kingdom being one of the greatestin the
Bible (Props. 1 and 2), it must, like all pure Christian doctrine, be found
within its pages. No true or scripturally founded doctrine of the king-
dom can possibly be at variance with the express language of Holy Writ.
This is self-evident, and important use will be made of this principle,
clearly showing as we proceed that no doctrine on this subject excepting
that of the primitive Christian Church is in full sympathy with the Word.
This correspondence, so far as one sense, the literal, is concerned, our most
decided opponents frankly admit.
This work being largely composed of doctrine, it is proper, briefly, to notice the
notion extensively held and strenuously advocated (e.g. Dr. Arnold in Lilerutwre and
Dogma), that it makes no material difference what we believe only so that the conduct is
right, for “ religion is conduct,” etc. This is a crusade renewed against the presentation
of truth in a dogmatical or doctrinal form, and finds a champion in Prof. Seely, who
raises the standard, ‘‘ Christian morality without dogmas.’’ This cry is raised in many
quarters, being duly appreciated by the sceptical as a blow at a vital part of Christianity.
(Thus e.g. D’Aubigne, in his Address to Ch. Alliance at N. York, informs us that ‘‘ at
an important aysembly held lately in German Switzerland, at which were present many
men of position, both in Church and State, the basis of the new religion was laid down :
‘No doctrines,’ was the watchword on that occasion, ‘ No new doctrines, whatever they
muy be, in place of the old ; Liberty alone.’’’) Freely conceding the difference between
doctrine and conduct, doctrine and practical religion, doctrine and Christian life ; cheer-
fully wiiling to attest to the exceeding value of the latter, and that it may even exist
without the entertainment of a great amount of doctrinal knowledge, yet it is folly to
disconnect doctrine from religion, seeing that the latter is a natural outgrowth from the
former, that they sustain a mautual relationship, and that to produce a symmetrical whole
they must be united. Doctrine has been aptly compared to the root, and morality or
conduct to the growth ; for every believer must accept of some truths giving motives for
conduct, which are either doctrinally stated in the Word, cr dogmatically presented in
the formulas of the church. Faith must, in some form, have an outward, intellectual
expression in connection with its heart work. Mind and heart are both enlisted. Truth
to be apprehended must be formally state@ Reason demands, intellectual culture
requires, as its concomitant, a distinctive statement in language of those ideas which
are given either as worthy of credence, or as inducements to action. Doctrine may in-
deed exist without corresponding conduct (which may be the fault of the man and not
of the doctrine), but true Christian conduct cannot be produced without doctrine, as e.g.
the doctrine of God, of Jesus Christ, of repentance, of faith, etc., influencing us to a
certain determined course of life. To destroy this vital union, is to sever the tree from
its roots, to remove the building from its foundation, and thus give us a sickly, dying
tree and a ruined, unsafe building. The fact is, that the very men who strive to discon-
nect what God has joined together by inseparable laws ; who sneer at the declaration of
the Chancellor of the University of Oxford for saying that ‘‘ religion is no more to be
severed from dogmas than light from the sun’’—these men are actually engaged in laying
down doctrines, dogmaticaily expressed, for our acceptance. This feature alone, the
resultant of a law that they cannot avoid, indicates the connection between the two,
which, in the very act of an attempted destruction, they only confirm. Graybeard (Lay
Sermons, Nos. 75 and 76) urges ‘‘ the importance of maintaining sound doctrine,’’ assert-
ing truthfully that “the great fundamental framework of the Scriptures is its doctrines,”’
112 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 9.

and comparing them to the bones of the body, imparting consistency and form. He
concludes : “ All sound doctrine centres in Christ, and is founded on Christ. Not to
know its power and value is to be a weakling, and to deny the importance of it is to dis-
honor God. ‘Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not
God. le that abideth in the doctrine of Christ hath both the Father and the Son. If there
come any man unto you, and bringeth not this doctrine, receive him not into your house,
neither bid him God-speed ; for he that biddeth him God-speed is partaker of his evil
deeds’ (2 Jno. 9-11).’’ The Bible commends ‘“‘ continuing steadfastly in the apostles’
doctrine’ (Acts 2 :42), and persevering in ‘‘ sound doctrine’ (1 Tim, 1:3, 10), as pro-
motive of strength and salvation (e.g. 1 Tim. 4 : 13-16).

Obs. 2. To comprehend fully any doctrine, especially that of the king-

dom, there must be a diligent comparing of Scripture with Scripture. Dr.
Neander (His. of Dog., vol. 2, p. 623) says of Melanchthon that on occasion
of the Leipzig disputation he stated, ‘‘ that it is the duty to abide by the
pure and simple meaning of the Holy Writ, as, indeed, heavenly truths are
always the simplest ; this meaning is to be found by comparing Holy Writ
with itself.’”’ Dr. Dorner (His. Prot., vol. 2, p. 429) justly remarks : ‘“‘ The
work of theological criticism, especially in so far as it touches upon doc-
trinal matters, must always at last become a criticism, or a measuring, of
Scripture by Scripture—in other words, the self-criticism of the canon
through the instrumentality of believers.’?! The hermeneutical canon of
the Reformers (Hagenbach’s His. of Doc., vol. 2, sec. 240), ‘to interpret
and illustrate Scripture by Scripture,’’ is ours, imitating ‘‘ The Noble Les-
son’’ of the Waldensians: ‘‘ The Scriptures speak, and we must believe.
Look at the Scriptures from beginning to end.’’
1 This rule was early observed in the church. Thus e.g. Neander (His. of Dog.
Vol. 1, p. 77) says of Irenzeus ‘‘ that the Holy Scriptures should be explained by compar-
ing one passage with another, and that he held them to be the complete and normal
source ot the knowledge of Christian doctrine.’’ We follow Irenzus, of whom Erasmus
(Eras. Epist. prefixed to Irenzeus) says : ‘‘ Irenzeus fought against the troops of heretics
with arguments (munitions) drawn from the Scriptures alone.’’” This was only an imi-
tating of Christ, the apostles, and prophets, who constantly appealed to, and cited from,
the Record, thus comparing the things of the Spirit. It is gratifying to see eminent
men, in Europe and this country, lay so much stress on the self-interpretation of the
Bible, by which alone the true analogy of it can be discovered, and a real profound
acquaintance with its substance can be acquired. In such a comparison, however, a
number of things must be observed in order to make it consistent and successful. All
Scripture must be received, and not a portion of it be rejected (e.g. as Acts and Pauline
epistles by Swedenborg) because we cannot make it fit into our doctrinal system. The
connected reasoning of the writer must not give place to deductions from mere frag-
mentary or isolated passages. A doctrine must, by an instituted comparison, be in har-
mony both with the general analogy of Scripture and of Faith, i.e. it must not be in
antagonism with the grammatical languagé or meaning of Scripture, or with its doctrinal
teaching. The comparison must be made with due reverence for Scripture, so that a
willingness to receive its meaning, without undue bias or prejudice, may exist. Passages
that are strictly parallel, and not merely made such by accommodation or perversion, are
to be employed, and, in brief, the cautions and rules laid down fcr a consistent doctrinal
interpretation by such writers as Horne (Introd. of the Bible), Alford (How to Study the New
Test.), Dunn (The Study of the Bible), Bickersteth (Scripture Help), Stuart (Elements of
Interpretation, altered from Ernesti’s work), etc., must be duly observed. With all this,
there must be an abiding sense of the inspiration of the Word, so that there is no unjust
discrimination between portions of it, as e.g. between the Old and New Testaments
(Schleiermacher, etc.), between the so-called Narrator and the Commentator (Rothe, etc.),
between the Gospels and the Epistles (Renan, etc.), between the Bible and tradition
(Bellarmine, etc.), between the Scriptures and human opinion (Parker, etc.), etc.

Obs. 3. The doctrine of the kingdom being thus exclusively derived from
the Word for reasons already assigned (others will be given hereafter), an
Prop. 9.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 113

earnest protest must be presented against a spirit, widely prevalent among

eminent divines, manifested in the adoption of a theory by which a doc-
trinal growth in the Church is made to cover up alleged weaknesses and
misapprehensions of the truth in the founders of Christianity. Reference
is made to ‘‘ the development theory’ as applied to doctrine, by which the
idea of the kingdom is represented as ‘‘ a seed ”’ or ‘‘ a germ ”’ surrounded
by ‘‘a husk,”’ or “‘ a rind ”’ (7.e., literal sense), out of which, however, was
produced or developed the perfect tree or fruit (so e.g. Neander, Nevin,
and others).* The reasons, evidently, which actuated pious and able men
to accept of this theory and employ it, were, first, their inability otherwise
to meet the tremendous shafts of infidelity levelled at the early Christianity
(showing that doctrinally i¢ was different from the faith entertained at
present) ; and second, the desire through it to secure some unity in their
conception of the nature, constitution, etc., of the kingdom of God.
Admitting that truth can be obtained by a study of nature, science, race,
etc.—by observing the development of mind, experience, the Church, etc.,
yet all this progress, this attestation to and amplification of truth, is not
to be placed in comparison with the truth given by God Himself. The
Scriptures are supreme authority to the believer, and no change, no varia-
tion, no substitution, under the pretence of growth, is allowable unless we
have the same indicated by God Himself. Increase of doctrinal knowledge
does not consist in altering the form of doctrine, but in obtaining a
clearer, more enlarged apprehension of the unaltered doctrine. Oosterzee
(Ch. Dog., vol. 1, p. 70) justly grounds progress upon ‘‘ amplification ”’
and not in ‘‘alteration.’? Rev. Bernard (Bampton Lectures, ‘* The Prog-
ress of Doctrine in the New Testament’’) forcibly argues (Lec. 1) that the
Divine teaching coincides in extent with the present canon, and that the
progress of doctrine in the Church since such communication is a progress
of apprehension by man. He clearly shows that no advance in Divine
teaching after the apostolic age was ever admitted by the Church, and that
all elucidations, renewed definitions, etc., indicative of a clearer apprehen-
sion of the truth, are invariably based upon, and derived from, the origi-
nal truth in the Oldand New Testaments. He also effectively points out that
innovations (asin Dr. Newman’s theory of development including new
doctrines) even are sustained by their upholders under the plea of a tradi-
tion enforced by extending it back to apostolic days, thus implying, or
inferring, apostolic sanction.’
The kingdom is something described by God for us to believe ; and
hence is not one thing to-day and another to-morrow, one thing under
the former dispensation and another under this ordering. ‘The description
of it is unchangeably the same, for it is a simple declaration of the Divine
purpose to which it is impossible, without detriment, to add anything.
It is a positive revelation, portraying that when realized certain great

* We leave one of its advocates to eulogize the extent of the development theory enter-
tained. Lecky (His. Rational., p. 183) says : ‘‘ This idea of continued and uninterrupted
development is one that seems absolutely to override the age. It is scarcely possible to
open any really able book on any subject without encountering it in some form. It is.
stirring all science to its very depths ; it is revolutionizing all historical literature. Its.
prominence in theology is so great that there is scarcely any school that is altogether
exempt from its influence. We have seen, in our own day, the Church of Rome itself
defended in ‘An Essay on Development,’ and by a strong application of the laws of
progress.”’
114 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopy:9:

events are to transpire, certain promises are to be joyfully experienced,

etc., and therefore, in the very nature of the case, 7¢ cannot be a mere
‘“oerm’”’ which is to sprout forth into something else. ‘The theory of
development, especially when applied to the doctrine of the kingdom,
must be regarded as an important concession to infidelity.’
1 The fundamental Montanistic notion (Kurtz, Ch. His. Vol. 1, p. 132) that Divine
Revelation is gradually end constantly developed, finds its extremes im such doctrinal
additions as are given by Swedenborg, Joseph Smith, Ann Lee, etc. But even in those
who are utterly opposed to all such extravagancies, it is still found in a modified form.
It is enunciated in the principle laid down in Hagenbach’s Ilis. of Doctrine that “the
doctrinal substance of the Scriptures” is ‘‘ as a living seed, capable of the most prolific
development ; in the midst of the most unfavorable influences it retains the formative
energy, by which it evokes new and living products adapted to the times.” Now while
this might not be objectionable in one sense, yet when applied to doctrine it stands forth
really as an effort to reconcile the departure of the church (as e.g. in the doctrine of the
kingdom) from the early doctrinal position to a later. It is « bridge, conveniently erected
by philosophy, to cover the ugly chasm between Primitive and Later Christianity. The
parable of the leaven is pressed into its service, as if it delineated doctrinal change or
growth in place of the simple influence, controlling power of the truth (or of error) over
the heart. The seed, blade, ear, and the full corn in the ear, of Mark 4 : 26-29, is made
to cover doctrinal deviations, just as if the doctrine, full-grown, were to be harvested in
place of the fruit developed by the reception of the truth. w»uch is affiimed respecting
the difference between the seed and the tree and fruit ;—this analogy holds good in
nature and also in grace (when truth is represented as the seed and the results in
increased morality, piety as a growth into fruit), but not in the Word as to doctrinal
growth. A Scriptural doctrine fully stated is the whole doctrine, or if partially given so
much of it as God sees proper to reveal, to which man can add nothing ; and that of the
kingdom, dealing exclusively in things belonging to God and only known to Him,
talls specially under this category. If such a doctrine is imperfectly given or is con-
cealed under a covering, and it is left to infirm man to develop its real meaning, who, if
we are to go outside of the Scriptures, has gained its true meaning? Out of the over-
whelming abundance of dogmatic statements, which then is the genuine fruit? Or, are
they all the legitimate outgrowth of the same ‘‘germ?’’ Why embrace a theory which
evidently lowers the authority of Scripture by enveloping the doctrine of the kingdom
in an unperceived ‘‘ germ’’ but a very perceptible ‘‘ husk ;’ which sends us away to
fallible man for ‘‘ the real truth ;”” which is forbidden by the Word itself when declar-
ing its doctrines unchangeably the same ; which makes a particular doctrine in one century
to be held in accordance with the letter of the Word, and in another and following
centuries directly the opposite to accord with an alleged spirit ; and which deliberately
fastens upon Holy Writ the vagaries and dreams of man as its natura] outgrowth? The
development producing change is not in the doctrine but in the individual ; the doc-
trine is given to the individual and to the church that both may grow thereby, and not
that the doctrine may grow into something else by the church. Doctrine as seed in the
heart is productive of good works, and not of doctrinal change ; the very seed given by
God is to be retained in the heart, and it is not to be exchanged for improved or developed
seed of man’s proposing. God bestows doctrine to instruct, to guide, to change, to
sanctify man, and not for man to take it and mould and transmute it according to his
will. Christian, Bible doctrine ever remains the same, and can only be authoritatively
changed by God Himself. Jt is God's truth and not man’s. If man could add to it,
modify or alter it, or even bend it in accommodation, what infallible standard or guide
would there be to protect us against error and unbelief? The motive power to virtue
and holiness embraced in the doctrines of the Bible, is deteriorated just in proportion
as changes are introduced. The more Scriptural our faith, the more pious and devoted
the life, seeing that the purest influence for good comes from God's own gracious words.
(Comp. e.g. Mozley'’s “ Theory of Development,’’ in reply to Newman’s ‘‘ Essay on the
Development of Christian Doctrine,” Sprecher’s ‘‘ Groundwork of Theol.,’’ etc.)
2 It is a concession to unbelief, in that it rejects the grammatical sense and makes
Scripture language changeable, placing truth in a variety of aspects of antagonism (thus
e.g. making the declaration of the letter to conflict with that of the spirit). It presses
the parables by an analogy drawn from the vegetable world until they are compelled to
‘* crawl on all fours.’’ Jt causes a direct conflict between the express language of Script-
Prop. 9. | THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 115

ure and the idea or notion advocated. And it does this to account for the variations of
doctrine in the church on the subject of the kingdom, and to make the external church
better than she merits. It is, to say the least, dangerous to receive a theory by which
we may apologize for the introduction of new doctrines in the past and for the future ;
and which leaves us no Divinely constituted exponent of authority in doctrine but
allows the doctrinal position to be settled by an interpretation at variance with a legiti-
mate grammatical sense. It presents us (as in Neander, etc.,) the most shadowy, mystical
conceptions (e.g. “‘ the consciousness of the Church, and its authoritative utterances,’’)
to be the true criterion of the truth. Unbelief accepts of the favorite phrase “ Chris-
tian consciousness’’ in this development scheme. Thus e.g. Alger in his Kssay on Jesus
(The Solitudes, p. 380), while praising Jesus, fearfully mutilates the Messiah under the
plea : ‘‘ The Christian Consciousness, the collective sense of Christendom, is competent
to determine what is congruous, what incongruous, with the true idea of Christ ; to cut
off superfiuities and supply defects in the transmitted form,’’ etc. We, on the other
hand, assert that the Christ and His kingdom are not to be tampered with under any such
a plea, but are to be received just as God has given them tous. Besides this, Alger
informs us that a few favored ones are “the authoritative representatives of this totality
of Christian perception and feeling.’’ We recognize no such “authoritative representa-
tives” excepting as they fairly coincide with the authorities of the Bible, and as to ‘‘ the
collective sense’”’ and ‘‘ totality,’’ the diversity existing and the claims proposed forbid
the idea of such unity in the church. The majority rule cannot apply to doctrine as
seen e.g. in the rejection of Jesus, the dark ages, etc. The fact is, that the development
theory as applied to doctrine is one that cannot be confined within limits ; it is a sword
entirely too unwieldy for the believer to handle ; it is a net so widely sweeping that it
cannot be managed, and hence, with due deference to its originators (Hegel, etc.) it may
be rejected without causing Christianity to suffer. The latter needs no such weapon for
defence, no such system of apologetics, for its best defence and apology is, as one
(Dunn) aptly remarked : “The Bible can never get behind the age.’”’ It is true that men
of great intellect, of vast learning, have and do advocate it, but such too, as thousands
of cases past and present testify, are liable to error. It is the more needful to direct
attention to this matter, seeing that our more recent church histories, Sys. Divinities,
etc., are thoroughly leavened with its spirit and deductions. So far as it is applied to
the doctrine of the kingdom, we protest against it, because the doctrinal things of the
kingdom are subjects of direct revelation and not of growth ; because Revelation itself
on this point is not subject to growth, being merely declarations of God’s purpose ; be-
cause to make the Revelation in its grammatical sense a mere husk is a virtual belittling
of the Word ; because doctrinal truth is always the same, and is only to be found in its
purity in Holy Writ; and because error, antagonism, division, etc., find their best
apologist in this theory.
Surely believers ought to reject this development theory when they see how a host of
men (Ammon, Strauss, Parker, etc.,) are employing it, to show that Christianity is only
in the course of development, and must by the aid of science and reason give place to
something higher. When the notion leads multitudes, not to content themselves with a
legitimate progress (drawn from study, comparison, criticism, experience, etc.,) in knowl-
edge, but to change the doctrines of the Bible (under the plea of spirit, reason, enlight-
enment, progress, etc.,) at will, introducing a vast body of conflicting opinions and sects;
when under its influence the covenants, oath-bound, are either denied in their gram-
matical] sense or totally ignored ; when the theory is flatly contradicted by the predicted
closing of this age, for instead of finding a childhood, youth, manhood, and matured
manhood, resulting in perfectability, the outcome as given by the Spirit is the direct
opposite ;when it is utterly opposed by the manner of the kingdom’s introduction,
coming suddenly and supernaturally, with numerous additional fatal reasons—we, cer-
tainly, can only regard the theory, with its specious reasoning, as one of the most danyer-
ous ever broached ; and one, too, destined to bring about still greater evil in the hands
of recent writers. Incorporated with this view, and going hand in hand with it, is that
of general, universal Inspiration, under which new revelations may be expected, and
though guarded (as Beecher in The Uh. Union, Ap. 10, 1878) by the declaration that such
must be in accord with the Scriptures, yet this position (as shown Prop. 5) is dangerous,
opening a wide door, through which unbelievers are pressing with exultant hopes. Ielix
Adler in The North Amer. Review, Sept.—Oct. 1877, Art. “Reformed Judaism,’’ under the
influence of such an inspiration theory, discriminating (as he thinks) between “ the letter
and the spirit,” and by adding ‘‘ the process of evolution,’’ most pointedly denies the
covenants and predictions in their plain sense, resolves the Jewish nation into the Mes-
siah, etc.
116 TITE TITEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 9.

Obs. 4. Allowing a development of doctrine in the Bible itself (v.c.,

given in respective dispensations, and by different writers), made under the
auspices of the Spirit, the same, by the principle of interpretation adopted
(Prop. 4), shows, by its completeness and manner of presentation, that
the Bible is designed to be a book for the people, for all men, both learned
and unlearned. It isaddressed to the masses, to the ignorant, to all classes,
and, therefore, is not merely designed for the educated. It assumes upon
the very face of it, that its important doctrines can be easily compre-
hended, and that to realize their force and value it is unnecessary to make
additions or alterations. It takes it for granted that it contains all that
is requisite for us to know concerning the kingdom, and that every
person can obtain this knowledge by its perusal and study. It assumes,
that it is correct in its claim of being an infallible guide (Ps. 119 : 105,
2 Pet. 1°: 19, Gal.1 + 8, Isa. 8 2 20,: 2° Tim. 3 :17,~ete.), as endorsed) by
the early Christians, Reformers, etc., in the things pertaining to God and
the everlasting happiness of man. It distinctly teaches that without a due
acceptance of its doctrines, we are regarded by the Almighty as those,
however learned in other respects, who lack understanding. It urges upon
us, In view of its Divine origin, purity, veracity, power, duration, etc., the
obligation that we are under to know God’s Word. It professes to
enlighten every one who receives it respecting God and our personal
relationship to Ilim, the Messiah and our need of Llim, the kingdom and
the manner in which to gain it, the duties pertaining to God and man,
the future destiny of ourselves and the world, etc., and that to obtain this
enlightenment we do not absolutely require, valuable as they may be in
many respects, those cumbersome systems of interpretation, those diversi-
fied and ponderous exegetical commentaries, etc., which are given as helps
to the student.
The Bible assumes, then, that it can be understood, so far as its essential, important
doctrines are concerned, by all men. If so, then instead of a recondite meaning being
intended, the plain grammatical sense, common to all men, must undoubtedly be
received. The infallibility it places in its own utterances expressed according to the
usual laws of language, and not in a superadded sense bestowed at the pleasure of the
interpreter. It does not allow it to exist outside of itself in an authoritative declaration
of the church (excepting only as it corresponds with the Word), or in what is called ‘* the
infallible consciousness.’ If we were to accept of the latter, in what confession or writ-
ing is it incorporated? The interpretation of the Word must not be hampered by a
philosophical generality, glittering in conception and well adapted to lead us away from
Holy Writ, and to cause us to put our faith in mere human opinion, thus also covering
up deficiencies, difficulties, antagonisms suggested by the Word. Such a consciousness
does not exist, as is proven by the opposite confessions and theological writings of past
centuries, and which differences continue down to the present day, even on points the
most important, as e.g. the sacrificial death of Christ, the sacraments, the order of salva-
tion, etc. Amid this diversity, the sad result of human infirmity, one consoling feature
alone remains, that, notwithstanding the differences of opinion, so much of the truth of
Scripture, in its plain sense, is cordially received, that faith in, and obedience to, Christ
is characteristic of all believers. The failure to show where this “ consciousness” is
lodged, in order to make it available for direct reference and appeal, should guard us
against a theory well intended but really derogatory to Scripture. Scripture must ever
retain its position as paramount, sole authority, and care must be exercised lest the
helps intended to facilitate Scriptural investigation become hindrances instead of valuable
aids, by being too much relied on without a per sonal searching of the Word of God. Any
substitution in place of Holy Writ, is, in so far, lowering the supreme standard. Com-
pare some excellent remarks on the supremacy ‘of Scripture in Bridges’ Chris. Ministry,
Saurin’s Sermon on The Sufficiency of Revelation, Graybeard’s (Graff) Lay Sermons, etc.
We reproduce one sentence from Graff (No. 62, “ Search the Scriptures’) :‘‘ A man may
Prop..9. | THE TIEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 447
become a theological tinker by studying theological books ; but in order to become ‘a
workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth,’ there can
be no substitute for the habitual, personal study of God’s Word.’’ How true this is,
when we look at the history of godly men and women of the past. How many with vast
stores of learning have been eclipsed in advancement of true knowledge and usefulness,
by those who have constantly drawn divine things from a persevering perusal and study
of God’s Word.

Obs. 5. All believers admit that in the study of the Scriptures there
must be, to secure success, a reverent, prayerful spirit maintained, a
reliance upon Divine guidance into truth. There must be a moral prepara-
tion (John 8 : 47) to appreciate their force and beauty (Ps. 119 : 12, 18).
Such a direction, although given by God Himself (Jas. 1:5, Luke 11:
13, etc.), loses some of its weight in the estimation of unbelief, since
parties the most antagonistic in doctrine and practice profusely profess to
have poured forth earnest prayer, and to have been guided by the Spirit in
their expositions. A modest student, and one too who really prays and is
morally aided, will scarcely set up such a standard, or refer to Ilim in
such a connection. Prayerful study of the Scriptures will evidence itself,
not in profession, but in fruits. It, too, will be found that error may be
conjoined with even fervent prayer, if the Bible is neglected, if the
simplest rules are rejected for ascertaining its meaning, if the grammatical
sense is violated, if reason is not properly used, if intellectual activity is
not combined with faith, and if the formulas of men are substituted for
the Word. Prayer is a help, but not so directly that we need not search
for the truth. So also mistake may be connected with the assumed
guidance of the Spirit ; for if a man expects ‘‘ direct spiritual illumina-
tion ’’ or an “‘ intellectual light’? by which he can know the truth without
an acceptance and patient study of that which the Spirit has already given,
he only shows that he is self-deceived. Prayer and the Spirit indeed are
of great avail in their moral bearing, in preparing us for the perception
and reception of the truth, but they are not given ¢o supersede the search-
ing of the Scriptures (John 5 : 39), the reasoning out of the Scriptures
(Acts 17:2; 18:4, etc.), the using of our faculties in noting the oracles
of God (Heb. 5:14), the taking heed unto the Word given (2 Pet. 1 : 19),
the daily receiving and study of Holy Writ (Acts17:11). Indeed the
fact of our dependence upon the Spirit to enlighten us and enable us to
savingly appropriate truth, to trust and to rejoice in it, does not allow us
to neglect the means of enlightenment which He has already furnished in
the presented Word. It forbids a passivity of our mental faculties, and
enjoins upon the man of God, in order ‘‘to be perfect, thoroughly
furnished,’” to let both mind and heart receive ‘‘all scripture,”
(2 Tim. 3 : 16, 17).
The Spirit reveals Himself, and the truth He is commissioned to impart through the
Word already given, and in proportion as that Word is pondered, studied, and received,
just in that proportion will true enlightenment follow ; and even love will be excited
(2 Tim. 3:15, Luke 24 : 32, Phil. 1 : 9), and growth promoted (1 Pet. 2:2,). For, if man
is in a reverent, prayerful, teachable attitude, desirous for the truth, the Spirit will im-
press that same truth given by Him, not by directly revealing it (for that He has already
done), but by morally qualifying him for its reception and retention. (See this illus-
trated in the Controversy--Tyerman’s “ Oxford Methodists,’’ p. 95—between the Mora-
vian Molther and Wesley, on the question whether penitent inquirers should search the
Scriptures—Wesley affirming, and Molther denying, the necessity and importance of the
same.) Bible truth, inasmuch as it relates to our moral constitution, demands both
118 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 9.

mind and heart to receiveit. Three things are requisite to make truth practically effec-
tive. Lord Bacon says : ‘‘ The inquiry of Truth, which is the love-making or wooing it ;
the knowledge of Truth, which is the presence of it ; and the belief of Truth, which is
the enjoying of it ;—is the Sovereign Good of human nature.’’ The Spirit aids us only
in the line of revealed truth, never in contradistinction to the recorded things of the Spirit.
The sword of the Spirit is the Word of God (Eph. 6:17), and there can be no revelation
given, however plausible and advocated, which runs in opposition to Holy Writ. There
is no proof whatever, amid the multitude of claims proposed, saving that afforded by
the personal assertion of the interested parties themselves, that a single person since the
days of the apostles has received a new or modified doctrine, not found in the Bible,
directly from the Spirit. A very suspicious fact in those who claim it, is, that every such
doctrine advanced they still desire, in some way or other, to fasten to Scriptures given,
thus unconsciously (e.g. Mormons, German Inspirationists in Iowa, etc. Comp. Prop.
4) testifying to its supremacy over their own utterances.
This subject is the more worthy of attention, since advantage is taken of this supposed
additional bestowment of doctrinal truth outside of the Bible to lower the supremacy of
the Scriptures. This is done by receiving the concessions, intentional or not, of various
parties, opening a wide door for endless additions, because of the introduction of a
Divine authority outside of the Bible. Those who undermine the authoritative position
of the Scriptures, are the following: (1.) It is claimed by good men (as e.g. Dr. Bush-
nell, Sermons on the New Life, p. 46) that every man is also inspired, not indeed having
the same inspiration as the writers of the Bible, but still a continued inspiration, im-
parted by the Spirit, by which we interpret the Scriptures, etc. (2.) Another class
(Essays and Reviews) assert that ‘* inspiration is a permanent power in the church” which
by a constant ‘‘ illumination,” kindred to that of the Bible, develops confessions, doc-
trines, liturgies, etc. (3.) The Roman Catholic Church affirms that the Holy Spirit is so
given to it, that the Pope in his official or doctrinal utterances cannot err. The same is
asserted by many respecting General Councils. Tradition is thus elevated to inspired
truth.* (4.) Infidels adopt the language of Scripture, and declare that all men are
inspired equal to and eveu superior to the apostles, as e.g. the Parker school. (5.) Men
ot a mystical tendency in various centuries and denominations, who, professing a special
guidance and enlightenment of the Spirit, ask for their utterances a corresponding faith.
The history of Mysticism, separate and combined with scholasticism, presents numerous
painful instances, of ‘‘an inner light’’ exalted to Scriptural authority. (6.) The Mor-
mons, and other sects,t who give us long pretended revelations of divine truth.
(7.) Swedenborg, who constituted himself the first and sole interpreter of the Word,
whom the angels could not instruct (Div. Prov., pub. 1764, p. 135), and who, by an inner
sense and revelations professedly received, inaugurated a new Gospel. The grammatical
sense is but a worthless husk, containing the highest mysteries which were revealed to
him. (8.) The Society of Friends, who, with many excellencies, frankly acknowledge
the superior light granted by the Spirit.{ (9.) The Spiritualists, who elevate the revela-

* Some of the Popish bulls, decisions of Councils, etc., directly claim to have been
given under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Comp. Dr. Doellinger’s Essay ‘‘ Ex
Cathedva”’ definitions in Ap. E. attached to ‘Fubles, and Essay on Prophetic Spirit,’’ for
the infallibility doctrine. In Didron’s Chr. Iconography, Vol. 1, p. 448, Pope Gregory
the Great is represented as inspired by the Holy Ghost (the latter under the form of a
dove), taken from a French statue of the XIII. cent. in the church of Notre-Dame de
Chartres. Gregory VII. enjoys the same distinction, and even Jerome is represented
with a dove breathing inspiration into his ear, reminding us of Mahomet’s tame pigeon.
+ #.g. Joanna Southcott, who, in her declaration, claims, ‘‘ that all my writings came
from the Spirit of the Most High God ;” the Anabaptists encountered by Luther (Lives of
Luther, D’Aubigne’s His. Ref., Giesler, Ch. His., note 64, etc.) ; the account given by the
Shakers of Mother Ann Lee ; the followers of Jane Leader, especially John Pordage;
besides others given in our Keel. Histories. The extravagances of the past are repeated
at the present day. Works on Fanaticism, Religious Enthusiasm, etc., give us gloomy
details of man’s infirmity and presumption. The most recent is the following: The
Times-Star, Oct. 19, 1881, says, that a new sect has arisen in Michigan, called “‘ the Liv-
ing Church of God’ or ‘‘ the Chosen ;’’ and ‘‘the members profess to possess some
grave secrets with reference to the near approach of the end of the world, which they
say were given to them by inspiration.”’ :
{ The esteem that the author has for the amiable intentions and life of the Quakers,
 Prop. 9.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 119
tions of the spirits, supposed to be given for special enlightenment, above the Bible.
All these, whether they design it or not, bring to us an authority equal to or superior to
that of the Scriptures. Advantage is quickly taken of this opening, by arguing (as e.v.
Essays and Reviews) that as inspiration, the imparting of the Spirit is now accompanied
with error, so it was also in the days of the apostles, and, therefore, only so much
authority is to be allowed to the Scriptures as good men can approve of as credible, thus
really allowing no unity of doctrine, etc. Advantage is also taken of it, by pointing to
all these contradictory professions, all under professed spiritual guidance, as evidence of the
uncertainty of any Spirit-derived truths. Advantage is taken of the wide gap thus
opened for pretended revelations and new doctrines, for greater sanctity, holiness, and
exclusiveness, until the heart saddens at the fearful sight. The simple truth of God has
been outrageously perverted, mutilated, and abused by these processes. No! No!!
our only safety is in strictly adhering to the Word, as containing all the doctrines in their
true teaching grammatically expressed, and that prayer and all other things, including
the moral aid of the Spirit, are subsidiary to the eternal Word itself, acting only favora-
bly and efficiently in connection with it.
But while avoiding one extreme, we must not fall into another, and deny that the Holy
Spirit may, if He chooses, impart mental aid, or perception, or knowledge. Je did this
to others, to prophets, apostles, and others, and it would limit His freedom and power
to say that He cannot do it now if Le so pleases ; especially He has not told us that He
will not do it, and many passages (Eph. 1:16, 17, 1 Cor. 12 : 7-11, James 1:5, 1 Kings
3: 9-13) seem to indicate that, not however without seeking, prayer, searching, that God
can and will at times directly aidin the attainment of the truth. But let it never be for-
gotten that even such aid and moral law, enforced by the Spirit, is placed within restric-
tions, viz. : it is subsidiary to the Word itself ; it embraces no new revelations or new doc-
trines, but only leads to a fuller comprehension and appreciation of the Revelation
already given ; it retains and enforces the supremacy of Holy Writ. Dunn in his excel-
lent treatise (The Study of the Bible) takes the position that there is no mental enlighten-
ment, no “ direct spiritual illumination’’ to be expected at the present day, and brings
in the analogy that we obtain truth as we do bread, ‘‘ that as God now showers not bread
from heaven as He did in the wilderness, so He showers not truth upon our minds as He
did upon the apostles,” that we must labor for it, etc. ‘This ordinarily and generally is
true, but universally the analogy drawn from the bread does not hold good, for God did,
afier the manna was given, provide bread for Elijah, the widow, and others, and in

induces him to add this note. How largely Barclay may be endorsed by them he knows
not, but Barclay in his Apology, Prop. 3, p. 81, plainly asserts that the Scriptures are to
be subordinated to the spiritual revealings given to men, and hence they are not “‘ the
principal ground of all truth and knowledge, nor yet the adequate primary rule of faith and
manners,’’ but that “they are and may be esteemed a secondary rule.’’ Comp. Gurney’s
“* Observations,’ p. 38, 47, Fox’s ‘‘Journal,” p. 476, etc. The redeeming feature, however,
is that Barclay insists upon it, that as the Scriptures are given by the same Spirit the
revelations afforded by the inward light never contradict the Scriptures. In much of
their doctrinal writings constant appeal is made to Holy Writ, so much so that this prin-
ciple seems to be ignored. The common mistake with many persons is, that they con-
found the extraordinary operations of the Spirit with the ordinary, the direct communi-
cation of truth with the moral appreciation and reception of the truth, the intellectual
working vouchsafed to the few chosen ones with the spiritual apprehension and applica-
tion of the Word. (Comp. for the Quaker’s statements in full, Art. The Doctrine of the
Inward Light, in the ‘‘ Princeton Review,’’ 1848, Rupp’s Orig. His. of Ielig. Denomina-
tions, where two Quaker writers affirm the subordinate position of the Scriptures, and
Art. Quakerism, Past and Present, in North Brit. Review, 1860.) A very plausible and
insidious error in this direction presented by pious men (e.g. Ullman, ete.)—far removed
from the position of Seb. Frank Schwenckfeld, Thamer, and others, but not the less
misleading—is the following : the Scriptures are not the only or exclusive rule of faith,
but Christ as manifested to faith (an inward principle) is an additional rnle—thus
changing from the Quaker principle of the Holy Spirit to the Christ. It is sufficient to
say, that we only recognize and appropriate Christ in His person, life, doctrines (‘‘ Thou
hast the words of eternal life’’), work, and promises as they are contained in the Scriptures
and received by faith. This self-appropriation of the Scriptural statements, produces the
fruits, the same mind which was also in Him, and thus confirms the superiority of the
Holy Scriptures as the only infallible rule—Christian experience verifying its truthfulness,
120 THE TITEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Pror. 9.

answer to prayer He can yet do it, quite out of the ordinary way, in cases of necessity,
without. man laboring for it. Take e.g. Luther, as he painfully toiled up the steps on
his knees, suddenly impressed with ‘‘ the just shall live by faith,” or the extraordinary
preparedness of the Sandwich Islanders for the Gospel, or the remarkable conversions
of some of the heathen and others—these and other examples can only be fully explainea
by accepting of a direct mental aid afforded by the Spirit, but, in every case, subordinate
to, and in support of, the Scriptures given. Admitting, therefore, that when necessity
requires it, or the pertinacity of faith secures it, or the pleasure of God bestows it, that
such may be the case, yet we have one decisive test to which even these must bow, viz.,
all enlightenment must be in the direct line of the Scriptures, not in opposition to, or in
conflict with them, because they are given by the same Spirit, and cannot be antagonistic.
This e.g. was Luther’s position when he encountered the fanatics who pretended to new
revelations by the Spirit, that they were contradictory to the utterances already bestowed
by the Spirit and hence unreliable, and that being different, a variation from the Bible,
they were not proven authoritative by the mighty works of the Spirit and therefore could
not supersede the truth presented (D’Aubigne’s His. Ref. Vol. 3. B. 9). The apostles
themselves appeal to the Scriptures given as bearing testimony that they speak in the
Spirit, in unison with Him, and that the same are abundantly able to aftord us all the
light, direction, etc., that we need. Any effort which professes to be from God, directly
or indirectly, mediately or immediately, if it lowers the standard, or places in a subordi-
nate position any of the teaching, of Holy Writ, is open to the gravest suspicion, and
should at once be rejected. True enlightenment advocates the supreme authority of the
Bible ; false revelations either endeavor to supplant it, or wrest it from its meaning, or
attach to it irrelevant, contradictory, and extravagant matter. Fortunately for the truth,
most pretended revelations and additions are borne down by the weight ot their own
palpable ignorance, foolishness, and error. Calvin (Insti. Ch. 9, C. 1) character'zes the
pretensions of immediate revelations as ‘‘ subversive of every principle of piety ;) while
we dare not, in charity, give so sweeping a criticism, yet it may be held that they are
subversive of the Scriptures, of all hope of possessing, what man needs, an intelligent,
reliable, infallible doctrinal guide, leading often, as illustrated in Ochino and others, to
«a sad shipwreck. Infallibility in doctrinal utterances, whether claimed as a divine
right, or as proceeding from an imparted Spirit, or as coming in any other way, is some-
thing that belongs exclusively to Holy Writ, which not merely asserts its possession but
proves it in a variety of ways (comp. e.g. Props. 179-183). The subject matter of the
Bible, its entire tenor of teaching, its decided authoritative statements, its injunction not
to add or take from it, its continuous Divine Purpose, its unity of Plan in Redemption,
its provisional portion amply realized in personal experience and the world’s history—
all clearly show that it is not to be supplanted by any other authority. We are therefore
abundantly satisfied with the position occupied by the church for the first three hundred
years (so Mosheim, Neander, Killen, Giesler, etc.), by the Reformers, and a host of able
men, viz., that the Bible is the sole, supreme authority, and that every Christian doc-
trine, including that of the kingdom, must find its true basis within its limits.

Obs. 6. It has been sufficiently intimated that in the elucidation of the

Scriptures, man’s agency is also required. It is needed in a variety of
ways : in the criticism of the text to indicate its purity and meaning, in
securing the evidences pertaining to it, in comparing one portion with
another, etc. The Word is indeed given by God, but to comprehend and
ensure its blessings, we must, like with Hjs gift of nature, bestow upon 1t
thought, meditation, labor, and research. It contains deep things requir-
ing careful study, and even mysteries beyond our limits; it discusses the
most profoundly interesting questions within our mental power ; it gives
us plain statements, which are to be contrasted with others, lest we fail
to realize their full significancy ; it deals with the sublime, the beautiful,
the emotional, the moral, the spiritual, the eternal, the seen and the unseen,
the past, present, and future, and hence calls for both mind and heart in
its interpretation. Reliance upon the Word does not forbid progress,
advancement, but ensures it ; for our entire argument indicates, that just
in proportion as man accepts of Holy Writ, and his writings or expositions
 Prop. 9.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 121

are based on it, in that proportion will he be in the way of real progress,
obtaining a clearer, more comprehensive view of the truth. The doctrines
of the Bible, too, are corroborated not only by comparison, study, etc., but
by the alditional knowledge bestowed by personal experience and the
history of the Church and world, i.e. they are truths confirmed by a degree
of realization.
Those who object to the Scriptures being an infallible standard bring in (as Owen,
Deb. Land, p. 146) this comparison : “Science sets up no infallible standard ; if she did,
there would be an end of all scientific progress.”” The fact is, that this is both an unjust
comparison and conclusion. Science cannot do so, since all its knowledge is derived
through human instrumentality ; it deals with Nature, and yet amid the diversity of
scientific teaching respecting Nature, in view of the many unknown problems suggested
by Nature, it would be glad to avail itself of the teaching of an infallible standard, if it
were possessed. On the other hand, the Bible, which professes not to be a teacher of
science, deals with another and higher sphere—the moral, spiritual, and eternal interests
of man, the most essential for happiness, and in which man needs assistance and guid-
ance. God condescends, in compassion to our necessities, to reveal Himself authorita-
. tively in this direction, especially in view of our being under moral law to Him. But
this does not forbid progress in man, in knowledge, etc., as is seen in the results of com-
parison, deduction, inference, experience, etc. Kven an infallible standard in science
would not prevent progress in the same way. No! the truth is, that men wish to intro-
duce and enforce novelties, etc., that are contradictory to the Word, and, therefore, they
are desirous to get rid of its authority in order that their own opinions may be the more
readily received. Dr. Schaff (Principle of Protest. p. 80) justly observes : “The more
any one enters into the contents of the Bible, the more he learns to say with Luther, that
itresembles an herb that by every rubbing becomes only the more odoriferous, a tree that
by every shaking throws down only a richer supply of golden apples. Every valuable
exegetical work discloses to us new treasures, and our Church (Reformation), having lived
upon it already three hundred years, must still with Paul exclaim in amazement, ‘ O the
depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God.’ ”
122 THE THEOOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 10.

Proposition 10. Lis kingdom should be studied in the light of

the Holy Scriptures, and not merely in that of creeds, confes-
sions, formulas of doctrine, ete.
This legitimately follows from the preceding Proposition, and
reminds us, (1) that to learn what the kingdom is, recourse must
be had to the original source of information, and (2) that, however
much the Scriptural idea of the kingdom may differ from that
given, honestly and conscientiously, by men, the former must be
received in preference to the latter.
Cornelius Agrippa (On the Vanity of Sciences, ch. 100) quaintly says: ‘* Wherefore it
behoveth us to trie by the Worde of God all the disciplines and opinions of sciences, as
gold is tried by the touchestone, and in all things to flee thither as to a most stiffe rocke,
and out of that alone to seeke for the truth of all thinges, and to judge of all doctrine, of
the opinions and expositions of all men, and that we reade not by the doctrines, by the
gloses, by the expositions, or by other sayings of men, although they be most holy and
beste learned, them I meane which speake either without or against the authoritee of
God’s Worde. . . . So great is the majestie, so great is the power of this Scripture,
that it alloweth no strounge exposition, no gloses of men nor Angels : neither sutfereth
it selfe to be bowed to mens wittes as if it were of waxe, nor after the manier of mens
fables suffereth it selfe to be transformed or changed into divers senses as it were some
Poetical Proteus, but sufficiente of it selfe, doth expounde and interprete it selfe, and
judging all men of none is judged. For the authoritee thereof is greater (as Augustine
saith) then all the insight of mans wit : for it hath one constant, plaine, and holy mean-
inge, in which alone the truth doth consiste, and in which it fighteth and vanquisheth.
But other Moral, Mystical, Cosmological, Typical, Anagogical, Tropological, and Allegor-
ical meaninges which are without this, with which many do depainte it with sundrie
and straunge coloures, can rightly, and truly teache’us some things, and perswade also
to the edification of the people, but they cannot prove any thing, or repugne, or reprove
to establishe the authoritee of the Worde of God. For let one bringe in controversie of
these senses, let him also cite what substancial authour soever he liste thereupon, let
him alleage an interpretoure, let him cite a glosse, let him alledge the exposition of all
the holy Fathers, all these thinges doth not so binde us, but that we maye saye the con-
trarie. But of the letter of the Scripture : of the draught and order thereof, bondes are
made, which no man can breake, no man can escape : but that dashinge and dissolvinge
all the force of argumentes, dothe enforce him to saye and confesse, that it is the finger
of God, that man never spake in this manner, that He speaketh not as the Scribes and
Pharisees do, but as one that hathe power.”
Harper's Weekly, Nov. 3, 1877, says that Dr. Bellows at the ‘‘ Ministerial Institute”
held by the Unitarians, Oct. 8 and 9, at Springfield, said : ‘‘ The weakness of so-called
Liberalism is its boast that it will have no dogmatic system, and that faith requires none.
Any man who truly formulates the truth and principles which are now floating in a senti-
mental mist, will be a re-creator of the religious life of the age.”
Creeds must more or less exist. The Luth. Observer, Aug. 31, 1877, after pointing out
how the Unitarian Church thirty years ago raised the cry, ‘“‘ Down with the creeds and
confessions,’’ and the experience of the past, points to the utterance of the ‘‘ Christian
Register,” a leading Unitarian paper, as follows : ‘‘ Let it be said, in all clearness and
resoluteness : Those who will not formulate, will not convey religious truth in essential
statements—finalities for the time—are the real impeders of progress, are the genuine
obstructionists of the onward march of a stalwart and intelligent liberalism. Let it be
pointed out that these cries and deliverances as to more liberty, no doctrinal teaching,
etc., are from chaotic minds desiring, in their blindness, to spread more chaos, and,
blind ones as they are, to lead others into the blind-catching ditches.”
Prop. 10.] THE TIEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 123

Obs. 1. This Proposition in its definite statement is the more needed,

since at the present day multitudes find themselves so fettered by an undue
reverence for human authority, as presented in and through the church,
that it is scarcely possible to get them to consider any subject in its true
scriptural aspect. We have no sympathy with the men who would, if they
were able, destroy the memorials of the church’s views and struggles. ‘The
creeds, confessions, formulas of doctrine, systems of divinity, theological
writings of the past, however some may be one-sided, prolix, etc., are pre-
cious heirlooms, giving us in a dogmatical or systematic form the opinions
of noble men, in different epochs, entertained respecting the truth. They,
too, subserved a great and glorious purpose in holding up Christ and the
essentials in Him, in opposing gross error, and in resisting the torrent of
unbelief. Admitting that the necessities of our spiritual nature, the thirst
after truth, the deep feeling caused by the realities of Revelation, the im-
pressive ideas evolved and suggested by contact with the truth, the earnest
desire to extend and defend the same, have caused fallible men to erect
these writings as bulwarks and barriers ;—while receiving them with grati-
tude, and acknowledging our indebtedness to them, yet we cannot, for a
moment, give them the authority of God’s Word. ‘They, too, ¢he work-
manship of man, must bow to the supremacy of Holy Writ, as, in nearly
every instance, the framers thereof intended and declared by appeals to the
Bible, indicating it to be the sole, paramount rule of faith.
A few examples must suffice. Thus, in the epilogue of the Augsburg Confession it is
distinctly announced that no ‘* dogma” “‘ contrary to the Holy Scriptures” can be admit-
ted. The Confession is based upon the Reformation principle : ‘‘ There is for articles
of faith no other foundation than the Word of God.’’ The Form of Concord, p. 152,
says: ‘‘ But all human writings and symbols are not authorities like the Holy Script-
ures ; but they are only a testimony and explanation of our faith, showing the manner
in which at any time the Holy Scriptures were understood and explained by those who
then lived, in respect to articles that had been controverted in the Church of God, and
also the grounds on which doctrines, that were opposed to the Holy Scriptures, had
been rejected and condemned.” ‘This is characteristic of the leading Protestant Confes-
sions (Comp. Fisher’s His. Ref., p. 462; Schatf’s Principle of Prot., p. 70; Schmucker’s
Inuth. Symbols, chs. 1 and 2; Standard Ch. Iistories) over against the ultra position of the
Romish Church that tradition is an equal source of knowledge and the product of the
Holy Spirit. Hagenbach (Lis. of Doc., vol. 2, s. 240) remarks : ‘‘ That the same impor-
tance should afterward be assigned to the symbolical writings of the Protestant churches,
which was tormerly ascribed to tradition, was not the intention of their original authors ;”
and he refers (s. 244) e.g. to Luther's protestation ‘‘ against any prominence being given
to his name and all appeal to his authority,’’ and that it was against ‘‘ the spirit of the
Confession of Faith to impose it as a yoke upon the conscience.’”’ Melanchthon himself
(Niemeyer’s Life of, p. 14) said : ‘‘ In Articles of Faith, some change must be made, from
time to time, and they must be adapted to the occasions.’’ Hence the idea of making
them equal to Scripture, or unalterably authoritative, never entered his mind. Van
Oosterzee (Dog., vol. 1, p. 20) pertinently says of the Symbolical books: “ They were
never intended to confine within bonds the spirit of investigation, still less to fill the
hated part of ‘a paper pope.’ ”’ The austere John Knox (Stanley’s Lec. on Lis. Ch. of
Scotland, p. 113) made the following profession : ‘‘ We protest, that if any one will note
in this our Confession any article or sentence impugning God’s Holy Word, that it would
please him of his goodness, and for Christian charity’s sake, to admonish ws of the same
in writing ; and we, upon our honor and fidelity, do promise unto him satisfaction from
the mouth of God (that is, from His Holy Scriptures), or else reformation of that which
he shall prove to be amiss.” Comp. Wycliffe (Kurtz’s Ch. His., vol. 1, p. 501, and Dr.
Vaughen’s ‘‘ Monograph’’), the Fathers, and others, as presented in Goode’s Div. Rule of
Faith and Practice (3 vols., London, 1853), the Waldenses according to the Centuriators of
Magdeburg (so Jones’s Ch. His., p. 249); Dr. Schaff in Com. Review, 1876, on Creeds;
Prof. Blaike on the proper limits of Creeds in ‘‘ The Brit. and For. Evang. Review, 1873”
(an Epitome of same in Evang. Review, 1873) ; Dr. McIlvaine’s Christ and Paul in Bib.
124 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 10.

Sacra, 1878 ; Dr. Hagenbach’s Ency. of Theol.; Zwingle’s views in Hess’s and Christoffel’s
Lives of ; and numerous others. Lord Bacon (quoted ‘‘ Lit. of Apologetics,’ North Brit.
Review, 1851, p. 184) remarks : ‘‘ that the Church has no power over the Scriptures, to
teach or command anything contrary to the written Word, but is as the ark wherein the
tables of the first Testament were kept and preserved ; that is to say, the Church hath
only the custody and delivery over of the Scriptures committed unto the same ; together
with the interpretation of them, but such only as is conceived from themselves.’’ Milton
( Treatise of Civil Power in Eccl. Cases) says : ‘‘ It is the general consent of all sound Prot-
estant writers that neither traditions, councils, nor canons of any visible Church, much
less edicts of any magistrate or civil session, but the Scriptures only, can be the final
judge or rule in matters of religion, and that only in the conscience of every Christian to
himself. . . . With the name of Protestant hath ever been received this doctrine,
which prefers the Scriptures before the Church, and acknowledges none but the Script-
ure sole interpreter of itself to the conscience.’’ The Westminster Conf., ch. 31, 3, says:
‘* All Synods or Councils since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may
err, and many have erred , therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice,
but to be used asa help in both.’’ The ‘‘ Standards’’ of the Presbyterian Church make
the only infallible rule to be the Word of God (as in Conf., ch. 1:2, 8, 10, Form of Gov.
ch. 1:3, 7, ete., Book of Dis. ch. 1:3, 4). Out of numerous citations of a Confessional
nature, another illustration of the general spirit manifested, is given as follows: Zhe Dec. of
Faith of the Congreg. Churches, a.p. 1658, declares : ‘‘ The Supreme Judge, by which all
controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of
ancient writers, doctrines of men and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose
sentence we are to rest, can be no other than the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit ;
into which Scripture, so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.” The simple fact is, that
only writers and bodies who endeavor either through a hierarchical or a mystical ten-
dency, to elevate the Church beyond its just proportions, take the opposite view.
Pre-Millenarians, as a class, adopt the opinion expressed in this work, and the Conven-
tion held in Dr. Tyng’s Church (New York, 1878) declared : “ We affirm our belief in the
supreme and absolute authority of the written Word of God on all questions of doctrine
and duty.’”’ It is strange that believers in the Word should occupy any other position,
when it is expressly asserted in it, that we are’to be judged at the last day, not by any
earthly creeds, or decisions of councils, or opinions of men, but by this Word of God.
Hence, while not discarding the careful study of human Confessions, it is of vast more
importance to ‘search the Scriptures.’’’ Compare Spener’s views as given by Krauth
in Pictures from the Life of Philip Jacob Spener (p. 140), Sprecher’s Groundwork of Theol.
(e.g. pp. 30, 100, ete.), Art. in Princeton Review (July, 1860) on The Bible its own Witness
and Interpreter, the Address to the Reader prefixed to King James’ Version (with quota-
tions from Tertullian, Justin, Basil, etc., on the Sufficiency of Scripture), Wycliffe’s
Truth and Meaning of Scripture, Whately’s Errors of Romanism.

Obs. 2. Creeds, etc., valuable as they are in many respects, can only, at
best, give their testimony as witnesses to the truth ; and they can only ¢es-
tify to as much of it as the framers themselves have seen and experienced.
Professing to give evidence in favor of the Bible, or to state what the Bible
teaches, that evidence or statement is only proper, consistent, and availa-
ble in so far as it coincides with the Holy Scriptures. Knowledge, there-
fore, of the satisfactory character of the confessional statements, is only at-
tainable by bringing them to the crucial test, the Word of God. Itisa
bad indication when, in any period, men will so exalt their confessions
that they force the Scriptures to a secondary importance, illustrated in one
era, when, as Tulloch (Leaders of the Refor., p. 87) remarks: ‘‘ Scripture
as a witness, disappeared behind the Augsburg Confession.”’
The reader will be reminded of Luther’s reply to Henry VIII: “ As to myself, to the ©
words of the Fathers, of men, of angels, of devils, I oppose, not old customs, nor the
multitude of men, but the Word of Eternal Majesty, that Gospel which my adversaries
themselves are compelled to recognize. There I take my stand,” etc. ‘‘I heed very
little the words of men, whatever their sanctity may have been, and as little do I heed
tradition or custom, fallacious custom. The Word of God is superior to allelse. If I
have the Divine Majesty on my side, what care I even though a thousand Augustines, a
Prop: 10,] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 125

thousand Cyprians, a thousand churchfuls of Henvys, rise up against me. God cannot
err or deceive ; Augustine and Cyprian, in common with the rest of the elect, may err,
and have erred,” etc. So also against ‘‘ the Celestial Prophets’’: ‘“‘ The spirit of the
new prophet flies very high indeed ; it is an audacious spirit that would have eaten up
the Holy Ghost, feathers and all. Bible! sneer these fellows, Bibel! Bubal! Babel!
And not only do they reject the Bible thus contemptuously, but they say that they
would reject God too, if He were not to visit them as He did the prophets,” ete. (D’Au-
bigne’s flis. Ref., Michelet’s Life of Luther, etc.) Luther thus manitested against all sides
the supremacy of the Bible (comp., Introd. to West’s “Anaiysis of Bible”), and opposed
(Michelet, p. 337) ‘‘ the papists’ cry, ‘ The Church, the Church, against and above the
Bible.’’’ In his letter to Jerome Dungersheim on the importance and authority of the
fathers of the church (Michelet’s Ap., p. 419), alluding to several of the fathers, the
Council of Nice, he asserts that “ whilst I respect the various authorities, I ascend the
stream till I reach the great fountain whence they all take their rise.’’ Zwingle repeat-
edly uttered similar sentiments expressive of the authority of Scripture, and when in
the Conference with Melanchthon at Marburg, he referred to the Council cf Nice and the
Athanasian creed, he stated (D’Aubigne’s His. Ief., vol. 4, p. 85): “We have never
rejected the councils, when they are based on the authority of the Word of God.” All
the Reformers, without exception, entertained similar views, and received the statements
of previous creeds, councils, fathers, etc., only as they thought them correspondent with
the Word. How this was afterward perverted and the Reformer’s writings elevated to
the authority of Scripture, or creeds exalted, as if inspired, to an infallibility, is illus-
trated in the fierce controversies (Dorner’s I/is. Prot. Theol., vol. 2, p. 211, etc.) waged
during the history of “ Pietism.’’ How soon was the spirit of Luther lost, as evidenced
in his reply (drawn from Augustine to Jerome) to Prierias (D’Aubigne’s His., vol. 1, p.
282) : ‘‘ I have learned to render to the inspired Scriptures alone the homage of a firm
belief, that they have never erred ; as to others, I do not believe in the things they teach
simply because it is they who teach them,’’ or his more decided utterance in the ‘‘ Smal-
cald Articles” (afterward used and perverted to bind men’s consciences !): ‘‘ We ought
not to form articles of faith out of the words or works of the Fathers ; otherwise their
diet, their kinds of dress, their houses, etc., would have to be made articles of faith, as
men have sported with the relics of saints. But we have another rule, namely, that the
Word of God forms articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel (Gal. 1 :8).”
Such a complete subordination of Creeds to Scripture is self-evident—(1) from the
authors of such declaring that they derived them from Scripture as then understood by
them ; (2) from distinguishing between the infallibility of Scripture and the fallibility
of human productions ; (3) from their speaking of Confessions as only witnessing for, or
testifying from, the Scriptures ; (4) from their subjecting the testimony of creeds to the
test of the Bible ; (5) from their urging others who should subscribe the formulated faith
to the study of the Bible as the best teacher ; (6) from the revisions, changes, enlarge-
ments, etc., made ; (7) from many of them depreciating a confessional standard in order
that they might exalt Scripture. Let us conclude with the apt appeal (illustrating both
this subject and Prop. 4) of Melanchthon in his “‘ Apology” to the Parisian University:
“« Here is, as I think, the sum of the controversy. And now I ask you, my masters, has
the Scripture been given in such a form that its undoubled meaning may be gathered with-
out exposition of Councils, Fathers, and Schools, or not? If you deny that the meaning
of Scripture is certain by itself, without glosses, I see not why the Scripture was given at
all, if the Holy Spirit was unwilling to define with certainty what he would have us to
believe. Why do the apostles invite us at all to the study of the Scripture, if its mean-
ing is uncertain? Wherefore do the fathers desire us to believe them no farther than
they fortify their statements by the testimonies of Scripture? Why, too, did the ancient
councils decree nothing without Scripture, and in this way we distinguish between true
and false councils, that the former agree with plain Scripture, the latter are contrary to
Scripture? . . . Since the Word of God must be the rock on which the soul reposes,
what, I pray, shall the soul apprehend from it, if it be not certain what is the mind of
the Spirit of God ?”

Obs. 3. The Bible, then, is our only infallible rule of faith and practice,
as many of the Confessions of Faith distinctly declare. This is also recog-
nized in Catechisms, or elementary books of instruction, all of which pro-
fess to be based directly on the Word. Every man feels that a doctrinal
position is only strongly fortified by Scripture testimony ; that the injunc-
 126 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 10.

tion, ‘‘ If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God,’’ 1 Pet.
4:11, is to be observed in teaching divine things ; that it is proper and
necessary to appeal ‘‘ to the law and the testimony ; if they speak not ac-
cording to this word, it is becanse there is no light in thein’’ (Isa. 8 : 20).
This feeling is aroused by the conviction that we (Eph. 2 : 20) ‘‘ are built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Iimself
being the chief corner stone.’?* Upon these, what they have declared and
done, must our doctrines be erected, and to them appeal must be made in
their support. It is desirable to know how others understood the doc-
trines of the Bible, how they derived them, what proof sustains them, etc.,
and it is proper to acknowledge our indebtedness to all such for informa-
tion and knowledge imparted, but when these human compositions are to
become the leading medium through which to view and interpret Scripture,
and that ILoly Writ must only be accepted as understood and explained by
fallible man, without any appeal therefrom on the ground that they are
given in the consciousness of the church as a legitimate spiritual outgrowth
through pious and enlightened believers, we must decline such a darkening
of authority, such a substitution for the Popish system.
It is amazing how the contrary is asserted in various quarters, overlooking how the
best of men, with the purest of intentions, may, under the influence of prior education,
ecclesiastical bias, an adopted principle of interpretation, etc., misinterpret Scripture.
It is gratifying, therefore, to see that men of the greatest ability and eminence, without
desiring to destroy the landmarks of the past or to dishonor the noble legacies left by
the church, insist upon it as honorable to the expressions and expositions of faith that
they should not be subscribed to without a declaration attached to them of the superior
authority of the Word itself. Thus e.g. Dr. Schmucker (Luth. Symbols, p. 59) quotes
Keellner as saying that the body of able theologians, “ champions for the doctrines of the
church,’’ have ‘‘ departed from the rigid doctrinal system of the symbols,’ instancing
““such as Doederlein, Morus, Michaelis, Reinhard, Knapp, Storr, Schott, Schwartz,
Augusti, Marheinecke, Hahn, Olshausen, Tholuck, and Hengstenberg.’’ Kcellner then
adds: ‘‘ In like manner has the public pledge to the symbols been greatly relaxed, and
is nowhere unconditional ; but infidelity to the principles of Protestantism, and guard-
ing it, the obligation is always expressed with the explicit reservation of the supreme
authority of the Scriptures, as is evident from an inspection of the pledges prescribed in
the different Protestant countries.’’ A mass of evidence and a host of names might be
appended, as seen, e.g. in Schmucker’s ‘* The Lutheran Church in America’ (especially
noticing Dr. Endress’ testimony and quotations from Melanchthon and Luther, p. 205,
etc.), Stuckenberg’s His, Augsb. Confession, Miiller’s Pref. to Symbol Books, Walch’s
Introd. to Symb. Books, Buddeus in Isagoge, recent utterances of Léhe, the Theol. Faculty
of Dorpat, Guericke, Dietrich, ete. Compare also Dorner’s His. of Prot., 1, 12; Leibnitz’s
Theodicy Pref.; Neander’s Church His., 1, 420; Newman’s Arians, 1, 2, and ch. 2,1;
Waterland’s Works, 3, 254; Burnet’s Eis. Ref., vol. 2, p. 268, as well as the writings of
Fuller, Sherlock, Hodge, Kurtz, Auberlen, etc.
Mackay (Prog. of Intellect., 1, 17) says: ‘‘ Forms (i.e. creeds, etc.) are in their nature
transitory ; for being destitute of flexibility and power of self-accommodation to altered

* We give Barnes’ (Com. loci) comment: We learn ‘‘ that the traditions of men have
no authority in the church, and constitute no part of the foundation ; that nothing is to
be regarded as a fundamental part of the Christian system, or as binding on the con-
science, which cannot be found in the‘ prophets and apostles ;’ that is, as it means
here, in the Holy Scriptures. No decrees of councils ; no ordinances
of synods ; no
‘ standard ’ of doctrines ; no creed or confession, is to be urged as authority in forming
the opinions of men. They may be valuable for some purposes, but not for this ; they
_ may be referred to as interesting parts of history, but not to form the faith of Christians ;
they may be used in the church to express its belief, not to form it. What is based on
the authority of apostles and prophets is true, and always true, and only true ; what
may be found elsewhere may be valuable and true, or not, but, at any rate, is not to be
used to control the faith of men.” ‘
Prop. 10.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 127

circumstances, they become in time unconformable to realities, and stand only as idle
landmarks of the past, or like deserted channels requiring to be filled up.” This is alto-
gether too disparaging, for, truth being eternal, true doctrine being ever the same, those
creeds and confessions that most purely embrace it, as e.g. Apostles’ Creed, are far from
being transitory. This will only apply to lengthy Confessions, embracing numerous
details, etc. Dr. Wiliams (Rational Godliness, p. 69), although liberal in thinking,
expresses himself more reasonably and justly when he says: ‘‘ No greater subject can in
our own day employ any man’s noblest energies, than preservation or renewal of the
truth of God, not fettered overmuch by the human accidents of our ancestors in the
faith, yet with reverential tenderness even for these.’’ The truth is, that an extreme
position is to be avoided on this point. The history of the church indicates that Confes-
sions have subserved high purposes ; it is the abuse and perversion of them that has done
mischief. To oppose creeds and denounce them as “‘ schismatical” is plainly contradicted
by fact. Those who so persistently decry formulas of faith on this ground, are as much
divided and in as great disagreement as the bodies who receive and adhere to Confes-
sions. Thus e.g. Unitarians embrace Arians, Humanitarians, Rationalists, Liberalists,
etc.; or the Universalists, Quakers, Christians, Campbellites, Christadelphians, and
others, who mutually reject each other, are divided among themselves in view, and only
agree in the denunciation of creeds. Yet all these, without exception, have a written,
dogmatical form of faith— not called a creed, but still virtually such—penned by some
prominent leader or leaders, which is followed, slavishly, by the mass. It is proper for
the church in certain stages, for the sake of uniformity, of restraining error, of bringing
forth truth, etc., to define its position in brief formulas, couched.as much as possible in
Seripture language, but to leave all such open to improvement or change if truth de-
mands it. There is something anti-scriptural in the position of Romanism, Symbolic
Lutheranism, Anglican High Churchism, Ultra Calvinism, Reformed Confessionalism—in
brief, in all attempts to bring in the work of man as an authoritative interpreter of Script-
ure. However well intentioned the design, it is a virtual lowering of Scripture to a
human level, and an abridgment of true Christian liberty. Thus e.g. the spirit of in-
quiry would be completely fettered if the direction of Dr. Goulbourn (The Holy Cath.
Church, 1874) were followed: ‘‘ The Prayer-Book is for us the authorized guide into the
teaching of the Bible,” assuring us that ‘‘ there would be an end of controversy, and a
good prospect of quiet growth in grace if we could acquiesce in the Bible as interpreted by
the Prayer-Book.” Alas! a multitude of Symbolical books desire and claim this posi-
tion, and their respective adherents invite us with similar hopes. Bigotry and unchris-
tian zeal are found in both extremes—viz., in an overdue reverence for, and exaltation
of, Confessions, and in the total rejection of creeds as if unworthy, in so far as based on
Scripture, of our acceptance. Van Oosterzee (Uh. Dog. vol. 1, p. 223) justly says : “ One
may esteem it a personal happiness if one can with an honest theological conscience
stand on the ground of the Confession ; but the honor of sound Orthodoxy, as measured
by the standard of the Church is—regarded from a Christian standpoint—by no means
the highest. it may well be that one feels himself, on the ground of Scripture itself,
and by virtue of the Protestant principle, bound in conscience to differ on a certain point
from the doctrine of the Church. Heterodoxy, in such a case, is not to be regarded at
once as heresy. The rectification of the traditional creed, which is in this way tested by
the Word, may even lead to its further development, provided that it is tested only by
means of Holy Scripture. Precisely he truly holds to his Confession of Faith, in the
Evang. Protestant sense of the term, who recognizes in the Confession not the absolutely
perfect form of his religious conviction, but that which may be constituted an ever more
perfect form of it ; and who seeks to attain to this higher perfection by an ever closer
attachment, and an ever deeper subjection of himseif, to God's Word in Holy Scripture.
There yet lie treasures in the gold mine, which await only the well-directed spade of the
digger,’’ etc. Thus also Martensen (Ch. Dog. 8. 242) remarks in the same strain, after
stating that tradition is an important ally in the interpretation of Scripture: ‘‘ But
though she (church) thus makes use of the guidance of tradition in order to the under-
standing of Scripture, this by no means violates her principle, that tradition must in
turn be tested, purified, and more perfectly developed by Holy Scripture. It is true
even of the Apostles’ Creed, that being a work in its present form clearly apostolic, it
cannot possess the same critical authority as Holy Scripture,” etc.

Ods. 4. Having thus determined to occupy the only position consistent

with that of a biblical student, viz.: that while duly reverencing the sym-
bolical books and theological efforts of the past, yet they should not be-
128 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 10.

come the infallible directories of the conscience and the restrainers of a true
Christian freedom to search into and receive what God has revealed, even
if opposed to them ; it is time to notice what bearing this. has upon the sub-
ject of the kingdom. The doctrine of the kingdom, although prominently
in the Bible, is not specially treated in the earlier Confessions, as e.g. the
Apostles’, Niceno-Constantinopolitan, and Athanasian. General expres-
sions, without entering into details, are employed, which doth Millenarians
and Anti-Millenarians could subscribe. ‘The doctrine as upheld by us is
contained in very few Confessions, is ignored by others, and is misappre-
hended and opposed in others. The result is, that many persons are prej-
udiced or biassed by a confessional standard, and are thus poorly prepared
for a dispassionate investigation. Preparatively it may be said, that when a
doctrine like ours has been almost universally held by the Christian Church
for several centuries, and that church points out that it is contained in the
grammatical sense of the Word ; that it isa doctrine plainly revealed,
often repeated, incorporated with covenant and promise, and the subject of
enlarged remark and prediction, it should certainly commend itself as em-
inently worthy of calm consideration and careful comparison with Script-
ure testimony. It is strange that but few Confessions make the kingdom
a distinctive article of faith, and from this, no doubt, results in a measure
the great variety and latitude of meanings given to it. The reasons why
our doctrine has not received a confessional prominency, will be presented
under following propositions. .
While all our Introductory Treatises to the Bible caution us to avoid approaching the
Scriptures, in order to ascertain its sense, under the bias of a previously constructed
system of doctrine, yet it is a rule almost constantly violated, as is too painfully evident in
commentaries, expositions, and theological treatises. So much is this the case, that very
few indeed escape entirely from its influence, manifested in anticipating the meaning,
inferring it, etc., in accord with a belief conscientiously and sincerely entertained.
Man, with the purest of motives, is still addicted to infirmity, and his weakness is pre-
sented in more than one confessional utterance. Taylor (Hp. Ded. Liberty of Prophesying)
has observed : ‘‘Such is the iniquity” (we would soften this by substituting misguided
zeal) ‘of men, that they suck in opinions as wild apes do the wind, without distin-
guishing the wholesome from the corrupted air, and then live upon it at a venture ; and
when all their confidence is built upon zeal and mistake, yet therefore because they are
zealous and mistaken,: they are impatient of contradiction.’’ Confessional exclusiveness
is the most intolerant, and at the same time the most destructive to true progress. It
virtually closes the Bible to advancement in knowledge, being the self-constituted meas-
urer of it. We, therefore, appropriate Martensen’s (Ch. Dog., p. 44) language: “ We
maintain, further, that no reformation can ever be effected in spirit and in truth, unless
the principle is accepted, that nothing shall pass for truth which cannot stand the final
test of the Word of God and the mind of man, freely investigating, in the liberty where-
with Christ makes us free.’’ The inroads of infidelity and the respondent defence, the
destructive criticism of hoth Scripture and Heclesiastical matters and the corresponding
vindication, have made it requisite that the largest liberty, compatible with the supremacy
of Holy Writ, should be allowed in investigation, in order that truth, and truth alone,
may be upheld and consistently defended.
Briefly, it may be proper to consider the main reasons assigned for exalting Confes.
sions or traditions to an equality with Scripture. Those under the plea of the continued
inspiration, the special enlightenment of the Spirit, the constant impartation of Revela-
tions, have been previously noticed. Those of the Romish Church are (1) that the .
church is older than the Scriptures, and that they proceed from her. The Divine Record,
however, teaches us that the Church itself sprang from God’s Word, and that she is only
the custodian of that Word, bound to disseminate it without additions, etc. (2) That it
is only through tradition that we receive the Scriptures themselves. But this is no rea-
son why tradition as a medium should be exalted to an equality with Scripture, for the
former does not make the latter, and the latter only recognizes and forwards that which
is bestowed. (3) Rejecting tradition, the door is opened to endless and conflicting in-
Prop. 10.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 129

terpretations. To this it can be said that tradition, as attested by the facts of history,
only increases the evil. The abuse of liberty, the violation of Scripture, the principle of
interpretation adopted, etc., are not so controlled by tradition but, as seen in the Romish
Church itself, the most divergent opinions obtain. (4) The most plausible objection is,
that Scripture itself is reproduced by the authority, and under the Christian conscious-
ness of, the Church. To this it is sufficient to reply : that in so far as there is an actual
reproduction of Scripture the church’s utterances ought to be received, but a comparison
must first be instituted with Holy Writ in order to decide that it is really and truly such.
In the controversy between the Papists and the Reformers, the grand characteristic was
noticed that the former appealed to the Church and the latter to the Scriptures. Ilus-
trative of this are the anecdotes given by Michelet and D’Aubigne (Life of Luther Ap., p.
395 and 421, Hazlett’s ed., and JIy/is. of Ref., vol. 4, p. 198): ‘‘ At the Diet of Augsburg,
Duke William of Bavaria, who was strongly opposed to the Evang. doctrine, asked Dr.
Eck, ‘ Cannot we overthrow these opinions by the Holy Scriptures?’ ‘ No,’ said Eck,
‘ only by the Fathers.’ Whereupon the Bishop of Mayence observed, ‘ Truly, our divines
are making a pretty defence for us. The Lutherans show us their opinions in the Script-
ure, chapter and verse ; we are fain to go elsewhere.’”’ The advice of the Pope’s court
fool to the Cardinals—who were consulting how the Protestants could be suppressed
notwithstanding their appeal to Scripture, especially to the writings of Paul—that the
Pope, by virtue of his authority, should take Paul out cf the number of the apostles,
etc., so that his dicta ‘‘ shall be no more held for apostolical.’’ It is well, in this day,
to recall and impress the true Protestant principle of authority, for the time is coming
when, amidst the bitter and overwhelming persecution of the church, sole reliance upon
the Word will be sorely needed.
It is a sad fact, that cannot be denied, that millions of professed Christians are bound
in the cast-iron fetters of creeds ; not merely the Greek Church (see e.g. Dr. Thompson's
statements in the Chris. Union ot Jan. 17, 1877, of Russian ‘‘ intolerance and persecution,
against which religious deputations protested in vain”), or the Romish Church (see e.g.
recent Encyclicals, etc.), but a large portion of Protestant bodies. The old proverb of
some Jews, ‘‘ the Bible is water ; the Mishna is wine,’’ is not dead ; for we have plenty
of men with the same spirit, who practically, when a Biblical question comes up for
decision, evidence that ‘‘ The Bible is water, the Mishna is wine’’—seeing that the ques-
tion is decided by human writings and not by the Bible. While some entertain proper
views, feelings, and practice, yet of others it may be said, that they retain the mind
which made Oromwell exclaim despairingly : ‘‘ Every sect saith, Give me liberty ; but
give it to him, and to his power he will not yield it to anybody else.” Some are so con-
fessional that they will reject a doctrine if not found in their creed, and virtually the in-
structions of the Bible are changed, so that they seem to read ‘‘ Search the Confessions”’
(not the Scriptures)—‘‘ Earnestly desiring the sincere milk of the Confession (not Word)
that ye may grow thereby,’’ etc. It is true in theory as the Ch. Intelligencer (Aug. 4,
1877, in reply to an attack upon Creeds in Scribner’s Monthly, Aug. 1877) declares, that
* all Protestant bodies proclaim and hold their creeds as entirely subordinate to the
Word of God,”’ but practically many do more than this—viz., constituting the creed the
standard or rule of faith. This has been noticed by: numerous writers in the Church ;
this called forth the noble protest of Macleod against the same in his speech made to the
Assembly of 1872 (comp. remarks of representatives on Confession in the Presbyterian
Alliance in Edinburgh, 1877). Outside of the church many also notice it, as e.g. Spencer
in his Study of Sociology on the Theological Bias, Froude in his Plea for the Free Discussion
of Theological Difficulties (where the sentence occurs : ‘‘ It may be that the true teaching
of our Lord was overlaid with doctrines ; and theology, when insisting on the reception
of its huge catena of formulas, may be binding a yoke upon our necks, which neither we
nor our fathers were able to bear’’), and others. The student in this direction will be
pleased to notice the ultra position assumed by a Dr. Stahl, and the deserved strictures
received in The North Brit. Review, Feb. 1856, in Art. ‘‘ Bunsen’s Signs of the Times.” A
proper medium is thus enforced by Dr. Sprecher (Groundwork: of Theol., ch. 2, ‘“ Proper
Estimate of Creeds’’) : ‘¢ Creeds should not, therefore, be neglected or despised, on the
one hand, nor should they, on the other, be allowed to have undue weight, or be uncon-
ditionally enforced. Only the substance of the faith, the great system of doctrine, and
not the individual clauses and details of the creed, should be made unconditionally
binding. When they are enforced beyond this, they drive out many of the best men,
and hinder many of the most conscientious from coming in, and thus fill the Church, at
last, with bigots on the one hand, who will repress all spiritual hfe and freedom, and on
the other hand, with careless men who are as really indifferent to truth as they are to.
godliness--men who can subscribe to any creed, caring only for the form of religion,
130 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 10.

while they deny its power.” Hence, from our position, we have admired the farewell
Address of Pastor Robison to the Pilgrims at Delft Haven, advising them to receive any
and every truth that the Bible holds as it may be preached to them by his successors,
complaining that others will only receive what the Reformers have taught and nothing
more, and thus expresses his faith : “ For I am verily persuaded the Lord has more truth
yet to break forth out of the Holy Word ;’’ and concludes with ‘‘ an article of Church
covenant,” as follows : ‘‘ That you shall be ready to receive whatever truth shall be made
known to you from the written Word.”’

Obs. 5. In this age of destructive criticism, it is proper to additionally

define our position. The exceeding multitude of interpretations, with their
variegated hues, has led persons to fix some limit, thus attempting to per-
form what God has not prescribed outside of the Scriptures, for God holds
us only responsible for the plain, naked, grammatical sense of the Word, and
not for recondite, hidden senses that the ingenuity or imagination of man
may concoct. One party will take refuge in the infallibility of the Pope,
another in the decisions of Councils, and a third in the agreement of these
two. One class cleaves to the oft-repeated maxim of Vicentius, and will
allow no interpretation saving that given by the Church in “‘ a unanimous
consent of the Fathers,’’ which consent (retained in Romish profession of
faith, see e.g. ‘‘ The Path to Paradise,”’ authorized by Archb. Hughes, New
York, 1856, p. 34), on inspection, is found to be a foregone conclusion.
Another declares that the only security is found in private judgment, by
which they mean the casting aside as a hindrance the interpretation of the
past, and a studying of the Word for ourselves utterly independent of out-
side help. The fruits of this last attitude have been manifested in those
who have professed it, either by a many-sided or a one-sided interpretation,
just as it happened to be suggested by the temperament, education, bias,
intentions, etc., of the interpreter. Experience seems to teach us that
safety lies in our avoiding all these extremes. While the Bible is the chief
object of study, and its truths authoritative ; while private judgment is
inalienable and should be exercised ; while it is reasonable to anticipate
that others beside ourselves should see and believe in the truth, it is folly,
on the one hand, to look, owing to human imperfection, for a general con-
sent to the truth (especially after the intimations of the Word itself that it
will not exist), and, on the other hand, to give ourselves such license and
self-importance as not to avail ourselves of the labors, faith, experience,
etc., of our fellow-believers. This we can do, without yielding the suprem-
acy of the Word, or sacrificing our freedom in Christ. In our argument
for the kingdom, tradition shall also be brought to view, enforcing the
same.
We may be accused of laying too great stress on the Apostolic Fathers and Primitive
Church in our argument. Tradition is indeed of secondary importance, but still it is
valuable as confirmatory evidence. For if a doctrine—important and directly appertain-
ing to the Plan of Redemption—is produced which has never been entertained in any
other age of the church, it would be, to say the very least, a very suspicious one. The
Fathers are not to be received as “ arbiters of our faith,’’ but yet the testimony of the
earliest, before so many errors arose, is valuable simply because of their having been in
immediate contact with the apostles, elders, and their disciples, and thus would be likely
to know something, even if imperfectly expressed, of the doctrines received and the
belief entertained. A recent writer (Killen, The Old Cath. Vhurch, p. 98) says : ‘‘It has
often been asserted that those Fathers who lived nearest the times of the apostles must,
therefore, be the best expositors of Scripture. It might with equal propriety be affirmed,
that the most ancient philosophers are the most enlightened interpreters of the works of
creation.’’ While the latter clause utterly fails as an argument—being irrelevant for the
Prop. 10.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 131

simple reason that those philosophers did not immediately follow an inspired and har-
monious teaching of philosophy, and hence the cases are not analogous—it would be
unwise and imprudent to assert the former, as presented by Dr. Killen, viz. : that they
are ‘‘ the best expositors.’’ They too are to be measured by Scripture ; they were falli-
ble, and human weakness exhibits itself in their writings ; but notwithstanding this we
hold that following so closely after perfectly reliable teachers, to whom they constantly
appeal, it is reasonable to expect that the truth concerning so significant and prominent
doctrine as that of the kingdom would also appear. Admitting fully their infirmities,
and liability to error, that their words are to be carefully weighed in the Scripture bal-
ance, it is right to suppose, in virtue of their nearness to the Christ and apostles, that so
important a subject as that of the Messianic Kingdom should enter largely into their doc-
trinal expositions. It could not be otherwise. The tradition, therefore, which really
possesses most weight in deciding questions pertaining to the Kingdom, is that of the
first and second centuries. The reason is apparent : if Holy Writ is the real authority
in matters of doctrine, then it follows, in view of the standing of the apostles, that it is
important for us to direct our attention to the first churches who were favored with their
instruction, conversed with them, enjoyed their supervision, to ascertain how they un-
derstood the apostles, how they explained the Kingdom, and what views they entertained
—and if there is a correspondence between the Bible and themselves, we justly claim that
their utterances thus far are worthy of credence. This matter is not to be discarded be-
cause it happens, as we shall show hereafter, that the Primitive teaching corresponded
with and is confirmatory of our doctrinal position. The reader must, if acquainted with
early history, know that at the introduction of Christianity the great, leading subject
with the Jews was that of the Messianic Kingdom. This could not be ignored or set
aside. Hence, before we proceed to their examination it is just to anticipate, from their
proximity to inspired men, that they heard and embraced the doctrine of the Kingdom
as given by the witnesses appointed by Jesus. ‘The desire to have our views confirmed
by the faith of the Primitive Church is so common with theologians that every one seems
solicitous to confirm, if possible, his doctrine by theirs, thus indicating the desirableness
of such subsidiary proof. After the third century tradition, owing to the varied and con-
tradictory opinions introduced, is not so reliable or significant. Knapp (Theol., Introd.
s. 7) remarks : “ Augustine established the maxim, that tradition could not be velied
upon in the ever-increasing distance from the age of the apostles, except when it was
universal and perfectly consistent with itself. And long before him, Ireneus (Ag. Her.
4. 36) had remarked, that no tradition should be received as apostolical unless founded in
the Holy Scriptures and conformable to them.” With the evidences of the fallibility
of the Fathers, something to be expected, we are not concerned, but notwithstanding
their sudden emergence from heathenism, former habits of thought, etc., it is the most
reasonable to look for some truth mingled with it, and that which is the most worthy of
our acceptance is that truth in which there was a general, union of belief, and which
strictly conforms to Bible teaching. It is but a low device to decry any Father, unless
palpably in error, as weak-minded, etc., because he happens to disagree from us ; and it
is equally absurd to elevate any one as so superior in attainments that his statements are
to be received without the direct endorsement of Scripture. We use the Fathers, as e.g.
Ccolampadius (D’ Anbigne’s His. Refor., vol. 4, p. 98): “‘ Tf we quote the Fathers, it is only
to free our doctrine from the reproach of novelty, and not to support our cause by their
authority.’”’ (Comp. an Art. on Patristic Theology and its Apologists in the North Brit.
Review, May, 1858.)
It is well to notice a mistake into which some excellent writers have fallen. Overlook-
ing the fact that the opinions of even great and good men are only doctrinally valuable
in so far as they are based on Scripture, they pick out the weaknesses and failings and
errors of eminent Christians and parade them as if the Scriptures were responsible for
such views. Thus, e.g., even Leckey in his His. of Rationalism refers to Luther, Melanch-
thon, Calvin, Baxter, etc., and thus indirectly attempts to weaken Christianity by con-
trasts. The weakness of believers is only too apparent, and is frankly acknowledged by
themselves ; their strength, Scripturally derived, is, however, not to be overlooked.
Again, a large and respectable class, not only in the Romish Church, but in the Puseyite,
Ritualistic movement, and in others, have much to affirm of the reproduction of Script-
ure in the church, and that we are bound to receive, as ‘‘ the life blood,”’ the faith of the
church. But not one of these advocates of tradition that we have read, is prepared to
receive the general tradition of the early church respecting the Kingdom. Tradition is all
well enough so long as it does not run counter to their own views; and as the latter
agree with a later period in the history of the church, they are utterly unwilling to ascend
the stream of tradition and receive it as it comes from the Primitive church. How they
132 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRrop. 10.

reconcile this with their own avowed reverence for tradition, it is impossible to see.
Even that early portion received, is itself often interpreted differently from the under-
standing of it by the early church. Thus, e.g., take the Apostles’ Creed as given to us by
Trenzus, held by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and others, and the coming ot Jesus to judge
and the resurrection were explained (as will hereafter be shown) very differently from
the opinions now fastened by many to the creed. If tradition is receivable at all, if it
possesses any weight in argument, the stream should be ascended to its fountain head.
Again, some writers defend the doctrines of Christianity too much from an outside posi-
tion, that is, in a philosophical manner. Cheerfully admitting that philosophically many
things can be alleged in favor of Christianity, and that its truths can be enforced, yet dis-
tinctive Christian doctrine must always find its chief and true support in the Word which
is the foundation of Christianity. Philosophy being the love of wisdom, and mani-
festing itself in the search after wisdom, cannot be discarded (hence in using the
term in this work the historical sense implying the various systems that have suc-
cessively arisen, is alone meant) without positive injury, yet it should ever be
borne in mind that philosophy is not itself wisdom or its judge, but only its useful
servant, its attractive handmaiden. The highest philosophy takes this position,
and therefore it is that our greatest philosophers have been most humble men, feel-
ing and acknowledging that wisdom has been imperfectly apprehended by them. In
Scripture doctrine we need something more conclusive than the mere deductions, however
valuable or suggestive, of reason. We require facts announced by Revelation, related to
man, and interwoven, recognizable, with past and present history. Taking up the
works, theological, of many eminent writers in this country and Europe, it will be found
that, although representing different tendencies, there is an endeavor to place the Chris.
tian system of faith upon a philosophical basis. The result of this treatment is a great
diversity, arising from the philosophical system adopted. A grave mistake is made just
so soon as the Bible method of presenting doctrine is lost sight of ; for, instead of philoso-
phy being the introductory to, and the interpreter of, the Scriptures, there should be,
first of all, a historical statement of doctrine as presented in the Word, and then, after
God has spoken, philosophy, if so minded, may explain and confirm. A clear percep-
tion of the Divine Purpose, historically presented, must precede all our own efforts.

Obs. 6. One of the fruits of the Reformation is the recovery and firm re-
establishment of the principle that all have the privilege of judging for
themselves in matters of religion. Roscoe (Life of Leo X., p. 235, vol. 2)
declares : ‘‘ The most important point which he (Luther) incessantly labored
to establish was the right of private judgment in matters of faith. To the
defence of this proposition he was at all times ready to devote his learning,
his talents, his repose, his character, and his life ; and the great and im-
perishable merit of this Reformer consists in his having demonstrated it
by such arguments as neither the efforts of his adversaries, nor his own sub-
sequent conduct, have been able either to refute or invalidate.’’ Count
Bossi (whom Roscoe answers), and others, have endeavored to deny this
privilege as opposed to their views of tradition, church authority, etc., but
only in reliance upon the declarations of hierarchical teaching outside of
the Bible. The Scriptures, while enjoining obedience to the church teach-
ing, does this only in so far as such instruction is in correspondence with
itself. God's Word is supreme. .A comparison of passages clearly indicates
this, as e.g. obedience to the Scriptures is the test of fellowship, 2 Thess.
3:14; 2 John 10, etc.; ministers are only to proclaim the truth as given to
them, Matt. 18 : 19, 2 Cor. 5:19, 20,1 Tim. 1:3, 4, and 6 : 3, 4, ete. ;
believers themselves are strengthened, etc., by the Word in faith, John»
20: 31; in growth, 2 Tim. 3 : 16, 17, etc. ; believers are to exercise and
obtain wisdom, etc., Phil. 1 : 9-11, Col. 1 : 9-11, ete. ; wicked ministers,
etc., shall exist and teach, Matt. 7 : 22, 23, 2 Tim. 3 : 5, etc. ; men shall
proclaim as binding the commandments of men, Matt. 15 : 9, Acts 20 : 32,
Gal. 2: 4, 5, Col. 2 : 8, etc.; men shall reject the words of Christ and sub-
Prop. 10.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 133

stitute their own, 1 Tim. 4 : 1-3 and 6 : 3, 2 Pet. 2:1, 2, etc. ; hence, the
appeal is made to us individually to test or try the doctrine proclaimed, 1
John 4:1; 1 Thess. 5 : 21, etc., and that we can know the truth by receivy-
ing the things of God, 1 Cor. 2 : 12, 18, being urged to it by the fact that
some professors, forsaking the Word, have not the knowled,ze of God,.1
Cor. 15 : 34, and that we shall finally be judged by the Word, John 8 : 48.
The entire framework of the Scriptures is erected on the idea of personal
responsibility enhanced by the ability to discern the truth for ourselves.
A vast array of Scripture might be presented bearing on this point, but it is needless,
since the whole question really depends upon that of the supremacy of Scripture or the
supremacy of the church. Let this be decided in favor of Holy Writ, and the right of
private judgment follows. It is for this reason that Confessions of Faith ought to be
simple, and couched as much as possible in Scripture language. It is a matter of con-
gratulation that this principle is a leading one among Protestants, and is fully recognized
and stated in various confessions. But to make these Confessions in turn the interpret-
ers of Scripture, and absolutely binding upon the conscience so as to allow no progress
excepting in their direction and under their control, is a palpable violation of the prin-
ciple itself ; it is inconsistent both with Scripture and the Confessional spirit. Protes-
tantism, which is a Protest to such a fettering of the believer, never could have arisen if
the shackles upon freedom of investigation forged by centuries of traditional belief had
not been broken.
A caution is requisite : in advocating, like Luther and a host of others, the right of pri-
vate judgment, we do not mean unrestricted license, for private judgment is itself con-
trolled by the contents of Scripture plainly, grammatically expressed. It gives us the
liberty of going ourselves to the Bible, but it does not allow us the freedom of rejecting
anything that is clearly taught in it. It is used only to ascertain by reading, searching,
comparison, etc., what is revealed, and when this is known it acquiesces in the same.
It has not the liberty, being merely a servant of God's and held accountable to Him, of
inferring and deducing from the Word what it pleases ; it must itself be led by a consis-
tent interpretation of Scripture, based on sound rules. Such a caution is the more neces-
sary, since the principle is seized by many and grossly perverted from its true meaning
and intent. It is made the medium through which a flood of destructive criticism and
misleading doctrine is conveyed to cover the plain truth. Some even abuse it to mean
“that a man has a right to be in the wrong,’’ just as if man’s accountability to the great
Lawgiver was abrogated, and as if the Scriptures could not be properly apprehended.
Many, arraying themselves in its silken folds, place themselves on the Judge’s bench
and undertake to decide what the Supreme Being ouyht, and what He ought not, to
have revealed. The principle is pushed from its legitimate position to a half-way accom-
modation, and to an unbelieving extreme. Whilst the right is a necessary, inalienable
one, making us personally responsible for the reception or rejection of the truth, we must
render an account for its proper use or abuse. The same is true of those who deny it to
others, so that Luther once remarked : ‘‘ The Papists must bear with us, and we with
them. If they will not follow us, we have no right to force them. Wherever they can,
they will hang, burn, behead, and strangle us. I shall be persecuted as long as I live,
and most likely be killed. But it must come.to this at last : every man must be allowed
to believe according to his conscience, and answer for his belief to his Maker.’’ The
spirit of Tetzel, Wimpina, or Prierius (D’Aubigne’s His. Ref., vol. 1, pp. 269, 279), that
would take such a judgment away and give it to a Pope only, or that of those who make
it synonymous with liberty to judge of the propriety of God’s commands, etc. (and not
whether they are to be found in Holy Scripture in order to be received), are alike
opposed to the simple attitude represented by the child Samuel: “ Speak, Lord, for thy
servant heareth.” The Evang. Alliance adopted as one of its important and funda-
mental principles : ‘‘ The right and duty of private judgment in the interpretation of the
Holy Scriptures.’’ Indeed, so widespread and essential is this that even such an exclu-
sive Church as the Greek (so Pinkerton’s Russia, p. 41, taken from Philaret’s statement
—the Metropolitan of Moscow) affirms the Bible as sufficient for a rule of faith, and the
right of private judgment, in interpreting the same.

Obs. 7. It is also a perversion to make (as in Hssays and Reviews) con-

science the supreme Judge to decide upon the meaning, merits, authority,
134 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 10.

etc., of Scripture, and that the latter must bend to the decisions of the for-
mer. The person who exercises private judgment ought to come to Reve-
lation, realizing (as conscience itself teaches) that his moral obligations
are not dependent upon his conscience, but upon the relation that he sus-
tains to God and man ; and that, after ascertaining by the use of his judg-
ment what the truths of God really are, conscience may aid in showing
their adaptation in the response given to them, help in impressing them
and in urging obedience to them. Moral law exists independently of the
conscience, and is made for conscience to respond to; the former 1s un-
changeable and binding alike upon all ; the latter may refuse to perform its
function in impressing that law, as is evidenced in the power of choice in-
fluencing the action of conscience. Hence the right of private judgment
does not, as some fancy, release a man from moral obligation, or lessen the
authority of the Bible, or place him asa judge over the things of the
Spirit, or give him power to substitute his own thoughts and vagaries im
place of what is written. It increases, instead of diminishing, our respon-
sibility, by placing us under greater obligations to pursue the truth im the
way God Himself has indicated. Those who are to “‘ try the spirits
whether they be of God,’ who ‘‘necd not that any man teach you,’’ are
those who have “‘ searched the Scriptures,’’ acknowledging its claims and
bowing their judgments to its divine superiority. God appeals to every
man to come personally to His Revelation, to read, study, and meditate
upon it, and this appeal is based on its sacred origin, its adaptedness to the
condition of all, the possibility of its superhuman element being appre-
ciated by all, and that its truth can be found by all, and will commend it-
self to every one.
It is important to notice this, since efforts are made in various directions to exalt
conscience above Scripture. Two illustrations, out of a multitude, are here presented.
The Spiritualists in Convention (Boston, May, 1864) adopted the following : ‘‘ Resolved,
That individual conscience, under the quickening and illumining influences of angel in-
telligence, is the only reliable guide of faith and life.’’ It is significant that this resolu-
tion followed another commending ‘‘ the works of Colenso, Renan, and other theological
agitators.’’ This specimen only proves the correctness of Scripture, that the conscience
of men is not so all-powerful but that it can be made subservient to passion, self-interest,
and abuse ; that its corrective and restraining power can be materially lessened by turn-
ing away from the truth, refusing to allow its moral influence to be exerted, and desiring
the substitution of things not demanding so high a standard of self-denial, morality, and
piety. The Bible assures us what experience corroborates, that conscience cannot only
be overridden but become so seared that it will no longer respond to the truth as origi-
nally designed (1 Tim. 4:1, 2; Tit. 1:5). The conscience, even of a believer, if not prop-
erly exercised may prove to be a ‘‘ weak’’ one, 1 Cor. 8:12, and 10:28, 29. Leckey (His.
Rationalism, p. 181), speaking of ‘‘ Protestant Rationalism,” says: ‘‘ Its central conception
is the elevation of conscience into a position of supreme authority as the religious organ,
a verifying faculty discriminating between truth and error.’’ We are not told, however,
how this nolds good in the conscience of a Hindoo, Mohammedan, Roman Catholic,
Protestant, etc., which receives error instead of truth ; or how it happens that a Ration-
alistic conscience diverges so widely in ideality, materialism, spiritualism, nihilism, ete. ;
or how even any unbelieving conscience is not united in the view what constitutes the
“supreme authority,’’ etc. If there were some semblance of unity, and an array of
facts, to substantiate such an opinion, then it might deserve consideration, but finding
the guidance of conscience leading to the utmost diversity in the Rationalistic ranks, it
may be dismissed with the single remark : that whilst conscience has, as the Bible
teaches, a discriminating power, yet this may be perverted and abused until man pos-
sesses ‘San evil conscience.’’ Conscience is appealed to (Rom. 1 and 2) in the Scriptures
as something needing aid (Rom. 9 : 1 and 14 : 15), as developed by the truth (John 18 : 37 ;
Heb. 9 : 14), and, therefore, is only presented to us as that faculty, or arrangement of our
mental and moral constitution, which intuitively responds to revelation when brought
Prop. 10.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 135
into contact with it, but which can be repressed or overcome by the will, passion, self-
interest, etc. In the nature of the case, it only becomes a witness of the truth and not its
judge, thus corroborating the fact that both Creation and Revelation proceed from the
same God. We reproduce two admirable statements : Dr. Schenkel (quoted by Frothing-
ham in The Soul of Protestantism) says :“ The contents of religion are in God Himself ;
and since man is conscious of God only as God reveals Himself, for man the contents of
religion are in the written revelation. Most gloriously and completely has God mani-
fested Himself in the person of Christ ; and the Holy Scriptures give the history of that
manifestation. The Holy Scripture,as the word or revelation of God, contains the
divine substance. Conscience is free ; but true freedom consists in obedience to the
truth. Caprice is no freedom. That only is genuinely free which is bound to God.
Hence the Protestant position, while appealing to conscience, at the same time insists
that conscience is bound to God’s Word, and can atiain outside of that to nothing. It is
therefore the special characteristic of Protestantism to be the religion of the Bible.”
Thus this liberal theologian endorses what Chillingworth (The Relig. of Protestantism) said
long ago : ‘‘ The Bible, I say, the Bible only is the religion of Protestants. Whatsoever
else they believe beside it and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable consequences of it,
well may they hold it as matter of opinion. I, for my part, after a long and, as I readily
believe and hope, impartial search of the true way to eternal happiness, do profess
plainly that I cannot find any true test for the sole of my foot but upon this rock only.
Propose me anything out of this book, and require whether I believe it or no, and seem
it never so incomprehensible to human reason, I will subscribe to it with hand and
heart, as knowing that no demonstration can be stronger than this : God hath said so,
and therefore it must be true. In other things I will take no man’s liberty of judgment
from him, neither shall any man take mine from me. I will think no man the worse
man, nor the worse Christian. I will love no man the less for differing in opinion from
me. Jam fully assured that God does not, and that, therefore, men ought not to require
any more of any man than this: to believe that the Scriptures are God’s Word, to
endeavor to find the true sense of it, and to live according to it.’’

Obs. 8. The exaltation of reason to the supreme authority is character-

istic of numerous works. Eulogies on the excellence of reason as the sole
and final arbiter abound ; and such might be deserving, and reason be ele-
vated above Revelation, provided it had, apart from the Scriptures, given
to us that which alone can satisfy the moral and religious sense of man,
viz.: a religion equal in merit to that contained in the Bible, or one better
adapted to the wants and necessities of humanity. If such persons as
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, and a host of others, could have pro-
duced a more noble portrayal of the nature and attributes of God, a more
perfect character than Christ, and a more glorious salvation than that pre-
sented in the Word, then there might be some force and_ propriety in urg-
ing the claims of reason to its arrogated position. Until this is done, it is
the wisest course to receive the manifest superiority of the Bible over all
mere human productions ; a superiority attested not only by a multiplicity
of fact and experience (Comp. Prop. 182), but by comparative ignorant
and unlettered men giving us a complete Plan of Redemption, which, while
constantly dealing with the loftiest subjects that can be entertained by
mind, preserves an unbroken unity amid detail. In the study of Scripture
and in its reception it is well to keep in mind what Oosterzee (Ch. Dog.,
vol. p. 159), after Pascal, says : ‘“‘' Two extremes must be avoided ; the ex-
clusion of reason, and the admission of nothing but reason.’’
Some additional remarks are proper, seeing that so much is said respecting the supe-
riority of Reason. The Bible constantly appeals to man’s reason ; Revelation is made to
Reason, and is designed to be apprehended by it. Not a step can be taken without its
aid, and therefore it is folly to ignore its importance and value. But whilst acknowl-
edging the same, it is foolishness to elevate it into an infallible guide and director, yea
into a Judge of Scripture itself. (1) Reason is imperfect, needing culture, training, dis-
136 THE TILEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [Prop. 10.

cipline, constant exercise, efc.; it is subject to growth, retrogression, variations, etc.; it is

limited in its ability to fathom things, much being utterly unknown to it. Hence the
impropriety of making it a supreme tribunal. Let any one take a glance at the different
and successive forms of Philosophy that Reason has constructed, and these features of
imperfection, variation, inability, are painfully exhibited. The boasted rule of Reason
is manifested in a bewildering diversity, scarcely two of them agreeing in the funda-
mentals. The ruins of the past, and the numerous claimants for the present afford us
the best answer to sucha claim. (2) The Bible represents Reason as swayed and con-
trolled by wicked impulses, as yielding to the influence of passion, self-interest, and evil,
and as needing correction and wholesome restraint. Experience, sad and boundless,
corroborates this statement. Men of the highest intellect, whose works are the admira-
tion of the world, have been the slaves of degrading vice, and have prostituted their
minds to represent it in attractive forms. Reason subject to the degrading authority of
passion ; which even has undertaken in an alluring manner to prove that there is no dis-
tinction between vice and virtue, which has overriden conscience and the nobler feelings
of man in its efforts to secure the ascendency of unbelief—is no infallible standard.
(3) The Bible again represents Reason as needing Revelation. Holy Writ is based upon
this necessity. Many facts indicate this truth. Thus, e.g., outside of the Scriptures
what light has Reason thrown into the dark grave, the nature and attributes of God, the
deliverance of man and creation from an all-pervading and constantly experienced evil,
etc. How these problems are met—problems pertaining to God, man, and the world—let
the discordant and antagonistic theories, from materialism through Pantheism, Idealism,
etc., down to the baldest Nihilism, testify. When the greatest philosophers are contra-
dictory and cannot agree, when one system after another follows, surely there is need of
help. When the most gifted minds are utterly unable to fathom the things of Nature,
how a grain of sand is held together, why crystallizing is invariable, how instinct is per-
petuated, how mind and body mutually affect each other, with a multitude of questions
unanswered, or if answered only under some glittering generality, surely in the higher
region of morals and religion, it is most reasonable to anticipate, just as we find it, less
ability to explain, less power to penetrate the deep things relating to God and man.
(4) The Bible represents Reason as often unreliable, even in believers, unless controlled
by the higher Reason pervading Revelation. That is, when left to itself, it may lead us
to error and folly. Unbelievers themselves point out this peculiarity, so unhappily dis-
played in too many instances in the church, forgetting that the Bible expressly warns
us that such exhibitions of weakness in reason are to be expected. But, if this is so
with believers, how does it stand with unbelievers? Let the multitude of philosophers
reply ; let the multiplicity of systems of error testify. The truthfulness of God’s Word
is abundantly confirmed both in the church and outside of it. (5) The Bible cautions us
against the pride of Reason, its self-exaltation, and urges us to humility. How this has
been exemplified, both in the church and out of it, forms one of the most humiliating
features of imperfect humanity. Overbearance, intolerance, abuse of opponents, lack of
charity, and even persecution, have been some of its fruits. It has never lacked in bold
presumption. (6) The Bible assures us that if Revelation is received as God has de-
signed, Reason itself will most fully acquiesce in its superiority. The declaration of the
Saviour, “Jf any man will do IHis will, he shall know of the doctrine,’ has been tested by
such a host of gifted minds, that it is unnecessary to press the matter. In the case of
apostates, etc., 1 John 2:4, is verified, whilst all others have not even entertained the
essential preliminaries to a proper apprehension of Scripture. (7) Reason, with its
loftiest efforts, can only give us the Possible, the Probable ; and this is unsatisfactory to
man because it presents no Plan of Deliverance adapted to the common and universal
wants of humanity, it develops no practical relief ; Revelation bestows the Real, and
this is manifested both in its perfect adaptability to man’s necessities and in the blessed
earnests of experience. The former only finds its corroboration—if truth—in the latter.
(8) God warns us that as we shall approach the ending of this dispensation, Reason
shall so pervert a due veneration and knowledge of God, shall so array itself against the
Revealed Will, that it shall succeed in mustering the nations and kings of the earth
against the Truth. Hence the efforts to exalt reason, the advance that such a theory has
made in practically alienating a multitude from the Scriptures, is only in the line of pre-
viously given prediction. It is something to be expected, and therefore its extensive
existence should give us the stronger faith in Scripture, which so accurately foretells it.
(9) Reason ought not to complain if there are things beyond its comprehension, things
impossible for it to explain, in the Word, for this is precisely what. ought to be antici-
pated in a Supernatural Revelation. Besides this, it does not reject Nature because of
its inability to apprehend it fully. Its proper attitude, therefore, is that of a learner,
Prop. 10.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 137

receiving truth from all sources, even if unable to understand ‘‘ how and wherefore’
such and such things exist, take place, ete. (10) The acknowledgments of men of Rea-
son indicate its utter unfitness to be the final and supreme arbiter. Passing by the de-
sponding, hopeless, despairing admissions by those sunken to Nihilism, it is sufficient to
select a single example, illustrative of many others. Thus e.g. Hume (quoted by Christ-
lieb, Mod. Doubt., p. 127) pointedly and significantly says: ‘‘ The ultimate fruit of all
philosophy is the observation of human ignorance and weakness.* On the other hand,
men of undoubted mental power, distinguished for the use of reason subservient to relig-
ion (as Bacon, etc.), have informed us that the portions of philosophy really valuable are
those which recognize and enforce truths already given to usin Revelation. (11) Finally,
Reason has never succeeded in improving the lessons inculcated by Scripture. It can
suggest no virtue, no duty, no obligations, nothing promotive of individual, social, and
national happiness, nothing essential to the welfare of man, that is not already presented
and enforced by the most powerful of motives in God’s Word.
Dr. Crosby (On Preaching, before the Pan-Presbyterian Council, 1877) correctly affirms
that ‘‘ men’s affections, not their intellects, are the hindrances to God’s truth, and
accordingly if the contest can be brought into the intellectual field, and so relieve the
heart from the pressure of spiritual truth, men are satisfied.’’ The Bible, as he forcibly
urges, appeals to the heart, to our mora] nature, more than it does to reason, without,
however, discarding the latter. It has often been noticed that men in error, both in doc-
trine and practice, love controversy—something that may engage reason and stifle the
demands of the heart. Such are inclined to eulogize ‘‘ Practical Reason,” ‘‘ Moral Rea-
son,” and ‘‘ The Transcendent Sphere of Reason.” An insidious and half-true method
—eloquently expressed (as e.g. by Coleridge in ‘‘ Confessions of an Enquiring Spirit ’’)—
is to allow a partial inspiration to the Scriptures and a high degree of ordinary grace to
the rest, so that they rather present themselves as the supply of the deepest wants of
man than as an authoritative and infallible standard. But how the soul can rest upon a
supply, lacking those essentials, we are not informed. Comp. the necessity of reason,
etc., as given by Row in the Bampton Lects. 1877, ‘‘ Ch. Evidences,” p. 19, etc.; Butler’s
Analogy, P. II., ch. 3, ete.

Obs. 9. In this study of Scripture, reason and faith must be joined to-
gether in order to make it effective. The two cannot be separated without
serious injury ; this is God’s own arrangement, and, to insure success, it
must be followed. They are inseparable, for there can be no faith without
reason first perceiving the truth and its adaptability to man, so that faith
may then appropriate it. Reason may refuse faith, can exist without it,
but faith cannot live without reason. Christlieb, in view of this intimate
and mutual relationship, well says that faith is ‘‘ the highest. form of rea-
son,’’ seeing that it establishes and confirms reason by giving us a more
certain knowledge of the supernatural in its appropriating effects of the
truth upon ourselves. One part of faith sces the truth, the other, the
crowning part which constitutes it faith, accepts and applies it, thus giy-
ing a practical, and not a mere theoretical knowledge of the same. ‘The
head and the heart are combined in this work, thus affording a realizing,
abiding acquaintance with the truth. Faith must have knowledge, for we
must first know the things that we are to believe, and hence it is also rep-
resented as ‘‘ seeing’’ (John 6 : 40, Heb. 11 : 27). Cremer (Bremen Lect-
ures, Lec. 2) remarks: ‘‘ All faith rests upon knowledge, and when it is
not produced by deduction or logical demonstration, it must ground itself
upon spiritual perception and contact. Knowledge and faith are distin-

* One unbeliever in reply to another, in the Religio-Philosophical Journal, March 13,

1875, makes the following remark : ‘‘ It is futile to talk of reason as an infallible stand-
ard of religious truth, until mankind become so perfect in knowledge as never to err in
the premises from which they reason. Until then the dictates of reason will be simply
every man’s opinion, as it is now.”
138 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 10.
guished from each other like cognition and recognition ; so faith is an ex-
ercise of obedience, of recognition, and hence of trust, of surrender,’’ etc.
Evangelical faith includes more than mere knowledge, viz.: the hearty self-
appropriation of such knowledge, leading necessarily, as the truth received
demands it, to an obedience of the same. Such faith is sustained by three
things : (1) by the sense of truth, 7.e. by reason, the ability to discern and
know it; (2) by the sense of right, 7.e. by conscience, the power of testify-
ing to the truth apd enjoining responsibility of its acceptance ; (3) and by
the practical experience wrought by faith, 7.¢. in the agreement of faith
with our mental and moral constitution and the results that it produces.
Faith is indeed “‘ the gift of God,” Christ is “the author of faith,” the Spirit pro-
duces faith, etc., but only in the higher Evangelical, Biblical sense in those who volun-
tarily receive the truth as given by the Father, Son, and Spirit. No man is forced into
faith, as appears from the Scriptures being designed for faith (John 20 :31), the ministry
being a means of faith (Rom. 10 : 14-17), the Gospel itself being called faith (Gal. 1 : 23),
the promises given to faith (John 5 : 24), and the want of faith is reproved (Mark 16 : 14),
warned against (Heb. 3:12), threatened (John 3:18, 36), and described as voluntary
(John 5 : 44, 46, 47). Enlightened by the truth as given by the Father in His Son and
through the Spirit, that faith, which God commends and that rejoices the heart, is pos-
sible ; without accepting the aid thus tendered, it cannot be produced. Hence no man,
unless he has experienced the power of this faith, is able to judge correctly of its merits
and its true relationship to knowledge. To make man passive in the reception of faith,
is to ignore the Scriptures to the contrary and also experience ; to make man himself the
chief and sole instrumentality in believing, is to overlook the truth given to excite and
sustain it ; to make faith the barrier to knowledge, is to forget that faith’s foundation is
the knowledge of the truth ; and to make faith fatal to progress, is to trample under foot
the declarations of Holy Writ and the realization of believers that faith only opens the
way to increased knowledge. Indeed, it is a matter of doubt whether in any of the
spheres and pursuits of life there can be knowledge without the addition of some faith,
and whether any great achievement can be accomplished without suitable faith. Zockler
(Bremen Lectures, Sec. 1, p. 16) refers in such a connection to the faith of Columbus,
Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, etc., and remarks : ‘‘ True faith and actual knowledge, so far
from being contradictory, always demand and supplement each other. For faith, as the
immediate apprehension of the truth by the divinely illuminated reason, is related to
knowledge, regarded as the acquired apprehension of the same truth by the reason strug-
gling toward such knowledge, as the necessary condition, the starting point and support
of all its operations. All faith is undeveloped knowledge, and all knowledge is faith un-
folded and applied to the different realms of reason and experience.’’ All Evangelical
writers, however they may differ in details, unite in the common opinion that faith is not
to be separated from knowledge, seeing that the Bible, in unison with experience, in-
cludes in believing a previous knowledge of certain facts, as e.g. the Coming of Christ,
His work of grace in man’s behalf, etc. They also unite in the view that the certainty
of this knowledge, derived from reason, is made evident by faith in its vital force of
acceptance, because through the latter we experience its actuality in the effects—as prom-
ised—produced upon us personally. Thus, to illustrate : a medicine is presented to us
in whose nature and efficacy we may believe on the testimony of others ; here is knowl-
edge and faith in its lowest form. But let this medicine be taken, and its efficacy be
established by personal use, then previous knowledge and faith of a theoretical cast gives
place to a practical knowledge and faith, derived from personal acceptance and experi-
ence, that elevates the former into real facts connected with our own personality, which,
like existence, thinking, feeling, etc., it is impossible any longer to doubt. This is the
secret of the believer's strength, so that all the arguments of unbelief can never shake the
simple faith of the unlearned but sincere Christian. He knows, and he believes, the
attestation of self-consciousness.
Undoubtedly, taking Scripture as a guide, unbelief itself will finally accept of this
union of reason or knowledge and faith. The controversy thus far has clearly established
this fact. Delitzsch, Fabri, Christlieb, and many others have shown that (as Fabri states
it, quoted by Christlieb in Mod. Doubt), “ As its ultimate basis, even the most radical un-
belief has one and the same principle of knowledge with Christianity and every other
positive religion—the principle of belief in given matter of fact, on the ground of the
original and direct testimony of the human mind.” Unbelief, however much it may
Prop. 10.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 139

decry faith, lives largely upon it, calls loudly for others to exercise it, and denounces
those who refuse to entertain it. Unbelief has sufficient intelligence to perceive that,
while demanding faith, it is utterly inconsistent to run a crusade against faith on the
grounds heretofore alleged. The result will be a change. Knowing that faith influences
the masses, that it is the most potent of powers, it will, as the Bible predicts, so shape
its future course that a connection will be allowed to exist between Revelation and Rea-
son, between Faith and Reason, as evidenced in the coming worship of Antichrist—the
worship of Deified Man. For this worship of the last times, we are assured, is to rely
largely upon pretended revelations and lying wonders to aid Reason and inspire Faith.
Denying the faith and reason that God requires, their punishment will come through
their own deluded, self-exalted reason and faith.
Finally, all Christians, too, are agreed that faith in its appropriating form, is such a
trust in God, that it receives His Word and relies upon it, bringing under subjection free
will, so that it chooses the moral, the religious, the obedience required in preference to
pleasure, sin, and selfishness. To attain such faith demands self-abnegation, and this is
the stone of stumbling to multitudes. Hence faith is not the power of choice, though it
ieads to it ; faith is not conscience, though it quickens it ; faith is not reason, though it
is led by it ; faith is not the mere knowledge of the truth, though it receives ; faith is
not goodness, though provocative of it ;—it is that act which brings reason, the will, con-
science, knowledge, goodness, all into humble submission to the Infinite, and relies upon
the provision made by God for man. It is appropriating trust. Such faith brings forth
its own evidences of the Divine Truth, in its sustaining reason (where it only finds mys-
teries), in satisfying the moral nature of man (e.g. the dictates of conscience), in bring-
ing forth the fruits of the Spirit (i.e. in experiencing the sanctifying nature of the truth
received), in its adaptability to all his circumstances (in strengthening, comforting, etc.),
in transmuting evil into good (making it disciplinary, provocative of good to others, etc.),
and in quickening the whole man into newness of life (implanting supreme love to God
andlovetoman). Itisa@ powerful instrumentality ; it is transforming, corrective, and ele-
vating. It isthe purest and strongest where it is joined to the least error ; but even with
error it is all powerful when based on the essentials of Christianity. The Bible takes it
for granted that strong faith—faith testifying in the most satisfactory manner to self-
consciousness—may be allied with a lack of knowledge respecting things not absolutely
necessary to salvation. A few simple truths respecting God, the Redeemer, the relation
that man sustains to God and his fellow-men, the moral obligation and responsibility
of man—truths to which the moral nature of man is respondent—are all sufficient to
create this faith. Itisa faith that all the learning in the world cannot alone produce,
seeing that its vital power lies not in the head, but in the heart. It is a faith common to
the intelligent and the illiterate, and cannot be circumscribed or produced through mere
knowledge. Therefore it is that unbelief and bigotry so gravely misjudge the weakness,
error, etc., of believers—just as if faith was dependent upon uniformity in all things,
thus totally mistaking its foundation and intent. Faith indeed increases by knowledge,
knowledge derived from the Word and experience, but only as truth is appropriated
and obeyed. This feature of obedience to the truth known, the evidence of appropriat-
ing faith, often, often gives the unlearned man a power and charm that the greatest philos-
opher, neglecting it, cannot attain. Alas! that men so persistently overlook this plain
fact.
Attention has already been called (Prop. 9) to the misapprehension that faith is not
connected with doctrine, that as M. Colani (in the Prot. Synod of France, 1872) said:
““ You place Christianity in certain beliefs ; we place it in the heart.’’ The Bible, the
experience of Christians, unite the two ; the denial of one or the other leads to an ex-
treme, for the simplest act of Christianity, as, e.g., prayer, cannot be performed without
some distinctive belief in doctrine—the doctrine respecting God and the power of Christ.
It is true that faith itself may be hampered by the excesses of Confessional zeal and
dogma, curtailing access to God’s truth or veiling it by tradition, but this is not the fault
of doctrine per se, but of doctrine imperfectly or erroneously presented. Hence the im-
portance of presenting doctrine, in a Confessional standard, as much as possible in Script-
ure language, and of making even such subordinate to Scripture. One reason for the
persistent attack against doctrine, is owing to its vital connection with Christianity, with
enlightened faith ; for as Kurtz (Ch. His., vol. 2, p. 130) has well remarked : “ The Doc-
trine of the Gospel is the life blood of the Church, the pulsations of which throb through
her entire organization.’’ How faith is wrought by the Spirit through the truth given by
Him, has been sufficiently noticed under Prop. 9. Faith being largely a heart work, it
is impossible for the sensual, haughty, self-confident, worldly man to exercise it, because
it demands as its concomitant, in order to receive the things revealed by the Spirit,
140 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 10.

obedience, which pride, love for sin, etc., rejects. Even an Aristotle appreciated the
relation existing between the indulgence of evil and the rejection of truth, when he says
(quoted by Bloomfield, see Barnes, 1 Cor. 2:14): “‘ For wickedness perverts the judg-
ment, and makes men err with respect to practical principles ; so that no one can be wise
and judicious who is not good.’’ ; : 5
A few words may be added respecting the charge that faith—Evang. faith—is destruc-
tive to Science. We are unjustly charged by Scientists and others with disparaging
learning and philosophy under the Scriptural phrases ‘‘ the wisdom of this world,”
“ oppositions of Science falsely so called,” “to the Greeks foolishness,” etc., just as if
reason was not to be employed (when constantly appealed to in Scripture), as if true
science (implied by ‘‘ falsely so called’’) could not exist, and as if true philosophy (by
which we understand the love for, and search after, wisdom) was not commended by
God. This charge is so sweeping that it defeats itself ; for, however individual men or
organizations may have acted in this matter under bigotry and mistaken zeal, neither
Revelation, nor a believer who receives all that God enjoins, is responsible for the same.
The learning, worldly wisdom, and Science that the Bible condemns, 1s only that per-
verted form that caters to depravity, making men despisers of virtue and holiness, and
leading them to deny their obligations and responsibility to God. Simple consistency
requires of us that, the moment we accept of the Word of God as a divine Revelation,
Holy Writ be allowed a precedency (accorded by reason and faith) without interfering
with or destroying the existence and relationship of truth wherever elsewhere found.
This precedency, indeed, leads to caution, to comparison, and to the rejection of posi-
tive error, but it does not depreciate learning, scientific knowledge, etc., as evidenced in
believers having been among the most learned, wise, and scientific. It is not too much
to say, that the foundation of this objection lies in the estimate formed of the relative
value of Revealed Truth and Scientific Truth. Believers, of course, finding the former
dealing with the higher interests of man (his moral, religious, and eternal), place it highest
in the scale of truth ; the unbeliever, rejecting the former, elevates nature or the facts of
‘humanity in that scale. Some Scientists, having no such preponderating plea as the be-
lievers, despise learning and philosophy (e.g., Art. “‘ Nat. Religion,” Macmillan’s Mag.,
1875, repub. Pop. Science Monthly May, 1875) outside of their peculiar sphere of study.
Scientists have too often been as bigoted and one-sided as overzealous believers. The
truth is, that both parties, belief and unbelief, are opposed to that form and manifesta-
tion of learning and philosophy which is hostile and antagonistic to their respective
views ; and the correctness of such opposition is to be determined by the nature of the
things believed. Hence the relative value of Revelation and of mere Science must first
be determined before the question is decided one way or the other. -The fact also that
some truth is essential and other truth non-essential to personal happiness and salvation,
ought to be considered in such a discussion. This does not discourage investigations in
all domains of truth, but welcomes them with the hope and faith, inspired by Revelation,
that all truth, higher or lower, essential or non-essential, will in the end be found in fra-
ternal relationship—supplementing each other.*

* The student who desires to read on this subject is referred to Christlicb’s ‘‘ Modern
Doubt,” Birk’s ‘‘ Bible and Mod. Thought,’’ Ulrici’s ‘‘ God and Nature,’’ Rogers’ “ Rea-
son and Faith,” Candlish’s ‘‘ Reason and Revelation,’’ ete. Dr. McCosh, Delitzsch,
Fabri, and many other writers present the most valuable thoughts on these points,
extending and ably defending what nearly every work on the Evidences of Christianity
also notices. The reader will pardon such digression in view of their practical, funda-
mental importance. The fine statement of faith and reason, p. 463, etc., Debt and Grace,
by Hudson, ought not to be overlooked.
Prop. 11.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 141

Proposition 11. The mysteries of the kingdom were given to the

apostles. — 3
This is plainly asserted by Jesus Himself (Mark 4:11, Matt-
13:11), ‘‘Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the king-
dom of God,” ‘‘it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the
kingdom of heaven,’’ which the apostles, including Paul, claimed
to have been imparted, Eph. 1:9, and 3:3, etc. The entire tenor
of the New Test. impresses us, that their superior qualifications
as teachers arises from their acquaintance with the doctrine of
the kingdom, resulting from the personal instructions received
from Christ, and the subsequent special guidance of the Spirit.

Obs. 1. We are not concerned, in this stage of the argument, to know

how much truth respecting the kingdom they obtained from Jesus, and
how much, afterward, from the specially delegated Spirit ; this will forci-
bly appear as we proceed. It may, however, be properly stated here, that
there might be mysteries pertaining to the kingdom, while the kingdom
itself—what it denoted—may be fully known. The reader will carefully
notice, that in the early period of their discipleship, the mysteries relating
to the kingdom were already given to them. It is incredible, utterly im-
possible, that the kingdom itsel{—what it meant—should, therefore, have
been a mystery to them. The express language of Jesus forbids it.
Hence, that large class of eminent writers, which teach that during the
life of Jesus the apostles misapprehended the kingdom, are mistaken, and
it is the most reasonable, and the most consistent with Christ’s words, to
conclude that the apostles, even then, had more than the mere ‘‘ husk,’’ or
the unrecognized ‘‘ germ.”’ |
Neander, and a host of writers, say, by way of apologizing in behalf of the apostles
(because they did not hold the modernized view of the Kingdom), that they only held
‘the shell,’’ or ‘‘ husk.” But Jesus declares expressly, Math. 13:16: “But your eyes
see, and your ears understand.” Comp, Mark 4:11, etc. Such knowledge is proper for
preachers of the Kingdom.

Obs. 2. The word ‘‘ mystery’’ ordinarily denotes something secret, hid-

den, or beyond our comprehension, and is frequently employed in Script-
ure to denote truth formerly concealed but now revealed. The name
‘‘ mystery’? is retained in view of its having been previously hidden.
Mysteries when disclosed may be perfectly intelligible, and when not
divulged, but simply pointed out, may exist without our reason being able
to understand their nature, meaning, etc. That the latter is not opposed
to reason, although above reason, is apparent from the ten thousand un-
solved mysteries of nature. (Comp. Elliot’s ‘‘ Christian Krrors, Infidel
Arguments,’’ Horne, vol. 1, p. 158, etc.) Then, too, as in the most simple
142 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 11.

things, there may be something inexplicable, so in the doctrines of Revela-

tion—plainly stated and easily comprehended—there may be great depths
unsounded. ‘To this Luther referred, when he said that he could not fully
comprehend even the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, etc.
Obs. 3. While some mystery, some unexplained or unrevealed things per-
taining to the kingdom, may have existed in the days of the apostles and
now remain such, not given by Jesus or the Spirit, yet the assurance is
abundantly ours, that the kingdom itself, its nature, our relation to it, all
things necessary for a correct understanding of its meaning, was made
known. This is evident, e.g. from its having been predicted, taught to
the disciples and preached by them to the people ; the apostles and their
immediate followers professing themselves called to proclaim it so that men
might be induced to enter, receive, and inherit it. All this, in the nature
of the case, presupposes a correct understanding of it. The kingdom is the
great prize, reward, etc., held up before them, and it is most reasonable
and conformable to fact to believe that they would have such an adequate
knowledge of its real import as to be able to tell us what it denotes. Ad-
mitting mystery even now attached to things relating to the kingdom, we
can know these so far as declared, for while ‘‘ the secret things belong unto
the Lord our God ; those things which are revealed belong unto us and to
our children forever’? (Deut. 29 : 29).

Obs. 4. Carefully looking over the entire records of discipleship and

apostleship, nothing is to be found to indicate that those mysteries given
to them related to the kingdom so far as its meaning or signification is
concerned. ‘The contrary indeed is largely inferred, and upon this un-
proven inference a massive superstructure is built. (This will be noticed
hereafter.) The reader can soon verify our position by a reference to pas-
sages which either directly or indirectly refer to mysteries (i.e. things of
which they were ignorant, that had been hidden, etc.), and he will see
that they allude to the death of Christ, or to the intimate and unending
union of the divine and human in His Person, or to the ascension and ex-
altation of the man Christ Jesus to heaven, or to the blending in the Script-
ures of two Advents, the First and Second seperated by an unknown in-
terval of time, or to the rejection of the Jews and the call of the Gentiles,
or to the period of the Times of the Gentiles and their subsequent over-
throw, or to the future restoration of the Jews and their blessing to the
Gentiles, or to the redemption of the race progressing when, under Christ’s
dominion, both Jews and Gentiles are exalted in the favor of God, etc.,
but never is the kingdom introduced as a mystery, 7.e. as something un-
known. The reason for this will appear, when we come to the disciples’
preaching the kingdom. In the mean time, the very outskirts of the
subject already force the conclusion that those mysteries refer not to the
nature of the kingdom, but to the manner of its establishment, the means
employed, the preparation for it, the time for its manifestation, and such
related subjects.
Obs. 5. The mysteries of the kingdom were not all given at once ; they
were gradually revealed, and some of them were postponed and others are
still withheld ; this again leads us to the decided opinion that the kingdom,
to which they stand related, was well known to the disciples and apostles.
Prop. 11.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 143

Take away the mysteries, such as the necessity of Christ’s death, the call
of the Gentiles, etc., made more fully known after the resurrection of
Jesus, and what is left of mystery communicated to them? Surely it is
not the kingdom; for the least dispassionate reflection will lead us soon to
see that they could not have been ignorant of the main, leading subject
with which the others stand connected. To suppose, as many do, that
they were, would be contradictory to the revelation of the mysteries, their
gradual bestowal, and the indefinite postponement of some. For, if Jesus
preached the kingdom to them and proclaimed its mysteries, He certainly
must have said something directly respecting the kingdom, either con-
firmatory or contradictory to the opinion already formed concerning it,
so that they could form a correct idea of it. Before the kingdom could be
appreciated, with its mysterious preparatory stages, etc., the kingdom it-
self must be understood, for that was the subject matter distinctly an-
nounced and illustrated.

Obs. 6. The mysteries, therefore, imply: (1) a previous acquaintance

with the doctrine of the kingdom, and (2) that the mysteries imparted be-
stow a fuller knowledge of the subject in view of the additions made. In
teaching science, art, etc., the primary fact is either first taught, or it is
taken for granted that it is well known. So Jesus, in teaching the myste-
ries of the kingdom, must base the same on a knowledge previously attained
of the kingdom. If the apostles were to be ‘‘ stewards of the mysteries of
God ’’ under the teaching of Jesus, it was necessary for them, being con-
stituted such, to know first of all what the kingdom itself was ; otherwise
it was impossible for them to comprehend the accessories belonging to it.
Multitudes now believe that the mysteries were first proclaimed, and after-
ward the kingdom was made plain ; some go a step beyond this and tell
us that the mysteries and kingdom were both so profound and hid under a
veil that the apostles themselves had a very imperfect notion respecting the
kingdom. In following propositions, such will be largely quoted. We do
not, cannot believe that such a mode of teaching, reversing all ideas of
propriety, was adopted by the most perfect Teacher, and which is flatly
contradicted by the disciples themselves preaching the kingdom, thus im-
plying knowledge concerning its nature, and by the belief of the churches
planted by them, thus evincing a unity in that preaching.
144 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 12.

Proposirion 12. There is some mystery yet connected with the

things of the kingdom.
This is seen, e.g. in Rev. 10:7, where it is declared that under
the last period of time in this age, ‘‘ the mystery of God should be
jinished,”’ which commentators generally apply to the fulfilment
of the Divine Purpose in the setting up of the kingdom in a man-
ner that shall be universally acknowledged, in vindicating through
its establishment the Divine plan, etc. It indicates that some
things hitherto kept concealed or partially known, should now be
revealed or openly manifested. Whatever meaning is attached to
the passage, it leaves the impression that not everything pertaining
to the kingdom is yet fully known.
Obs. 1. Men who have given the subject much thought, have the idea
that the mystery here stated mainly refers to the period, not definitely
known, for the outward manifestation of the kingdom, but it may, for
aught we know, include much more. While the mystery docs not allude
to the nature of the kingdom (for this, as will be shown hereafter, is ex-
plained), it suggests the comparative unknown time for its glorious estab-
lishment, the events connected with it of which only broken hints are
given, the occurrrence of things not revealed, and the manner in which
things revealed shall be accomplished.
The chief mystery seems to be this: how in the person of Jesus, and those associated
with Him in regal power, there will be a consolidation, or a most intimate blending of
the purest Theocracy with the restored throne and Kingdom of David. This union is
stated, and the inestimable blessings and honor flowing from it are described, but just
how it will be performed, what changes and evolutions result from its organization, what
extraordinary dignity and glory will be imparted to the engrafted, providentially reared,
and elevated Davidic Kingdom in its manifested Divine relationship, we cannot fully
tell, having, for the present, to rest satisfied with general descriptions. Glimpses are
vouchsafed, promises are given, intimations of things inexpressibly great, which indicate
that, however done and whatever the results, it will be a most desirable exhibition of
power and rule, a most wonderful revealment of mercy, judgment, and love, a most un-
paralleled outgrowth of Redemption in a visible, indisputable form. ‘The design of pre-
vious dispensations, the orderings of Providence, the probation of saints, the longsuffer-
ing and patience of God, the permission of evil—in brief, all that has preceded, will find
their solution in the incoming Kingdom.

Obs. 2. The word ‘‘ mystery,’’ according to Fairbairn (On Proph., p.

372), ‘in the quite uniform usage of Scripture, denotes something which
lies beyond the ken of the natural apprehension, and is revealed only to
such as have the mind and spirit of God. So it is used frequently by the
Apostle Paul, Rom. 16 : 25, 1 Cor. 2: 7, 10, ete.’? Whilst the Scriptures
and a devout mind are requisite to grasp the truth thus revealed, it still
remains true that some things that are mysterious remain; for some
Prop. 12.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 145

things are only hinted at, others stated without explanation, others again so
allied with the Supernatural, so far beyond present experience that we are
utterly unable to tell how, or in what manner and time, they will be ac-
complished. Hence down to the end of this age there is still some mys-
tery attached to things pertaining to the kingdom. The question of Nico-
demus, ‘* How can these things be?’ may be often repeated, without the
spirit of unbelief, in the way of inquiry.
Comp., e.g., Bh. Sanderson’s Works, vol. 1, p. 233, on the text, ‘‘ The mystery of
godliness,” ete., Kirk’s Lec. on Parables, on word ‘‘ Mystery,’’ the Baird Lecture for 1874,
by Dr. Crawford, The Mysteries of Christianity, etc. It may be added, that Rev. Hall in
his Review of Gregory’s Lettezs, sustaining the latter’s ‘‘ Fourth Letter on Mysteries in
Religion,” adverts to the sophism, ascribed to Dr. Foster—‘‘ that where mystery begins,
religion ends,” and then forcibly says : ‘‘ The fact is, that religion and mystery both begin
and end together—a portion of what is inscrutable to our faculties being intimately and
inseparably blended with its most vital and operative truths. A religion without mys-
teries is a temple without God.’ The least reflection will indicate the truthfulness of
such a position, seeing that Religion deals so largely with the Supernatural and the
future destiny of man. As the doctrine of the Kingdom embraces these as vital points,
mystery is necessarily connected with it. Thus, e.g., mystery will attach itself to
revealed things (as the resurrection), the relation that one thing sustains to another (as
in the Oneness of the Father and Son), the statement of a fact (as the translation), the
transcendent nature of the subject treated (as the glorification), the limited extent of
disclosure (as in the Antichrist and doom), the inadequacy of language to convey a
proper conception of certain things (as in the Person of the King, and His rule, and the
blessings resulting), the seeming inconsistency from our being incapable (owing to finite-
ness) to place ourselves in the largeness of the Spirit in its infinite conceptions (as in
time, dispensational orderings, etc.).

Obs. 3. A multitude of writers attest to the existence of mysteries, their

necessity, their value, and usefulness ; and correctly affirm, that without
them a decided proof of the Divine origin of the Bible would be lacking, a
sublime display of Divine perfection would be wanting, and that the scope
for faith, hope, reverence, humility, etc., would be seriously narrowed.
This is especially true of the kingdom, in view of the Theocratic King and
His glorified co-rulers, and the realization of Redemption through their
power and rule. If there is mystery connected with the operations of
nature, contained even in the growth of the smallest plant and in the
structure of a grain of sand, most certainly they will be found in a subject
so vast and comprehensive (Props. 1 and 2) as that of ‘‘ the Gospel of the
Kingdom.’’ Bogue (£ssay on Div. Author of the N. Test., p. 249) has
well said, when comparing the mysteries of nature with those of Revela-
tion : ‘‘ Without mysteries, the Gospel would not be like the works of
God.”? Bish. Butler (Anail., 1. c. 1), speaking of mysteries necessarily
connected with Religion, calls them ‘‘ clouds on the mercy seat,’’ capable
of only an imperfect explanation, owing to our limited capacities and ex-
perience. Eaton (Permanence of Christianity) asserts: ‘‘ Mysteries are
the properties of all genuine religions, in regard to which the believer
walks by faith and not by sight.”
Comp. Campbell’s Prel. Diss. to Gospels, vol. 1, p. 383, Burr’s Pater Mundi, sec. 6,
South’s Sermons, ser. 6, vol. 3, Bh. Newton’s Works, vol. 4, Diss. 35, Mansel’s ‘‘ Limits of
Relig. Thought Examined,” in Bampton Lects., 1858, as well as the writings of Hall, Stil-
lingfleet, Claude, McCosh, etc., and works specially devoted to presenting the Evidences
of Christianity. It may be remarked that a few writers (as, e.g., Knapp, Ch. Theol., p.
36) say that the Scriptures, although containing mysteries, must not ‘‘ necessarily con-
tain” them, and that their existence is “ a question of fact.” But this is taking a low
146 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. _ [PRop. 12.

estimate of the subjects which a Revelation—to be adequate—must contain (pertaining

in
to the Infinite), and it also ignores that their very existence 1n the Word indicates that
God’s wisdom they were requisite for His purposes. Comp. Rogers Superhuman Origin
concelva-
of the Bible, p. 403, commencing : ‘* A.Revelation without mystery is not even
ble. A revelation, if it deserves the name, must make known some new truths,’’ etc.

Obs. 4. The doctrine of the Kingdom thus containing mysteries, con-

firms the position taken, that to its proper understanding, we must apply
to the Scriptures, and seek within its limits for the things appertaining to
it, Props. 9, and 10.

Obs. 5. It is difficult to satisfy the cavils of unbelief on this point,

seeing that the most opposite objections are urged against mysteries. The
manner in which they are presented, indicate that they come more from
the heart (i.e. are desired) than from the head (i.e. intelligently based).
Some object to the Scriptures because they contain mysteries. This has been shown
(as, e.g., Vinet, Miscel. Art., ‘‘ The Mysteries of Christianity,” and many others) to be
both unjust and unreasonable ; and it has been conclusively proven (Eaton, Perm. of
Chris., Horne’s Jntrod., etc.) that “ mysteries are not contradictions to reason or to fact.”
Those who discard them take the same ground occupied by Toland, the English Deist,
who in his work ‘‘ Vhristianity not Mysterious,’’ charges the mysteries to the craft and am-
bition of priests and philosophers. So also Annet, in Judging for Ourselves, pronounces
“« mysteries a fraud.” This is a one-sided statement, violating all analogy and the rea-
soning and facts of common life. It is scarcely worthy of the attention that it has
received. Toland, Annet, and others like them, if mysteries were lacking, would quickly
and eagerly have built a really forcible argument upon such an absence, by pressing into
their service the abundant analogies found in nature. But then we have the objection
in another form, brought from the opposite extreme, viz. : that there is no mystery in
the Bible, and consequently it cannot be accepted. After admitting that there is mys-
tery, and hence the Scriptures cannot be received, because it is unreasonable, the work
of men, etc., the information is gravely imparted, that there is none, and that, in conse-
quence, the Word is unreliable. This feature is mainly based on the idea that we can-
not believe in a mystery, and is founded thus : ‘* A proposition to be believed, must be
expressed in intelligible terms, and that if the terms are intelligible, the thing signified
cannot be mysterious.’ This isa Thesis that very well answers their purpose to apply
to Holy Writ, but which they do not refer to nature, to themselves, or to a Supreme
Cause. It is palpably absurd. The key-note of a prevailing opinion, that all things
relating to Christianity are so readily understood that a child can comprehend them, is
found in this direction. This unscriptural view first originated in unbelief, was seized
by philosophy (see Locke, Mansel on Free’ Thinking), and urged as an objection to Chris-
tianity, without distinguishing between essentials to Salvation and Knowledge in gen-
eral. Hence two objections are to be met: (1) That there is mystery ; (2) that there is
none. Extremes are to be avoided ; thus, e.g., the adage used by some, ‘‘ that that only
is trnth which we can fully understand” (for this limits our knowledge), and the other
“omnia exeunt in mysterium’”’ (which would make all knowledge end in mystery).

Obs. 6. It is a strange fact, that unbelievers of the past and present,

who reject the mysteries of the Bible, call upon us to accept of the incom-
prehensible, the mysterious, the hypothetical in their several theories.
Thus e.g. their readers are invited to believe in some unexplained ‘“‘ living
principle,’ or ‘* substance,’’ or ‘‘ forces,’’ or ‘‘ chance,”’ or ‘‘laws;’’ they
are urged to receive as the highest wisdom a mysterious ‘‘ self-creative
world matter,”’ ‘‘ origin of things by self-development,’’ ‘‘ self-developing
man,’’ ‘‘ hypotheses of science,’’ etc. Mystery, the inexplicable, the un-
explained, the impenetrable, gives them no trouble, and is not opposed to
reason or facts, but when found in the Bible, is to be rejected as incompat-
ible with reason and fact.
Prop. 12.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 147

It is to be remarked, that such men as Spencer, Tyndall, etc., recognize an ‘“‘ insoluble
mystery,” ‘‘ the Unknowable,’’ “‘ the inscrutable,” something beyond the power of man
fully to grasp—something which is, ‘‘ in all probability,” the Great Cause of all the man-
ifestations seen and experienced. This acknowledgment even of ‘a mystery” by such
talented men, does not suit a wing of the Rationalistic Progress party. The latter party
takes the former to task (as, e.g., in Abbott’s Index) for thus erecting ‘‘ a quasi-God,” a
something that must be received ‘‘ on faith,” alleging that Science virtually ‘‘ cuts her
own throat” by the confession or concession that ‘‘ the manifestation of anything under
heaven is ‘ inscrutable’ té her.’’ They contend, over against Tyndall, etc., that ‘‘ mys-
tery’’ is to be abolished, that ‘‘ the knowable” is to be the grand solvent, of progress, and
that such concessions, pronounced to be ‘*‘ empty gibberish” and “ meaningless jargon,’’
are to be utterly discarded. Surely the wise man, in such an exposition of arrogance,
has food for reflection over the vanity and pride of the creature.
As an example how men will flatly contradict themselves on this point, when not
directly arguing against the Bible or Christianity, the reader is referred to Strauss (The
Old Fuith and the New, p. 306), who, when speaking of the forms of government, advocat-
ing adhesion to the monarchy, remarks: ‘‘ There is something enigmatic—nay, seem-
ingly absurd—in a monarchy. But just in this consists the mystery of its superiority.
Every mystery appears absurd ; and yet nothing profound, either in life, in the arts, or
in the State, is devoid of mystery.’’ A Reviewer, in the Edinburgh Review, justly says, that
Strauss never thought of this in his Life of Jesus—for then, it seems, the reverse of
this was truth with him. Figuier, in his World before the Deluge, is not opposed to “‘ mys-
tery,’’ for he closes the same by “suggesting, without hoping to solve, this formidable
problem,” viz. : whether after the four preceding Kingdoms (as in the Primary epoch
the vegetable, in the Secondary and Tertiary epochs the vegetable and animal, and in the
Quaternary epoch the human kingdom) another and ‘‘ new kingdom’’ is to appear. He
pronounces this “‘ an impenetrable mystery,’’ and adds: “ It is a great mystery, which,
according to the fine expression of Pliny, ‘ lies hid in the majesty of nature’; or, to
speak more in the spirit of Christian Philosophy, it is known only to the Almighty Crea-
tor of the Universe.” Alas! that men are unwilling to receive ‘‘ the mystery” as revealed
by this Creator.

Obs. 7. Some writers (as e.g. Reuss, His. Ch. Theol. of Apos. Age, p.
149) connect the mystery with a change of the nature of the Kingdom, so
that a new meaning is to be attached to it ; it includes, at least, such new
characteristics added, such modifications or alterations, that it is completely
transformed. Admitting additions and changes to it as predicted, yet it
remains wrproven that there is a change in its nature or meaning. This
already appears, but will be more conclusively shown by the preaching of
Jesus and His disciples, etc. The Church-Kingdom theory suggested such
an opinion by way of apology for its lacking the characteristics of the King-
dom as given in the grammatical sense of the prophets. The mysteries,
however, were those respecting the gathering out of the elect who should
inherit the Kingdom, the death of the King, the postponement of the
Kingdom, the continued desolation of the Davidic house until the Times
of the Gentiles were fulfilled, the ultimate re-establishment of the King-
dom after the rise, progress, and conflict with the Antichrist, etc., and
they do not refer to achange of the nature of the Kingdom. It is, and ever
remains the unchangeable Theocratic Kingdom, manifested in a covenanted
line and through a covenanted nation. If such a change was intended or
made in the most important of matters, there certainly would be some-
thing direct on the subject, and it would not be left to mere inference to
deduce it.
148 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 13.

Proposrrion 13. Some things pertaining to the kingdom, inten-

tionally revealed somewhat obscurely.
Admitting the Scriptures to be the Word of God, and that, as
many writers have noticed, some indistinctness, a degree of obscu-
rity, relating to time, explanations, etc., is manifested in the things
of the kingdom, these facts are indicative of design in the same.

Obs. 1. In answer to the question, frequently asked, why the revelations

respecting the Messiah’s Kingdom were at first so obscure, were so gradually
unfolded, and that some things, to be fully understood, require additional
light, it has been said, that God makes long and secret preparations for
important events ; that He adapts His revelations to the necessities and
circumstances of particular times, etc. Reflection will teach us an
additional reason, viz.: that the depravity of man, exhibited in the pursuit
of selfishness, would, hitherto, have rejected a plainer revelation, or else
would have made it the basis of a continuous cruel persecution. If every-
thing relating to the Kingdom wouid have been clearly revealed, in a sys-
tematic order, we are confident that such would have been the hatred of
earthly kingdoms toward it, that no believer in it would have been safe,
and, in consequence, the work of gathering out the elect would have been
seriously impeded. The existence of Gentile domination, especially the
hostile and jealous Roman power, prevented (as we shall show in the prop-
er place) a plainer statement of various particulars, lest it should wnneces-
sarily excite unremitting persecution. This Kingdom will be better un-
derstood as the Primitive view is revived ; its nature and the things per-
taining to it will be better comprehended as the Scriptures are compared ;
and the result will be, as prophecy teaches us (e.g. Rev. 19, etc.), that the
kings and mighty of the earth will be arrayed against its re-establishment.
God, foreseeing this antagonism as directed by ‘‘ the god of this world,”’
does not unnecessarily excite it by a premature disclosure of all things, but
gives us the truth in detached portions, some of it veiled under prophecy,
others under symbolical language, etc., so that. His preparations, patiently
conducted, may go on toa successful completion, and the Kingdom be
suddenly—unexpectedly to many—manifested. The history of the world
in its rejection of the truth, is evidence to justify such a conclusion.

Obs. 2. Again, another reason for the same may be found in human
freedom. Omnipotence inspired by mercy has given continued moral free- —
dom, and it will do nothing, even by way of revelation, to exert an undue
force upon the will. Preiswerk (quoted by Auberlen Danl. and Rev., p.
84) says: ‘‘ The Lord has always represented the events He announced by
the prophets in such a manner, that they were sufficiently clear for him
who approached with reverence and careful thought, and yet suffciéntly
Prop. 13.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 149
dark and veiled not to limit the freedom of human action. For if the
unchangeable decrees of the Eternal were presented to our eyes in unveiled
features, what would become of the responsibility of man, of the free
movements of human life, what of courage, and hope, and joy?’ Hence
it is, e.g. that prophecies which particularly describe the time of the re-
establishment of the Kingdom are given somewhat obscurely, as in Daniel
and the Apocalypse. This, and other reasons, will become more apparent,
when considering certain things pertaining to the Kingdom, especially the
postponement, the ordering of the future Kingdom, the restoration of the
Jews, the Antichrist, etc.

Obs. 3. The blending of the two Advents, the rejection of Jesus by the
Jews, the call of the Gentiles, etc., these indicate the feature alluded to so
far as the past is concerned. As to the future, among a variety, time may
be selected, the time of the Kingdom’s manifestation, as an illustration.
The exact period when it will be set up, is not known to us, although ap-
proximately revealed. It is only fully known to God, and an indefinite-
ness is purposely thrown around it to keep us in the posture of constant
expectation and watching. Chronology has purposely its chasms, the
general signs of the Advent of the King are those nearly always prevalent,
although at the time of fulfilment more intensive, and prophecy, in its
guarded language and in its accomplishment, is so conducted that almost
at any time may be witnessed the ushering in of the glorious Kingdom.

Obs. 4. The restoration of the Jews being intimately connected with

the Kingdom, an essential accessory to its re-establishment, a degree of
obscurity is thrown around the subject (as e.g. to the exact manner of
occurrence, the time, etc.), in order that it may prove ‘‘a snare’ and ‘‘a
net’’ for the nations, who, at the consummation, shall be arrayed against
it and the saints and God, saying, “‘Come and let us cut them off from
ed a Hees 3 that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance”’
(Ps. 83 : 4).

Obs. 5. Care, however, must be taken to avoid the extreme of conclud-

ing some things to be obscure which the Spirit intended to be plainly un-
derstood. ‘This is illustrated by the predictions referring to the humilia-
tion, sufferings, and death of Jesus, which, although plainly given, were
not comprehended by even the disciples until fulfilled. When the gram-
matical sense is observed to teach a thing clearly and unequivocally, that
meaning must be retained, as the history of the past proclaims. Brookes
(El. of Proph. Inter., p. 118) presents some admirable cautions on this
point, which are the more needed, since multitudes make that obscure,
mystical, or spiritual, that is to be comprehended in its literal import, as
the analogy of Scripture and Faith proves.
The student will add the reason assigned under the previous Proposition, viz.: that
a revelation, as a matter of self-confirmation, must contain some mystery. We must
quote the admirable language of Row (Bampton Lectures, 1877, ‘‘ Christian Evidences,”
Lec. 1, p. 5) : “Can we wonder that the Christian revelation should contain truths, of
which the fulness, like the great works of creation and providence, can only be fully
recognized after the lapse of time, and as the result of careful investigation? That great
reasoner, Bh. Butler, clearly perceived that it is only in conformity with the analogy of
150 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 13.

nature, that a book which has been so long in the possession of mankind as the Bible, if
it contains a Revelation from God, should contain truths as yet undiscovered ; and that
events, as they come to pass, should open and ascertain the meaning of Scripture ; and
that such discoveries should be made ‘ in the same way as all other knowledge is ascer-
tained, by particular persons attending to, comparing, and pursuing intimations, scat-
tered up and down in it, which are overlooked and disregarded by the generality of the
world.’ ’’
Prop. 14.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 151

Proposition 14. Some things pertaining to the kingdom not so

easily comprehended as many suppose.
This is already seen by the greatness of the subject (Props. 1 and
2), by the differences of opinion (Prop. 3) entertained, the connec-
tion it sustains to the supernatural (Props. 6 and 7) and to mys-
teries (Props. 11, 12, and 13).
Obs. 1. Taking the word ‘‘ mystery’ to denote, as theologians state,
something revealed that was before unknown, Revelation itself must be
carefully scanned and compared to appreciate these. At the same time,
whilst a fact is disclosed, or an ordering is divulged, yet the reason why it
will, or the manner in which it may, be accomplished is either not ex-
plained or merely hinted at, thus leaving large room for attentive study
and reflection. Besides this, many things—the great burden—relating to
the Kingdom are still in the shape of unfulfilled prophecy and promise,
requiring discrimination to distinguish what belongs to different dispensa-
tions, to the two Advents, to the past, present, and future, so that we may
form a correct estimate of the preparatory stages and of the Kingdom it-
self. The Apocalypse, with its varied, and discordant interpretations,
alone proves our proposition.
Van Oosterzee (Ch. Dog., vol. 1, p. 105) correctly observes: ‘‘ Now, indeed, we see
from the nature of the case, that even a revealed mystery may have its dark sides ; the
sun come forth from behind the clouds nevertheless still dazzles our eyes. But Holy
Scripture nowhere teaches that mystery as such lies, and must necessarily lie, entirely
beyond the reach of all human ken ; the contrary is evident from 1 Cor. 13 :2 ; Eph. 3 : 4.
Mystery, too, though never wholly penetrated, may still be known, but only by means of
Revelation.” This corroborates our position, viz. : that the things of the Kingdom can
only be found within the limits of Scripture, and can only be understood to the extent
that God has been pleased to reveal and explain them.

Obs. 2. Some persons confidently tell us that ‘‘ the Gospel of the King-
dom’’ is readily understood by all men, forgetting how variously it is in-
terpreted and preached. This assertion is contradicted by the remark of
Jesus, that the revelations concerning the Kingdom were only given to be-
lievers and not to those without (Mark 4 : 11, etc.), and by the declaration
(John 3 : 13), that the things relating to it must be received exclusively
on the testimony of Him who declared them. All men are not believers,
and even multitudes, who profess to believe, do not receive this testimony,
(as e.g. witness the rejection of much of His Word, and of His last revela-
tion as given in the Apocalypse). Even among believers, the apostle dis-
tinguishes between the weak and the strong (Heb. 5 : 12), between the un-
learned and the understanding (2 Pet. 3 : 16), and many exhortations are
based on a growth of knowledge and the avoidance of ignorance. We are
exhorted that there ‘‘ are some things hard to be understood ”’ (2 Pet.
3:16), some things exceeding the measure of the wisest, some things be-
152 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 14.

ond our experience, some things so grand in conception and associated

with the Infinite, that they can only be apprehended by faith. No one,
therefore, excepting a believer, who receives the word as spoken, the testi-
mony as delivered, can duly appreciate the whole Gospel—good news—per-
taining to it. Those who make the above assertion, are led to it by mis-
taking repentance, faith, obedience, etc., the adjuncts or preparatives of
the Kingdom, for the Kingdom itself. We must discriminate between the
means employed by which the Kingdom can be obtained—which is also
Gospel or glad tidings—and the Kingdom itself—which proclaimed is the
Gospel in its fullest sense.
Obs. 3. There is no systematic statement of the doctrine of the King-
dom in the Bible. It is given in brief covenants, in separate prophecies,
in detached portions, in fragments, in hints, in promises, in concise out-
lines, and to bring all these together in their regular order: much labor is
requisite. Without diligent comparison, no progress can be made. A de-
vout recognition of much that is now regarded trivial, or of littie practical
value, is demanded. Unless there is a deep conviction that the Bible is a
Divine Record, and that, in consequence, everything that it contains
should be duly weighed and placed in its connection with the Divine Pur-
pose, it is impossible to harmonize the Word: some discordant elements
will inevitably appear to prevent unity.
This is illustrated by supposing that we had lived just previous to, and during, the
First Advent.. Had we then taken up the Old Test. to search after the Messiah, and
passed by the lesser, even minute, particulars, and the detached, isolated hints, referring
to the birth, life, betrayal, scourging, crucifixion, etc., and confined ourselves to the
moral enlarged Messianic descrpitions (as, e.g., those representing His glory), we, too,
like the Jews, would have failed to comprehend the matter as it was to be realized. So
now, unless there is a careful collation of all passages that legitimately refer to the King-
dom, error may, more or less, be advanced. If, as claimed, the Scriptures are the Word
of God, then every word—conceding that the truth is given through the language and
style most familiar to the writer—is of importance. Being engaged in examining wit-
nesses for the truth, in weighing testimony, to do justice both to the writers and ourselves
—yea, to God Himself—this cannot be omitted with safety. This caution becomes the
more imperative, since it is pointedly predicted, that many shall, by a neglect of the
truth, reject the things pertaining to the Kingdom, and have no faith even in the coming
of the King.

Obs. 4. Avoiding, on the one hand, the opinion of the Romish Church
that the Scriptures are so unintelligible, so obscure that they need the in-
terpretation of the Church, of Councils, of the Fathers, or of the Pope ;
and, on the other hand, the view of some Protestant divines, and others,
that all things are clear and intelligible to him who is in the Spirit—it is best
to preserve the due medium, that whilst many things are plainly stated,
yet others, for the reasons given, can only be ascertained by laborious re-
search, or, as some old writers have quaintly observed, by ‘‘ digging for
hid treasures.’? The Kingdom, forming the subject-matter of a large por-
tion of the Bible, cannot be correctly apprehended in its totality without
the student passing over all that the different sacred writers have to say |
concerning it.

Obs. 5. “* The Gospel of the Kingdom,” as intimated, includes ‘‘ the

mystery of God,”’ i.e. the final, closing act as presented Rev. 10 : 7, em-
bracing the ultimate realization of the previously ordained provisionary in-
Prop. 14.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 153

stitutions. This is seen in the language employed, for the word in our ver-
sion ‘‘ declared ’’’ is used to denote the declaration of good tidings, glad
news, so that some (as e.g. Editor of Proph. Times, vol. 10, p. 190) ren-
der the phrase: ‘‘ The mystery of God is (to be) fulfilled, even as he
preached glad tidings to his:servants the prophets.’’ However translated,
the Gospel undoubtedly comprehends the grand consummation, the per-
fected Redemption realized only in the Kingdom.
154 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 15.

Proposition 15. Zhe doctrine of the kingdom can become better

understood and appreciated.
This follows from the previous Propositions. For, while it is a
doctrine exclusively found in Scripture, and which cannot be modi-
fied or changed to suit the theories of men without doing violence
to the Word, yet, as has been shown, it is not so clearly ap/pre-
hended in all its details, in all its depth and vastness, but that
additional light may be thrown upon it—a light, too, borrowed
from the same Word.

Obs. 1. Some think that religious truth is stationary, and this is a favor-
ite charge of the enemies of Christianity, upon which is founded the ex-
pressions ‘‘ antiquated,’’ ‘‘ stale,’’ ‘‘ worn out,”’ etc. Admitting that any
doctrinal matter contained in Holy Writ is final in authority, and that the
things of the Spirit are only to be found in their purity in the Revelation
given by that Spirit, yet these same truths may become more and more
clear and distinctive by careful study, comparison, analogy, induction, de-
duction, by considering their relationship to history, the constant develop-
ment of God’s purposes, the continued fulfilment of prophecy, the experi-
ence of mankind, and the gathering of the elect. It 1s the universal testi-
mony of believers that a searching of the Scriptures has always added to
our religious knowledge, and every Christian student must gratefully
acknowledge his indebtedness to this feature. The Bible is a wonderful
book in this respect.
The most reliable writers on the side of Religion declare (e.g., Bh. Butler, Analogy,
2, c, 3) that ‘‘truths yet undiscerned ’’ are contained in the Scriptures ; that (Rogers’
Essays, vol. 2, p. 335) ‘* fragments of new truth, or more exact adjustments of old truths
may be perpetually expected ;” that (Eaton, Perm. of Ch., p. 219) ‘‘ the scheme of Reve-
lation admits of endless advance and indefinite augmentation.” Comp. Dorner’s His.
Prot. Theol., vol. 2, p. 4, Bh. Law’s Theory of Relig., p. 145, Dean Stanley’s Sermons on
the Bible, p. 112, Dunn’s Study of the Bible, and the writings of Birks, Bickersteth, Bh.
Newton, Schaff, etc. Works specially designed for the Christian ministry, such as
Bridge's On the Ch. Ministry, Herbert's Parson, Mather’s Student and Parson, etc., and
the Memoirs and Lives of eminent Christians unmistakably indicate how advance in
knowledge is increased by renewed and unremitting study of God’s Word ; which many
truthfully compare to a precious mine revealing its treasures by ‘‘ digging’’ for them, or
to a constant flowing stream whose placid depths and extent can only be appreciated by
passing over its course and sounding its clear waters,

Obs. 2. If it is true, in. the general, that knowledge can be increased, it

certainly must apply to the doctrine of the Kingdom, so largely the sub-
ject of prediction and promise ; so extensive in its aims, preparations, and
end ; so complicated in its numerous details, hints, and obscure allusions $
$0 described under literal, figurative, and symbolical language ; and so
varied in its relationship to God and man, to the Divine Will and human
Prop. 15.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 155

imperfection. A doctrine which embraces the King, the inheritors, and

the subjects, the provisionary dispensations and the final consummation,
the loftiest topics and the most precious promises that can enter the mind
or encourage the hope of man, is, in the nature of the case, susceptible of
being better apprehended in proportion as attention and meditation is
given to it. Here, if anywhere, there is plenty of room for the deepest
study, the most guarded discrimination, the keenest perception, the most
patient comparison, and the most childlike faith. Then an increase of
knowledge—as the rich experience of many testifies—will also come.
It is a matter of regret, that good men, who insist in their writings upon our deriv-
ing doctrine from the study of the Bible, who lament that others give a greater promi-
nency to man’s writings and systems than to the Word, while theoretically right, in prac-
tice largely ignore this very feature. A doctrine that does not suit the religious system
already adopted, no matter how strongly presented, is at once ignored or rejected. This,
too, is evidence of human infirmity—a weakness predicted in God’s Word.

Obs. 3. Divine Truth, surely, cannot be circumscribed, when even, as

Chalmers (Bridg. Treatise, p. 1) has said in relation to natural science :
‘* Kach science, though definite in its commencement, has its outgoings in
the Infinite and the Kternal.’’ We will allow, although subject to perver-
sion, the claims of scientists in reference to the extension of truth in all
departments of science, but they must also grant to us that theological
truth, having a higher, nobler origin and design, is not to be restrained in
its advancement. Nature, and not mere speculation or fancy, is the
abundant source from whence true and increased knowledge is drawn for
the natural sciences, so also the Bible forms ‘‘ the inexhaustible store-
house’’ from whence biblical theology derives its solid foundation and
growing superstructure—the latter strengthened by the results manifested
in historical connection, ete.

O@s. 4. In the Proposition it is purposely said, ‘‘ can become better un-

derstood,’’ for several reasons : (1) There is no subject like this so covered
with human additions, speculations, and prejudice. Hence it is so diffi-
cult to approach, divested of all bias and preconceived opinions. The
greatest care is necessary, owing to the extent and infiuence of prevailing
views, and no step should be taken without substantial scriptural proof to
sustain it. (2) Conclusions respecting the Kingdom should only be drawn
after having traced the subject from the earliest point of its introduction
down, through the prophets, to the final testimony of Jesus given by John
the Revelator. Multitudes, including most eminent men (as will be
shown hereafter), take an isolated passage and, without caring for its con-
nection, build an exclusive theory upon it. (3) Covenants, in view of
their special importance and fundamental bearing, should have the prefer-
ence in determining the nature of the Kingdom. ‘This, however, is too
much overlooked. (4) Some things are underrated, owing to their sim-
plicity (i.e. ‘‘ too Jewish’’) ; others are rejected because utterly opposed to
human expectations (i.e. ‘‘ How can these things be?’’) ; and others again
are declined as utterly unreasonable, not realizing that faith should appre-
hend them simply because they are recorded in the truthful Word of God
(i.e. with all the laudation of faith, there is very little Abrahamic faith in
the world). (5) The difficulties already enumerated in previous Propo-
sitions are not sufficiently considered ; difficulties, not relating to the na-
156 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [Prop. 15.

ture of the Kingdom, but to the provisions made for it, the time of its man-
ifestation, the events connected with its exhibition, the symbolical por-
traiture of its realization, the manner of its divine administration (the
divine and human being united), and the remarkable and astounding inter-
positions of the Supernatural introducing and carrying it forward into the
eternal ages—all of which ought to be duly considered in order that in-
creased light may be thrown upon the subject. With such a spirit, and
such a posture of recognition and appreciation of the matter before us,
ce is a prospect before the student of a better understanding of the
octrine.
Prop. 16.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 157

Proposition 16. Z’his kingdom cannot be properly comprehended

without acknowledging an intimate and internal, connection
existing between the Old and New Testaments.
The doctrine of the kingdom is first taught by covenant, theo-
cratic ordering, and prophecy in the Old Testament, and it is taken
jor granted in the New Testament as a subject derived from the
Old Testament and well understood ; for the kingdom is preached
without any appended explanation.

Obs. 1. This Proposition is the more needed, since some recent works
(as e.g. Fairbairn On Proph., p. 164, etc.) have made efforts to depreciate
the value of the Old Test. as an instructor, telling us that it is far inferior
to the New Test., that its light is dim and its utterances indistinct in
comparison with the New, etc. This, in view of our so largely relying
upon the Old Test., is done with such evident satisfaction that a canon of
interpretation is adopted which reads: ‘‘ Everything which affects the con-
stitution and destiny of the New Test. Church has its clearest determina-
tion in the New Test. Scriptures.”? While we cheerfully admit that on
many points (ase.g. the birth, life, sufferings, death, etc., of Jesus, the
present ordering during the Times of the Gentiles, etc.) the New Test.
ives additional and clearer light, yet such a canon is exceedingly wajust
to the Old Test., which so largely deals, e.g. in the conswmmation of the
Church’s glory.
It is gratifying to find that in many recent works, especially in the department of
Bib, Theology, the Old Test. is restored to its proper position, thus corroborating the
declarations found in various Commentaries, Introductions to the Bible, etc., respecting
the fundamental station of the Old Test. in Scripture. Such writers as Hengstenberg,
Hiivernick, Tholuck, Auberlen, Hofmann, Kurtz, Delitzsch, Stanley, Bonar, Baumgarten,
etc., have done much in this direction, and even Fairbairn, in other places, enforces this
relationship. The old Marcionitic notion (comp. Lardner’s Works, vol. 9, p. 256-288,
giving also the alterations of the New Test. by Marcion) of separating the Old Test. from
the New, while not carried to the absurd extent (as, under the plea that the God of the
Old Test. was different from that of the New) of ancient times, yet is still felt and ex-
pressed in modern times in various ways, especially in a species of exalting the New to a
wrongful disparagement of the Old. Thus the Spiritualists, Free Religionists, etc.,
boldly proclaim (as, e.g., Oliver Porter, in Religio-Philosoph. Journal for 1874) that the Oid
and New Tests. should be separated, and not even bound together in the’same book, be-
cause of their being hostile, antagonistic to each other ; adding, that to join them “ is
like putting new cloth into old garments, to be rent asunder. A divorce, doubtless, will
some time be made.’’ A writer in the Edinb. Review, Oct., 1873, reviewing Strauss’ work,
recommends that ‘‘ Gentile Christianity’? should not make itself responsible for the Old
Test., saying : “ We are not Jews,” etc., and that “ the Jewish Scriptures do not belong
to us, and that we are in no way responsible for them.’’ Comp. Prof. Norton, Genuine-
ness of the Gospels, vol. 2, p. 402, Carpenter On Mind and Will in Nature, Contemp. Re-
view, 1872. Itis not difficult to see that all such fail to view the Redemptive Purpose
as a grand whole, the portrayal of which alike demands the Old and New Tests.
158 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRrop. 16.

Obds. 2. Our entire argument, as we proceed, is a refutation of this low-

ering of the Old Test. A few reasons now stated, will indicate the one-
sidedness of those who resist the claims of the Old Test. to the same rank
and dignity of the New. (1) The Old foretells the New, and the New
confirms the Old—both are indispensably necessary. (2) The Covenants
out of which, and in which, the New stands, are only contained in the
Old. (3) The prophecies and promises descriptive of the New, are found
in the Old. (4) Both are the Word of God, and should, therefore, be
received on equal footing, and possess equal value. (5) The New, taking
a familiar acquaintance of the Old for granted, and proceeding on this
supposition, does not supersede the Old. (6) The continued quotation
from the Old in the New, the constant references to the covenanted prom-
ises of the Old, the general appeal to the predictions of the Old, the ex-
ample of Jesus and of the apostles in estimating the value of the Old—all
this proves its vital importance. (7) The express injunction to search
and study the Old Test. Scriptures. (8) The declaration of Jesus that
He came to fulfil and not to destroy it, and that every jot and tittle of it
was precious. (9) A large portion of the Old, embracing entire chapters
and continuous prophecies, has not yet been fulfilled, owing to the post-
ponement of the Kingdom and the designs of mercy, and hence—as will be
shown hereafter—the period of the Christian Church is an intercalary one,
extending through the Times of the Gentiles, and if we desire to know its
destiny, its ultimate condition in the consummation, the Old must be com-
pared with the New. (10) Many things contained in the Old yet to be
fulfilled, are only slightly hinted at or taken for granted in the New;
others of magnitude and vast importance, are not even mentioned, it being
supposed that every believer, as enjoined, would find them in the Old and
incorporate them. (11) The New only professes to be a continuation of
the Divine Plan of Salvation ; it is a necessary supplement to the Old, but
not a superseding of the Old, excepting only in the ordaining of certain
provisionary and typical measures. (12) The destiny of all the elect, both
under the Old and New, is the same, showing that the same truth leading
to the same end, is virtually contained in both Tests., however one may
add to the other. (13) The unity of Divine Purpose can only be ascer-
tained by their combination ; without the Old many of the allusions in
the New could not be understood, and without the New much that is in
the Old could not be properly appreciated. (14) The New, as evidenced
by our remarks, is built on the Old as on a foundation, and if separated
from the latter, its strength and stability is diminished, if not destroyed.
By this removal, as seen in too many works, its light is dimmed and its
testimony to the truth is fearfully weakened. Hence no rule or interpre-
tation should be endured which arbitrarily distinguishes between, virtually
severs, the same Word of God, but we must regard the Scriptures as one
whole, all significant, important, and weighty, giving only when in com-
bination, in firm union, the steady, brilliant light that we need.
Comp. Dorner’s His, Prot. Theol., vol. 2, p. 435, ete., and Oosterzee’s, Schmid’s, and
Reuss’ Bib. Theols. of the New Test. Dorner has also remarked (p. 404, vol. 2), that a,
Bib. Theol. of the Old Test. is still lacking, and until this want is skilfully supplied,
many will fail to see the vast stores of treasures contained within it, essential to a correct
apprehension of many doctrinal points and of the Plan of Salvation. In this respect a
lesson can be learned from the early church (Hagenbach’s His. of Doc., vol. 1, p87)
‘* They frequently appeal to the connection existing between the Old and New Tests. (e.g.,
Ireneus, Adv. Her., 4, 9, etc.), consequently implying that the two parts of Scripture
Prop. 16.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 159

belong together.’’ They do more than this, they so employ the Old Test. as to indicate
in its covenants and prophecies that it contains stronger proof and clearer light in refer-
ence to some things that are yet to be fulfilled than the New Test. While this is so, the
extreme (Hagenbach’s His. of Doc., vol. 2, sec. 292, note) must be avoided of preferring
the Old to the New as illustrated, so stated by Hagenbach, in the writings of Herder, De
Wette, and Umbreit. The truth is, that each gives a strong light that must be com-
bined ; that the one illustrates, enforces, and confirms the other.

Obs. 3. The criticism, then, of Ernesti and others, that the Old Test.
might indeed have been of some use to the Jews, but certainly was not in-
tended for all mankind, is sadly defective and demoralizing, seeing that on
the fulfilment of the Old Test. promises depends our completed Salvation,
our hope of perfected Redemption, the expectation of the final restitution
of all things. The Old Test. is full of anticipated, covenanted, prophesied
Salvation ; the New is full of the inestimable provision made for the
same ; loth unite in showing how and when it will be fully accomplished.
The writer has been pained to find excellent writers express themselves incau-
tiously, when, e.g., referring to the Old Test. as preparative to the New (which is also
true), they inform (as Pressense, The Redeemer, p. 38) us ‘‘ that the Old Test. speaks to us
of the preparation for Salvation, whilst the New Test. speaks of its realization.’’ This is
only a half truth ; in point of fact both speak the sume language ; and the Old Test., as
comparison abundantly shows, has more to say of the final realization than the New.
Row (Bampton Lectures, 1877, p. 22) presents an injurious Jimitation, as follows: ‘‘ So
likewise I accept Paley’s general positions, that the Christian advocate is only concerned
with the Old Test. so far as portions of it have received the direct sanction of our Lord.”
The other portions he thinks important only in the ‘‘ elaboration of a true Christian the-
ology.” But this is too restrictive, and at once trammels the study of the Christ, the
Kingdom, -etc. Some recent writers might learn a lesson from even De Wette (quoted by
Bahr and requoted by Fairbairn Typology, p. 34), who, with all his liberalism, could
say : ‘‘ Christianity sprang out of Judaism. Long before Christ appeared, the world was
prepared for His appearance ; the entire Old Test. isa great prophecy, a great type of
Him who was to come and has come, Who can deny that the holy seers of the Old Test,
saw in spirit the Advent of Christ long before He came, and, in prophetic anticipations,
sometimes more, sometimes less clear, descried the new doctrine? The typological com-
parison, also, of the Old Test. with the New, was by no means a mere play of fancy, nor
can it be regarded as altogether the result of accident, that the evangelical history, in
the most important particulars, runs parallel with the Mosaic. Christianity lay in Juda-
ism as leaves and fruits do in the seed, though certainly it needed the divine sun to bring
them forth.”

Obs. 4. Unbelievers, wise in perceiving the intimate and abiding con-

nection existing between the Old and New Tests., attack the Old with the
correct opinion, that just in proportion as they can show that the Old is
‘* antiquated, unreliable, uncertain’’ in its utterances, etc., to the same
extent will they lessen the authority and force of the New. Knowing full
well, as the majority of writers on Inspiration hold, that both are equally
inspired and of equal authority, and that both are to be interpreted as the
continuous Word of God, they believe that if one falls the other must also
suffer. This teaches us, therefore, how guarded we should be in lowering
the standard of the Old, lest by so doing, in so far the efforts of destructive
tendencies are countenanced.
Here, as our argument will develop more fully hereafter, is the fatal defect in the
system of the Socinians (Hagenbach’s His. of Doc., vol. 2, sec. 242), who receive only the
New Test. as canonical ; the Old Test. having only a historical value, useful but not
necessary to be read, etc. Its importance and exceeding value as a doctrinal basis, is by
them, and others, too much ignored ; and the inevitable result is, the utter impossibility
of recognizing the Theocratic Personage in Jesus as covenanted. It is well to notice,
160 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 16.

that at the very time God is raising up eminent men to defend the necessary intimate
relationship of the Old and New Tests., and that both must be conjoined to give us a
true conception of the Divine Purpose in Redemption—both being indispensable—prom-
inent persons also arise (even in the pale of, and enjoying the emoluments of the church),
who persistently attack the authenticity, credibility, and inspiration of the Old Test.,
especially of the Pentateuch. The recent efforts of Colenso in this direction are fresh
in the reader’s mind. The attack, if successful, would invalidate the truth of Chris-
tianity itself ; for such is the connection existing between Moses and Christ that both
stand or fall together. An eminent Jewish Rabbi in the Jewish Chronicle, quoted in The
Israelite Indeed for Oct., 1863, argues, justly, that if the Pentateuch is not in the main the
product of Moses, or at least worthy of reception as divine, then it must be an “ impu-
dent forgery,’’ and the prophets, Jesus, and the Evangelists, who all received it ‘‘ in its
present shape’’ as genuine, etc., are all equally guilty of gross deception. The Rabbi
presses this, quoting Luke 16 : 31, etc., and shows the inconsistency of Colenso’s position
(still retaining the New Test. as inspired) by stating that if Jesus was not inspired when
He assumed the truth of the Pentateuch and applied it in teaching, ‘* neither can He be
regarded as infallible with respect to His application of passages from the prophets of
Judah and the Psalms.’’ There is no logical escape from this dilemma ; any lowering
of the Old Test. inevitably recoils upon the New. Conway, in correspondence with Cin.
Com., May 31, 1879, says: ‘‘ The learned Prof. Sepp, of Munich University, is writing a
remarkable series of articles in the Allgemeine Zeitung, in which he advocates the discard-
ing of the Old Test. altogether as the basis of Christianity.” “‘ Dr. David Asher, a
learned Jew, answers : ‘If he (Sepp) should carry his point, he would, indeed, widen the
breach between Judaism and Christianity. But the question is, Who would be the
greater loser by the process?’’’ Draper (Iis. Conflict, p. 225) very coolly advises the
Christian Church not to burden itself with the Pentateuch, but to relegate it back to the
Jews ; and if this gratuitous counsel (so sagely proffered) were adopted, he would be the
first to show how destructive, in its logical sequence, it would be to Christianity. Others,
observing the disintegrating efforts of professed believers which destroy the unity, sar-
castically (as Mill) refer to those who believe the Bible to be one book ; some sneeringly
assert that the only union to be found existing is that in the line of ‘‘ Jewish ideas and
prejudices.” Rogers (Superh. Orig. of the Bible, Ap. p. 441) refers to Alexander’s Connection,
and Harmony of the Old and New Tests., Lord Hatherley’s Continuity of the Bible, and toa
work entitled Divine Footprints in the Bible, as enforcing this intimate connection, and
then adds: ‘‘ Many in our day, as well as some in former times, would endeavor to extri-
cate Christianity from certain difficulties bv cutting the igaments between it and Juda-
ism, They would displace it from what they regard its precarious foundations in the
Old Test. Iam profoundly convinced that this cannot be done without leaving both in
ruins.” He then quotes Herder (Pref. to Spirit of Heb. Poetry), who, notwithstanding his
free spirit of criticism, writes : “ Der Grund der Theologie ist die Bibel, und der Grund
des N. T. ist das alte. Unméglich verstehen wir jenes recht, wenn wir dieses nicht
verstehen ; denn Christenthum ist aus dem Judenthum hervorgegangen, der Genius der
Sprache ist in beiderlei Biichern derselbe,” etc.

Obs. 5. Martensen, a most estimable writer, gives the keynote to a pre-

vailing treatment of the Old Test. He, whilst recognizing the importance
and value of the Old, makes it too subsidiary to the New, opening a wide
gap for varied interpretation, in declaring, that ‘‘ the contents (of the Old)
cannot be received by the Christian mind as present truths without being
regenerated by the new Spirit of Christianity, and in various respects re-
constructed.’’ Alas! to this specious ‘‘ regeneration’”’ and to this subtle
*‘ spirit of reconstruction,’’ which is only another mode of expressing a
spiritualizing and accommodating interpretation, we are indebted for an
ignoring of the plain oath-bound covenants of God the covenanted and
predicted Messianic Kingdom.
This position, so unjust to the Old Test., is based on the idea that the Old Test. is
superseded by the New, and that the interpretation of the Old, as once held by the
Jews, is antagonistic to the New, and that, consequently, the literal, grammatical sense
must give place to another, additional one grafted upon the Old. This whole theory is a
violation of the laws of language, of the Revelation of God’s Purposes as given to ancient
Prop. 16.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 161

believers and trusted in by them, and it places the Israelites, before the Advent, in the
posture of an ignorant, self-deceived people who trusted in a grammatical sense which is
a lie—in plainly expressed covenants and promises which, as understood by them, they
never comprehended. In brief, it makes God teaching what they could not understand,
prophesying what they could not apprehend, and developing a faith and hope that can
never be realized. Besides this, the reader will observe that Martensen’s notion takes it
for granted that the New Test. is well understood. This idea forms one of the rules
that Waldegrave presents in his Lectures on New Test. Millenarianism ; but unfortunately
for its successful application, those who employ it—owing to the various engrafted
senses—are not agreed among themselves respecting large portions of the New Test.,
because of their adopted system of interpretation. Briefly, no student can afford to
occupy such an exclusive position ; the true scholarly method, commended by common
sense and due respect for God’s whole Word, is to interpret both by the same laws of lan-
quage, and to observe, on any given subject, which part, the Old or the New, advances
the most revelation or information, receiving the same as of equal authority.

Obs. 6. The Kingdom being a leading subject of many portions of the

Old Test., a subject specially mentioned in covenant and prophecy, it is
utterly impossible to understand it properly without passing over the
same. This is realized the more, if it is considered that the doctrine
originates in the Old Test. ; that the New Test. in its opening takes a
knowledge of the Old for granted ; that in view of such a previous ob-
tained information important details given in the Old are either slightly
presented or omitted in the New; and that, aside from the Apocalypse,
the most glowing and extended descriptions pertaining to the Kingdom,
as God's predictions relating to it receive an ample verification, are still
found in the Old. It is not uncharitable to suspect, that one reason why
so many meanings and contradictory definitions are given to the Kingdom,
arises from the neglect—conscious or unconscious, designed or unde-
signed—of the Old Test. Scriptures, or, from an artful, misleading, but
well-intended exaltation of the New over the Old, asif some great and
vital difference existed between them instead of their being inseparably
one.
Many have the mistaken notion that the instruction of the Old Test. is solely element-
ary, being supplemented by that of the New Test. This is taught in many of our Sys-
tematic Theologies (e.g., Knapp, etc.) ; but this is evidently an error, seeing that much
of the Old Test. remains yet to be fulfilled ; that Peter (2 Pet. 1:19) tells believers to
take heed of the sure word of prophecy as to a light until the day of Christ appears ; that
Paul (2 Tim. 3 : 14-17) exhorts a minister to apply himself to the Old Test. Scriptures,
not to obtain elementary knowledge but to perfect himself ; that Christians are directed
by the apostles to find the hope of Salvation, the promises of completed Redemption in
the Scriptures previously given ; and that constant reference is made to the Old Test. as
the storehouse of promised deliverance given in covenant and prophecy. It is true that
some things in the Old Test. are elementary, such as typical and provisionary institu-
tions, but to make all fall into the same category is doing the yrossest violence to its con-
tents and the example of the first believers. It appears that the main passage of Script-
ure, which led to such an unjust inference and discrimination, is the one in Matt.
11:11. How this verse is to be understood will appear hereafter, as we shall examine
it in detail, om account of the varied use to which it is put. It is to be regretted that
able advocates of Christianity fall into this notion. Thus, e.g., Van Oosterzee (Ch. Dog.,
vol. 1, p. 17) says, that ‘‘ the writings of the New Test. must be placed before those of
the Old,” and approvingly quotes J. Miiller : “It is to the writings of the New Test. that
the dogmatic proof must return to found its dogmas securely on Christ Himself.’’ This
is simply, as already shown, a one-sided discrimination. Now whilst the New Test. is
exceedingly precious, cannot be neglected without vital defect, gives us the desired proof
in and through Jesus Christ how the Old Test. and New Test. promises can be fulfilled,
and teaches us in the plainest manner how to attain Salvation through Jesus, etc., yet
much, very much doctrinally expressed in the New finds its true basis back in the Old.
This the apostles, the Evangelists, yea, Jesus, teach us when appealing to the Old as ful-
162 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 16.

filled, e.g., in the Person, character, life, sufferings, etc., of Jesus. The Messiahship of
the promised David’s Son is delineated in the Old Test., and in deciding the doctrinal
question of the Messiahship of Jesus, the question must be answered, whether the Christ
of the New Test. corresponds in all respects with the Christ covenanted and promised in the
Old. This simple illustration shows that we are not at liberty to exalt the one portion
above the other, but that both are indispensable and mutually confirm each other, Ad-
mitting fully that the New contains in a large measure the sufficient provisionary for Salva-
tion, yet the grand theme of both is Salvation, and the Old, in view of its unfulfilled por-
tions, etc., is far more than a “ preliminary training.’’ If the rule given by Oosterzee
(Ch. Dog., vol. 1, p. 169) be admitted, it will, if logically applied, give the preference to
the Old instead of the New. The rule is: ‘‘ A part of Scripture has so much the higher
value in proportion as it is of greater importance for our knowledge of the Kingdom of God.”
For, as will be shown, the covenants and prophecies (which the New Test. takes so
largely for granted as well known) relating to the Kingdom, and fundamental to its com-
prehension, are in the Old Test.—yea, our chief knowledge is derived therefrom, and,
therefore, the Old cannot be inferior to the New. Oosterzee and Miller forget where the
dogmatical ground was in the quite early church, before the New Test. was written, or
formed into a canon.
PROP.17)] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 163

Proposition 17. Without study of the prophecies, no adequate

idea can be obtained of the kingdom.
The doctrine of the kingdom is a revelation from God, and ‘‘ God
spake by the Prophets,” tor ‘‘ the prophecy came not in old time
by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved
by the Holy Ghost”’? (Luke 1:70, 2 Pet. 1; 21, 2 Tim. 3: 16, etc.).
The descriptions of it come to us mainly through prediction, em-
bracing a Divine Purpose pertaining to the future beyond the power
of human sagacity and knowledge to discern and portray.
Fairbairn (On Proph.) has the correct idea, when, as the Amer. editor remarks, ‘‘ We
find as the result that prophecy is a sublime portraiture of the Kingdom of God.” How
faithfully he followed the prophetic portraiture is another question.

Obs. 1. Hence arises the necessity, if accurate knowledge of the King-

dom is desired, of receiving what God, through the prophets, has revealed
concerning it. Jesus was the subject of prophecy, and we know that He
truly came because in Him the prophecies pertaining to His First Advent
were strictly fulfilled. Jesus and the apostles constantly appeal to this:
that the Scriptures testified concerning Him, and that their testimony was
true, being verified. Precisely so with this Kingdom ; for it is the great
theme of the prophets, and we can only know that it has really come when
the predictions relating to it are realized.
Prophecy has been compared (Wilson’s Three Sermons, p. 6, quoted by Stanley) ‘‘ to
a golden thread ”’ stretching to the end of the web. But in our estimation it is more
than this : it is the warp, the golden chain into which time fills and weaves its threads,
the latter interlinked and supported by the former. It contains the substance of Reve-
lation and History. Strike out of the Scriptures Prophecy, fulfilled and unfulfilled, and
the very essence of them the most precious portion—is also removed. The early Fathers,
when they designated the Prophets ‘* Theologians,’’ were evidently impressed by the
profound relationship that their utterances sustained to our knowledge of divine things.
The church, if it desires an increase of knowledge, must return to this Scriptural attitude.
Some writers in their haste and eagerness to oppose the study of Prophecy (because we
lay much stress on it), tell us that its doctrinal aspect is of little account, and dare
to assert, that ‘‘ the folly of basing a tenet upon unfulfilled prophecy has grown to be an
axiom in theology.’”’ Such an axiom was unknown to ancient worthies before and imme-
diately after the First Advent, and is discarded by a sound theology since the establish-
ment of the Christian Church, seeing that quite a number of doctrines are dependent
upon unfulfilled prophecy, as, e.g., the Second Advent, the Antichrist, the restoration
of the Jews, the Millennial age, the consummation, the judgment day, the resurrection,
the realization of eternal life in the final restitution, the New Heavens and New Earth,
the New Jerusalem, etc. The promises of the New Test. relating to the future are based
on unfulfilled predictions of the Old, are repetitions of the same, and thus renewed pre-
dictions. Surely if angelic beings take a deep interest in the divine predictions—if the
redeemed are represented as rejoicing in their bestowal and realization, we, who need
their light, ought to receive the bright assurances with gratitude and joy.

Obs. 2. Prophecy takes higher ground than that of merely being a pre-
diction of the future, or a witness to the truth, or a message of hope.
164 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 17.

Whilst all this, it is above all a Revelation of God’s Will and Purpose ;
and, therefore, while the preceding flow from it, a still grander result is
attained when combining and linking together the predictions of God.
Then we find, from first to last, that they publish a predetermined counsel
of God, a great Redemptive Process, all centering in the predestined King
and Kingdom.
Negative criticism endeavors here and there to break this connected chain ; unayail-
ingly, however, seeing that ‘‘ allthe prophets witness,’’ and their united testimony, sepa-
rated by centuries and ages, form an unbroken unity. God has given us numerous
prophecies, some in detached portions, others in brief fragments, which require special
attention to systematize, but when once brought together and compared evince a most
blessed design, a most glorious Plan, such as man and creation needs to secure perma-
nent, everlasting happiness. ‘Together they form ‘‘a sure word,” something “ where-
unto ye do well that ye take heed,’’ being eminently worthy of the most careful investi-
gation. Together they give ‘‘a light’’ (comp. Barnes’ admirable remarks on 2 Pet.
1:19), which is the only safe guide until the greater illumination of the coming day. It
is a matter of amazement that so many professed Theologies either ignore or slightly
touch this God-given ‘‘ light.” Within the limits and design of this work it is impossi-
ble to give the rules for interpreting Prophecy ; and, indeed, they are not needed, seeing
that we have various works on the subject. The principle of Interpretation adopted
(Prop. 4) by us sufficiently explains our position, showing that the ordinary rules for
interpreting literal, figurative, symbolic, and typical language cre to be observed. The
reader will find these presented in Bickersteth’s Guide, Brooke’s El. of Proph. Inter.,
Lord’s Lit. and Theol. Journal, and Introd. to the Apoc., Horne’s Introd., Winthrop’s Pre-
mium Essay on Proph. Symbols, Stuart’s El. of Interp., etc. Davison’s Dis. on Proph.
fixes a “ Criterion of Prophecy,” and ably shows its application to Jesus at the Fivs$
Advent, to the Church, Jewish Nation, ete.
In reference to the definitions, a few words are in place. Horne (Intro., vol. 1, p. 119)
says : “ Prophecy is a miracle of knowledge, a declaration, or description, or representa-
tion of something future, beyond the power of human sagacity to discern or to calculate,
and it is the highest evidence that can be given of supernatural communion with the
Deity, and of the truth of a revelation from God.” M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclop.
defines it : ‘‘ God’s communication to the Church, to be her light and comfort in time of
trouble and perplexity,” and adds the following, from Vitringa : ‘‘ A prediction of some
contingent circumstance or event in the future, received by immediate or direct revela-
tion’? ; Dr. Pye Smith: ‘‘ A declaration made by a creature under the inspiration and
commission of the omniscient God relating to an event or series of events which have
not taken place at the time the prophecy is uttered, and which could not have been cer-
tainly foreknown by any science or wisdom of man ;’ other writers: “Prophecy is
nothing but the history of events before they come to pass.” It refers also to Dean
Magee as dissenting ‘‘ from this popular but erroneous view,” and making the prophet
to be ‘‘ the religious teacher of his age, whose aim is the religious education of those
whom he addresses.’’ This is a fair specimen of numerous similar definitions, and
there is an element of truth in all of them. But, after all, they only give a partial view,
for while neither ignoring the predictive character, nor its evidential nature, nor the
moral element (the religious instruction of the age in which delivered and of successive
ages), it is self-evident that prophecy is largely intended to reveal the Divine Purpose relat-
ing to the Plan of Redemption. To illustrate our meaning by a single prophecy : take
Deut. 32, and we have not merely a prediction of a series of events and valuable religious
instruction, but we have a divine explanation of the manner in which ultimately—after
a terrible trial, etc.—covenanted promises are to be realized. Hence prophecy is an
essential part of the system of revelation, revealing, incorporating, and systematizing
truths, which could in no other way be obtained. Therefore in Theology proper, in
order to comprehend God’s purpose in Redemption and present a systematic statement
of the Plan of Salvation, it should be brought forth prominently, and subjected to careful -
study. The lack of this presents us with serious defects in the various systems of The.
ology, especially in the part pertaining to Eschatology.
Williamson (Letters to a Millenarian, p. 177) informs us that the restoration of the King.
dom and Christ’s future reign (i.e., its proper conception) is not dependent on “ the
meaning of certain predictions of the prophets, for Iam no student of the prophets, but on
the question, Who are the lawful heirs of the bequests made to the seed of Abraham?
Prop. 17.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 165

This seems to be a question totally distinct from the question, What are the contents of
the will? and should surely be definitely settled before we look at the contents of the
will ; for before I know whether I am an heir, the contents of the will are of little conse-
quence to me.’’ This author, an amiable writer, and free from the usual reproaches
against us, in striving to wrest from us our vantage ground on prophecy, makes a con-
fession that vitiates his own labor. If no student of the prophets, how can he even
undertake the expounding of his prior question, seeing that the prophets enter largely in
both questions, respecting the will (to use his figure) and the heirship—they being the
expounders of the Divine Purpose concerning both. This lack is seen throughout his
“* Letters,” reversing a logical consideration of the whole subject. He overlooks two
essential points : (1) That before we are heirs, we are invited by prophets and apostles
to consider and study this ‘‘ Will,’’ in order that we may be induced to become heirs
through the acceptance of the Christ, and (2) that the contents of the will are of primary
importance, because unless wefirst “ look at the contents’’ it is impossible to determine
the heirship. It certainly needs no discussion, that the contents of the will precede the
heirship, and that, therefore, the first question to be decided is that referring to the will
itself. When it is found that a will is really made, and that we are noticed in it, being
assured of an heirship under certain conditions imposed by the testator, a deepened iin-
terest arises to make ourselves acquainted with all the details, and worthy of its provi-
sions, and this will Carpe: PORIDE Ly sa Stat A pene us students of prophecy. (In ref.
to his view of the heirship, see Prop. 64.)

Obs. 3. Conceding that Prophecy has thus a higher province than that
of merely foretelling future events, yet every believer in the Word ought to
insist, that such a foretelling is a most important, essential feature and
proof of the Prophet’s mission. That spirit of compromising with
Rationalism, by which, under the shallow pretence that the Prophets had
nobler duties to perform than that of predicting, the predictions them-
selves are lowered or set aside, is to be avoided as derogatory to the pro-
phetical office.
As we shall largely use their predictive authority in our argument, placing it in the
front rank where the Bible and the early Fathers set it, some additional remarks may be
needed. Infidels, next to miracles, have most violently assaulted prophecy (also a mira-
cle). Seeing how largely the Word of God is dependent upon it, how believers have
appealed to it as evidence of its credibility and inspiration, how the very life of Chris-
tianity is bound up with it, they directed their attack with the cry that it was either
disparaging to God, or a tender to fatalism, or incredible to reason, or mere foolishness,
or the natural suggestions, shrewd foresight and guesses of man ; some predictions were
given after the events, others were never fulfilled, some were so obscure that they are
utterly unreliable, others were interpolations of a succeeding age to subserve political or
religious purposes, etc. With such men it is, of course, vain to reason, for the case is
preudged ; and any move to get rid of, or weaken, its testimony, is deemed honorable.
To appeal to prophecies fulfilled, such as related to Babylon, Tyre, Nineveh, Jerusalem,
etc. (showing also that the writers lived long before the events transpired), is to exhibit
our ignorance ; to show that prophecies are now fulfilling in the dispersion of the Jews,
in the continued down-treading of Jerusalem under Gentile feet, in Mohammedanism
and the Turkish Empire, in Gentile domination, in the Papacy, in the condition of the
church and the world, etc., is to manifest our credulity ; to indicate the relationship
that individual prophecy sustains to the whole, and to point to the future as the period
when those, claimed by them as unfulfilled, shall be realized, is to display an unreason-
able faith. So be it then, if men desire to elevate themselves to the judgment seat, deem-
ing themselves perfectly adequate to decide what is proper and what improper for the
Almighty to perform ; what is worthy and what unworthy of credence in His Word. The
opposite reasons, influencing them in their rejection, are aptly delineated by Isaiah (ch.
29:11, 12): ‘‘ The vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed,
which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee ; and he saith, I
cannot, for it is sealed ; and the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying,
Read this, I pray thee ; and he saith, Iam not learned.’”’ It is impossible to conciliate
such a class, for the objections come more from the heart than from the mind, rather
from indisposition, lack of moral sympathy than from careful study, and every effort in
the way of concession to their demands, is only hailed as an evidence of weakness.
166 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 17.

There has been a tendency, especially in German Theology, arising from the contest
between Rationalism and Orthodoxy, to settle down in the conviction that Christianity
cannot be demonstrated by historical proofs, as many authors and apologists have at-
tempted ; and that as Twesten (quoted by Dorner, His. Prot., vol. 2, p. 428) remarks :
“‘Tt is not possible to prove, independent of Christian faith, that there is a Divine Rev-
elation, and that this is deposited in Holy Scripture, nor can such proof be the founda-
tion of faith,’ ete. While freely admitting the higher and more satisfactory testimony
of Evangelical faith, which produces a personal, practical knowledge of the truth and
thus impresses its divine origin, yet such a statement is far too sweeping, removing the
responsibility laid upon all men to receive God’s Revelation, rejecting the evidence
afforded by the experience of men that many have been led by the reading and study of
the Word to acknowledge, without and before such faith, that God’s Word is truth ; and
discarding the labors of Apologists and others whose works, as the conversion of many
testifies, have not been in vain. Indeed, the very men who insist upon such a theory
constantly violate their own rule by appealing to historical proofs, or by bringing an
array of evidence obtained through the fulfilment of prophecy to substantiate revelation
against unbelief. In their writings there is a constant appeal to reason in behalf of the
positions taken by them. It is one thing to lay down a one-sided rule, but it is quite
another to apply it. The Bible speaks of two kinds of evidence ; one, the most gratify-
ing, comes from faith, but this, in many aspects, must be sustained by the other ; the
other is derived from historical evidence, including the fulfilment of prophecy, the deal-
ings of God, the works performed, etc. God Himself appeals to the latter evidence as
desirable, as introductory to the other, and also as condemnatory if not received. The
first preaching of the apostles is based on it ; Stephen’s address is full of it ; Christ
refers the Jews to it ; the Jews themselves received the Old Test. in view of it ; the New
Test. is a record of its value ; believers have been first led to faith by it ; even the devils
themselves are under its influence, and unbelief has often, in the dying hour, confessed
its claims. We cannot do without such an attestation to existing Revelation, for even
the way of Evangelical faith (which simply appropriates to self what the other brings) is
prepared by due reference to historical facts, as, e.g., the fall, the sinfulness of man, the
foretelling and coming of the Messiah, etc., so that every Christian writer, whatever his
theory in the study, will practically, more or less, endeavor to secure the approval of
reason by the use of such testimony, a process favored by our mental and moral consti-
tution.
It is, therefore, with deep regret that we see eminent and devoted men, for the sake of
gaining the good-will of unbelievers, forsake a principle of prophetic interpretation and
application, thut God Himself has laid down, viz. : the strict grammatical interpretation
of prophecy and a literal fulfilment of the same. Thus, e.g., Dr. Dorner (Ilis. Prot.
Theol., p. 445) in view of Rationalism in some quarters declaring ‘‘ that a transference of
Old Test. occurrences, images, and Messianic features to the person of Jesus of Naza-
reth, is the source of the Gospel,” asserts : ‘‘ the more literal the fulfilment of Old Test.
sayings found in the New, the more difficult will it be to dispel the suspicion that the
former is the source of the latter.” * To rid ourselves of so unjust a ‘‘ suspicion,” it is
requisite to accommodate ourselves to unbelief, and yield up everything that may be too
“ Jewish.’’ This theory is opposed (1) to the facts in the case ; for (a) if this literal
fulfilment were missing, the unbelievers would be the first to take advantage of it ; (b) it
cab be proven that the prophecies preceded, and hence the fulfilment the more obvious ;
(c) it can be shown, as an essential element in the Divine Plan, that both the prediction
and the literal fulfilment are a necessity to constitute Jesus the Messiah ; (d) it can be
pointed out, that the fulfilment, in most cases, is one adverse to the anticipations of
Jewish opinion based on Jewish Scriptures, and yet necessary in the Divine Purpose ;
(e) it can be boldly assumed, that without such a correspondence we can have no assur.
ance that the Christ came ; (f) it can be affirmed, that such concessions do no good to
the class for whom they are intended, but that they rather confirm them in unbelief.
Then, again, the theory is opposed (2) to the criterion established by God ; for (a) the
plainest and most triumphant exhibition of veracity and union with the Divine is a lit-
eral fulfilment of prediction, and hence the failure of such is the test of a false prophet ;

* This is quoted from the Eng. Transl., which may do Dr. Dorner injustice ; for my
friend Dr. Sprecher, ex-Pres. of Wit. College, informs me that in comparing it with the
original, he found it in various places imperfect, and in several instances stating the
reverse of the original.
Prop. 17.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 167

(b) a literal fulfilment is adapted to all classes of minds, for which the Bible is designed ;
(c) the literal fulfilment manifests the Divine Will, and is a part of the Divine Purpose,
and as such is appealed to in order to indicate it ; (d) Jesus and the apostles represent it
as a decided proof and reality of the Divine, thus flatly controverting the far-fetched
“* suspicions” of early and later opposers of Christianity ; (e) if it were desirable to avoid
such an objection, the Bible, the product of Divine wisdom, knowing how to reach men’s
minds and hearts, would not lay stress upon it’; (f) it is not a literal fulfilment that
leads to such ‘‘ suspicions,” but the heart. desires them to silence the sense of responsi-
bility ; (g) it forms, then, a substantial reason—for if missing the chain would be broken
—in behalf of Christianity ; adapted to all minds ; preserving the unity of the Record ;
attesting to the Divine Plan ; giving a proper insight into Redemption ; revealing the
future history of the race and the ultimate triumph of truth and holiness over error and
evil ; and practically illustrating the power of an all-pervading Providence in the most
forcible manner. Let it be repeated : it is impossible to satisfy the demands of opposing
parties. Objection is made that there is too literal a fulfilment, which is adduced as evi-
dence of collusion, etc. Frazer (Key to the Prophecies) informs us of some infidels, who
object to Revelation because there is no accurate, literal fulfilment of its own predictions.
So Renan also objects, and claims that Jesus was disappointed in His fond anticipations,
The Jews also objected to Christ that all the prophecies pertaining to the Messiah were
not literally fulfilled at the First Advent. Here, then, are two objections, the exact oppo-
site of each other: the one rejecting Scripture because of a too literal fulfilment, the
other doing the same on the ground that a sufficiently literal aspect is wanting. This
should teach us to accept of God’s wisdom in the matter, receiving His testimony as
superior to man’s, and not weaken its force in the vain attempt of*conciliating unbelievers.
It is comparatively easy to endure the reproaches of unbelievers, but not so readily
those of excellent men, believers, who, by their sweeping statements, are justly charge-
able with moulding the minds of multitudes to a rejection of a true, consistent interpre-
tation of Scripture, preparing tle masses of the church to have no faith when the Saviour
comes. Unable to reconcile with their views of Scripture and of the future, a literal
fulfilment of prophecy, such Prophecy must submit its grammatical sense to another that
is more accommodating. But this is not all: the most ultra positions are taken to sus-
tain such a departure. Thus, e.g., Pressensé (The Redeemer, p. 100) asserts: ‘‘ Literal
interpretation of prophecy is, therefore, nonsense,” etc., declaring that all prophecy is
in its ‘*‘ form essentially symbolical,” and adduces the Psalms relating to Christ as first
applicable to David (?), then to Solomon (?), and finally to Christ. Yet he 1s inconsistent
with himself, for in other places and works he repeatedly presents this same ‘“‘ non-
sense,’’ i.e., literal fulfilment of prophecy, as evidence of the Messiahship of Jesus.
Adopt his rule, and it plunges us at once into the most varied and contradictory inter-
pretation, and makes it impossible to meet the arguments of infidels against prophecy
without a pitiful retreat into mystical subterfuges and the plainest violation of the laws
of language. Alas! otherwise able works abound in this species of damaging statement,
and set themselves in direct antagonism to Jesus (John 14 : 29): “And now I have told you
before it come too pass, that when it come to puss, ye might believe.’’

Obs. 4. The prophecies referring to the Kingdom of God, as now inter-

preted by the large majority of Christians, afford the strongest leverage
employed by unbelievers against Christianity, Unfortunately, unbelief is
often logically correct. Thus e.g. it eagerly points to the predictions per-
taining to David’s Son, showing that, if language has any legitimate mean-
ing, and words are adequate to express an idea, they wnmistakably predict
the restoration of David’s throne and kingdom, etc., and then trium-
phantly declare that it was not realized (so Strauss, Baur, Renan, Parker,
etc.). They mock the expectation of the Jews, of Simeon, the preaching
of John, Jesus, and the disciples, the anticipations of the early Church,
and hastily conclude, sustained by the present faith of the Church (except-
ing only a few), that they will never be fulfilled ; and that, therefore, the
prophecies, the foundation upon which the superstructure rests, are false,
and of human concoction. The manner of meeting such objections is.
humiliating to the Word and Reason ; for it discards the plain grammati-
168 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 17.

cal sense as unreliable, and, to save the credit of the Word, insists upon
interpreting all such prophecies by adding to them, under the claim of
spiritual, a sense which is not contained in the language, but suits the re-
ligious system adopted. Unbelief is not slow in seizing the advantage thus
given, gleefully pointing out how this introduced change makes the
ancient faith an ignorant one, the early Church occupying a false position,
and the Bible a book to which man adds any sense, under the plea of
spiritual, that may be deemed necessary for its defence.
Some unbelievers even go to the length of denouncing the Saviour and the apostles
as being “ deceivers,’’ ‘‘ Indian jugglers,’’ etc., who endeavored, without success, to ap-
propriate the predictions to themselves. Others inform us that the prophecies inflamed
the imagination of Jesus, and that under their influence His ministry started, but that
He discarded much as unable to be realized in the condition of things then existing.
This is a favorite topic of Renan’s, the result of his own unreliable imaginings. Parker
and his followers, of course, tell us that there are ‘‘ prophecies which have not been,
and never will be fulfilled,” referring especially to those relating to the Kingdom prom-
ised to David’s Son. ‘The Liberalist, M. Grotz, and others, advise us to keep prophecy in
the background as a very minor question, and not worthy of serious consideration—i.e.
it is only worthy the contempt of the enlightened. Even Schleiermacher (Sys. of Doc-
trines) objects to nearly all the prophecies, especially the more prominent, as proceeding
from a material spirit ofsthe people, and hence places the Old ‘Test. containing them far
below the New. As we proceed, there will be found abundant and painful evidence of
this spirit and lack of faith in the Word of God, extending from the most virulent of
unbelievers down to semi-unbelievers and even believers. It is a lamentable fact that
prophecies, en masse, which have no relation to the church as organized at present, are
appropriated and applied to the church as now existing, that cannot and do not thus apply,
and that this has necessarily caused unbelief in many who detect, easily, the utter dis-
crepancy. We only now say, that there must be a sad defect somewhere in human sys-
tems, which causes prophecies to promise, plainly too, one thing and yet mean quite an-
other ; this, we affirm, is an imperfection existing, not in the language of the prophets,
but only in the interpretation of them, and in the limiting of their fulfilment to the past
and present, as if God was unable to carry out His purposes in the future. A renewed
study, a thorough examination of them, and a return to the grammatical sense, will alone
enable us to close the wide gap left open for opposers to enter.
The student will observe also that the evidence in behalf of the predictive nature of
prophecy is not dependent—as in alleged human—upon single or isolated predictions,
but brings to its support a grand series of predictions, one hinging upon the other. In
this work we shall frequently avail ourselves of this connected succession. The destruc-
tive theories respecting prophecy (e.g. in Davidson’s Introduction, with which comp. the
‘* Reply’ in The Princeton Review, Jan., 1864), which bring it down to something like
human sagacity, are fully met by the simple fact of this divine order, and their forming
integral parts of a divine system, imparting to us a knowledge of the Divine Purpose.
The fulfilment of prediction is evidence of the truth (Archb. Sumner’s Essay on Proph.,
etc.), and in the preparatory measures relating to the Kingdom, confirms the office of
prophecy (Kurtz's Sac. His., p. 32).

Obs. 5. Multitudes are found, who deliberately and persistently refuse

to study the Prophecies. To such, at least in part, applies the language
of Bengel (Gnomon, Apoc. c. 1:1), who, after directing attention to the
fact that Revelation is given ‘‘ to shew unto his servants,”’ etc., says: ‘‘ He
who does not permit the things which must come to pass to be shewn to
him, is wanting 7m the duty of aservant.’’ There is propriety and force
in the remark, which those who object to our making these things a
special subject of study, would do well to ponder. A servant cannot, with-
out injury to himself, neglect a large portion of Scripture, which God,
with a merciful object in view, kindly presents to him. He will rather
imitate the Prophets themselves, who ‘‘inguired and searched dilt-
gently’’—not a mere cursory examination, but a profound and extended
PRoPA17)) THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 169
/

inquiry—into the revelations made to them (1 Pet. 1:10, 11). God’s

wisdom and power (Isa. 43:9, 18) is found in prophecy ; to many, how-
ever, it is foolishness. Blessedness is attached to it (Apoc. 1 : 3, comp.
Bengel, Barnes, etc.), but to many it is evil and drudgery.
Instead of a careful investigation, some refuse to receive it ; others quote isolated pas-
sages to support some doctrine or opinion, without the least idea of the context or real
prophetical meaning. Popes, e.g., have applied prophetic announcements pertaining to
the Messiah to themselves ; Papists and Protestants have appropriated what exclusively
belongs to the Jewish nation ; sects and individuals have presumptuously claimed as
belonging to themselves what really is predicted of ‘‘ the age to come.’”’ Prophecy has
been made a plastic mortar to daub over the crudest and most mystical conceptions.
Rejection or misconception has triumphed, and thus it will continue down to the harvest
itself. Pious and able men, such as Bh. Newton, Meade, Bengel, etc., are ridiculed for
having studied and written on the subject. Voltaire’s sneer at Sir I. Newton, that he
wrote on the Apocalypse to console mankind for his superiority in other matters, has been
reproduced in another form by Renan (Life of Jesus, p. 138) : ‘‘ Newton thought his crazy
exposition of the Apoc. as certain as his system of the world.” (Which clearly shows
that Renan never read Newton’s book, which claims no such certainty, but represents
itself as a humble attempt to approximately elucidate, if possible, a difficult subject, con-
taining both modesty and valuable suggestions. The remark reveals the animus of
Renan.) Valuable information and suggestions imparted by such a class of writers is
studiously ignored, and mistakes, to which the best of men are liable, are joyfully
paraded as evidence of the sad results of prophetical study. How true it is that to the
mass of mankind and to many believers, it is a mutter of the ulmost indifference whether
Jesus opened the seals of the book or not, whether He gave a farewell testimony or not,
whether He enjoined special attention to it or not, whether John was deeply affected,
even to tears, or not. John wept because the things fastened by the seals could not be
revealed, and he rejoiced when Christ opened them ; but now, although those things are
plainly recorded, it is deemed foolishness to be in sympathy with John, or to search
into them with an interest becoming the subject. Let aman enter this field of investiga-
tion with sobriety, honesty, and humility, and epithets the most derogatory are heaped
upon him indicative of ‘‘ folly,” ‘‘ weak-mindedness,” visionary,’’ ‘‘ fanatical,” etc., so
that it requires some degree of courage to face the obloquy, to endure the loss of sympa-
thy, to suffer the reproaches of withdrawn confidence, and to receive the imputations of
mental and moral weakness. Rashness, however, consists not only in attempting to in-
terpret in a trifling way, without due comparison, reflection, moderation, etc., but is
equally to be found in neglecting or despising prophetical truth ; indeed, the latter ex-
ceeds the former in one respect since it lacks even the respect shown to prophecy by the
most injudicious of interpreters. Alas! how comparatively few have, at present, the
spirit of Daniel (2 : 19-23), who manifested his reverence and gratitude for and interest
in the prophecies given. Indeed, such as ancient believers received with faith and
praise, are now regarded either with unbelief, or indifference, or scorn and reproach, and
“* the testimony of Jesus (which) is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev. 19 : 10) is not only rejected,
pronounced unworthy of special study, but rebukes are heaped upon those who devote
time and labor to its elucidation and enforcement. It is true of prophecy, as of all
God’s works: ‘‘ The works of the Lord are great (vast in magnitude), sought oul (inves-
tigated) of all them that have pleasure therein” (Ps. 111 : 2).

Obs. 6. It is the united testimony of all who have devoted much time
to the study of prophecy, that it is exceedingly profitable in many respects ;
and they exhort others, in view of personal benefit derived therefrom, to
devote special attention to the same. This testimony is the more worthy
of consideration, since it comes from the most talented, scholarly, devoted
men that the Church has produced, and fully accords with the promises of
the Word. Fully acknowledging the correctness of Stanley (is. of Jew-
ish Church), Payne Smith (Mess. Inter. of Isa., Introd.), Fairbairn (On
Proph.), and others, that the teaching of the Future or simple prediction
was only one part of the Prophetic office or duty, we firmly hold that,
viewed correctly, this is far from being ‘‘ subordinate.’’ Reflection shows
170 TIE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 17.

that its distinguishing peculiarity consists in this: under the form of

Prophecy, the Divine Purpose, not merely in particular cases, but as a
grand whole, is developed. Therefore it is, that he who studies and com-
pares Prophecy (teaching respecting the future), keeping in view that it
is far more than mere prediction (in the sense of foretelling to convince
men of the truth, etc.), that it is designed to teach a system of truth (one
part adjusting itself to another in the thus revealed Plan), will obtain a
deeper and more satisfactory insight into Redemption, as carried on and
finally realized. We cannot call that ‘‘ subordinate’? which materially
aids—is essential—to such knowledge.
It may be well, in the briefest terms, to enumerate the reasons why the study of
Prophecy is important. (1) It evinces due respect for ‘‘all’’ Scripture. (2) It shows
that we believe that ‘‘ the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” (3) That it is
“a sure word.”’ (4) It affords the satisfaction of performing a duty. (5) It is fruitful
in bringing forth treasure. (6) It increases faith, hope, and love. (7) It exalts our
conceptions of the attributes of God, His knowledge and power. (8) It reveals the re-
sults of depravity. (9) It teaches forbearance and patience under the trials to which the
church and believer are subject. (10) It gives the Second Advent its due prominency.
(11) It enforces the motives, hopes, etc., grounded on the Second Advent. (11) It en-
lightens us respecting the mission of the First Advent, and shows how it is preparatory.
(12) It imparts accurate information concerning the Kingdom of God, its nature and re-
establishment. (13) It explains the intercalary period, the Times of the Gentiles. (14)
It teaches us more clearly upon what the engratting of the Gentiles depends. (15) It
presents us with the career of the church and anti-Christian powers. (16) It gives us
distinctive knowledge of God’s Redemptive Purpose. (17) It secures the blessedness of
obedience to the truth, if received, hereafter. (18) It increases the range of prayer, and
stimulates to its employment. (19) It is a preservative from sin. (20) It leads to sepa-
ration from the world, but to labor for its warning and welfare. (21) It preserves us
from the rebuke given to the non-discerning Pharisees. (22) It alone will prepare be-
lievers for the terrible trials of the still future great tribulation. (23) Being received by
faith and appropriated, we may, according to Promise, escape from the sad scenes to be
ushered in (this will be explained under the Translation). (24) Its tendency is to pro-
duce love toward the brethren, sinking the present into the future. (25) Its revelations
may, when presented to others, warn, instruct, and guide to the knowledge, service, and
obedience of God. (26) It prominently holds forth the Theocratic relationship of Jesus.
(27) It specifically instructs us concerning the Jewish nation, the true people of God,
and the enemies of Christ. (28) The design of the present dispensation, its introductory
character, etc., are delineated by it. (29) It enforces and confirms the covenants. (30)
It tells us when we are to be rewarded, when we shall inherit. (31) It makes the prom-
ises of God consistent and more precious. (32) It materially aids to explain Scripture.
(33) It shows us how Redemption is complete —a recovery from all the effects of the fall.
(34) It gives us a clearer idea of the resurrection, translation, judgment day, ete. (35) It
enables us to understand and appreciate the reign of the saints. (36) It indicates the
ending of Gentile domination and the supremacy of the Theocratic ordering. (37) It
presents us with a more enlarged view of the future agency and power of the Holy
Spirit. (38) It vindicates the glory of God in the Salvation portrayed in its sublime lan-
guage. (39) It makes the Bible a harmonious whole. (40) It prevents us from predict-
ing falsely. (41) It helps us to meet the objections urged by infidels, Jews, etc. (42) It
serves to explain, more satisfactorily, the world’s history. (43) It honors, exalts the
mighty King, giving us the most enlarged views of His majesty and power. Considering
the value of such study, it is inexcusable to neglect it. The remarks of Dr. Schmucker
(Proph. His. of the Ch. Relig., p. 44, on Apoc. 1 : 3) are but too applicable : ‘‘ Oh! the
guilty backwardness of many in our days, to read and study this invaluable treasure of
the Christian, for fear of incurring the ridicule of infidels, or the piteous smile of the
wise men of the world. Some in our days neglect this kind of study even from hypoc-
risy. They assume a superior air of sanctity, as if their minds were employed in mat-
ters of far greater moment than this, and therefore pray to be excused. Should a mor-
tal presume to know better, what he ought to read than God? However the study of
the prophecies should not be our first care ; for what will all this knowledge avail,
if we
die in our sins at last. Our first duty is to seek the Kingdom of God and His right-
Prop. 17.] . THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 1a)
eousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. We must be experimentally acquainted with
the ways of God in Christ Jesus, to derive real benefit from knowledge of this kind.
He whose eternal interest is truly settled will study the prophecies to the advantage of
his soul’s concerns, when the unconverted speculation only satisfies vain curiosity.”
This rebuke and caution is well deserved ; for neglect, on the one hand is criminal,
whilst, on the other, without an appropriating of Christ, the sum of all prophecy, by the’
elementary principles of repentance and faith, its study only increases our condemna-
tion. (Comp. Commentators, generally, on Apoc. 1:3.) In view of the general neglect
of prophecy, even by ministers eminent for ability, it is to be feared that Daniel’s prayer
is applicable (Dan. 9:6): “Neither have we hearkened unto Thy servants, the prophets,
which spake in Thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the peo-
ple of the land.” For if Daniel could include this in a confession of sin and unworthi-
ness, how much more pertinent is it, when regarding the additions made to prophecy
since Daniel's time, some even given under the direct auspices of Jesus Himself and
called His ‘‘ testimony’’? Jesus (Matt. 24 : 15) refers to Daniel’s prophecy, saying,
‘** Whoso readeth, let him understand,’’ and both He and the apostles allude to unfulfilled
prophecy, calling attention to it, and assuming that it was imparted to secure knowledge
of God’s ways. Indeed, we have intimations that in the private and unrecorded instruc-
tions much stress was laid on the study of prophecy (e.g. as to Jesus, Luke 24 : 25-27;
as to the apostles, 2 Thess. 2 : 5). Comp. ‘‘ On the Importance of Prophecy,’’ Brookes’s
Maranatha, Seiss’s Last Times, and kindred works..

Obs. 7. The nature, characteristics, etc., of the Kingdom, should not be

determined by one, two, or even more, predictions, unless very specific,
but by a comparison of all, or at least a large number of, the predictions
relating to it. One or more, taken separately, may give us but slight evi-
dence, whilst the whole, or a large proportion, will present such abundant
proof that the correctness of view will be fortified against assault. The
neglect of this caution has been fruitful in mistake ; a passage or two is
selected and a plausible theory is erected upon it, which, however, cannot
bear the test of accumulated light. Inferential or one-sided testimony
must give place to the direct and abounding.
Bh. Horsley (Sermons, vol. 2, p. 13), showing that the prophecies were parts of a sys-
tem which pointed to the establishment of the Messiah’s Kingdom, takes 2 Pet. 1 : 20 to
express : “ Not any prophecy of Scripture is of self-interpretation”’ (i.e. isolated from
others), but must be interpreted in its unity with others or the whole (so also Faber,
etc.). However the passage is rendered, the rule of comparison is essential to preserve
from error. Horne (Jntvod.) adopts this as the first rule for ascertaining the sense of
prophetic writers. (Many authors indorse Horsley’s rendering, whilst others make it to
denote “ that what they communicated was not of their own disclosure ;’ ‘‘ that the
prophecy cannot be understood until compared with the event,” etc. (Barnes’ Com.
loci.). Fairbairn (On Proph. Ap. G. p. 496) interprets it to mean : ‘*‘ No Scripture comes
of one’s own solution ;”’ and he refers it not, as others, ‘‘ how the meaning of prophecy
is made out, or interpreted, but how prophecy itself came into existence, whence it
drew its origin,” ete. The Roman Cath. application of the passage is refuted by Barnes
and others. Bh. Van Mildert says : ‘‘ That the sense of no prophecy is to be determined
by an abstract consideration of the passage itself ; but by taking it in conjunction with
other portions of Scripture relating to the subject.”” Comp. Bloomfield, loci, who
quotes Van Mildert, but agrees with Horsley, who, in addition, includes more than
mere comparison, viz.: that in virtue of its divine origin, it sustains a necessary relation
to a system of truth and must find its true interpretation in that relationship, and in the
history (fulfilment of the world).* In reference to the double fulfilment of prophecy,

* The Crit. Eng. Test. renders ‘ private interpretation’ by “merely human interpreta-
tion.’ The editor of the uth. Observer (Dec. 8th, 1876) translates : ‘“ Knowing this
first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of its own origin (starting, revelation, disclos-
ure). For,” etc. The Latin Vulgate in the Dublin translation is made to say : ‘‘ Under-
standing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation.”
172 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop,.17.

while we would not entirely reject it, yet great caution is required in its application, be-
ing convinced that in many instances it is faulty and erroneously apphed. Our argu-
ment makes it unnecessary to be employed by us, and therefore we refer the reader to
works that adopt it, as Bh. Newton’s Diss. on Proph., vol. 1, p. 70; and vol. 2, p. 92 ;
Horne’s IJntrod., vol. 1, p. 390; Bacon's Adv. of Learning, B. 2; Bickersteth’s Guide ;
Brookes’s Ll Proph. Inter., etc.
It may be added that the very cautions given respecting the study of prophecy, indi-
cate that no man can make himself conversant with the same without considerable labor
and time. ‘The Bible implies this in the manner in which it is given, and clearly
teaches us that God exercises the talent and wisdom of His people in the searching of
His Word ; and that in condescending to such revelations He leaves us to investigate
in order that the wise only may understand. The labor necessarily bestowed causes the
laborer to appreciate the treasures dug out, and, at the same time, prevents those who
are the special subjects of prophetic judgments—owing to sin—to see and understand
the impending doom. The range of prophecy, dealing with the deepest and most vital
theological questions, with the highest and noblest things pertaining to man and his des-
tiny, demands, to insure successful prosecution, a cultivated mind as well as a heart of
faith. In its relationship to history it calls for an acquaintance with ancient and mod-
ern, sacred and profane history. For, as Bh. Newton remarks : “ Prophecy is history
anticipated and contracted ; history is prophecy accomplished and dilated.’’ Von Dél-
linger (Essay on Proph. Spirit) calls the historian “ a prophet looking behind.’’ In ad-
dition to this, its relationship to, as an essential part of, a great redemptive system,
calls for a comprehensive view of the numerous details, fitting them into their several
designed places, and bringing forth the unity of design exhibited. While all men can
derive benefit from its study, yet few men are really qualified to perform the amount of
labor required to bring together prophecy connectedly and systematically, And among
the few, nearly all, possessing the requisite talent and ability, are so occupied with
other labors that they cannot bestow the time that the subject demands.

Obs. 8. In almost every work written against the doctrine of the King-
dom as held by us, great stress is laid on the obseurity of prophetic an-
nouncements arising from their figurative or symbolic language. Some
even go so far as to say, that prophecy can only be understood after its
fulfilment. Admitting a degree of obscurity in some details, in the order
of some events, in the manner in which some things are to be fulfilled,
etc., it is sufficient to reply, that the objection only has force when applied
to our method of interpretation, but is forgotten and overridden when the
substitution of a spiritualistic interpretation is attempted.
This requires some additional remarks. It has already been shown under several
Propositions that there is mystery attached to some things, that a degree of obscurity is
intentionally given, that laborious study and diligent comparison is required, etc., but
have also stated (which will hereafter clearly appear) that this mystery and obscurity
does not refer to the nature of the Kingdom, but to events connected therewith, the ex-
act order to be observed, the time of accomplishment, the brevity of expression, the
figurative language used, etc. Bh. Newton, who gave much thought and attention to
the subject, justly says (On Proph., vol. 2, p. 91): ‘‘ Though some parts are obscure
enough to exercise the church, yet others are sufficiently clear to illuminate it ; and the
obscure parts, the more they are fulfilled, the better they can be understood. In this
respect, as the world groweth older, it groweth wiser.” The present and past fulfilment

Fuller (Calv. and Socin. Sys. Comp., Let.12) explains: ‘* It is not to be considered as the pri-
vate opinion of a fallible man, as the case is with other productions.’’ Some few make
‘ private interpretation” to mean “ that we cannot interpret prophecy, unless we are en-
lightened by the Holy Spirit,’”’ and hence plead in behalf of themselves a special illumi-
nation which fits them for expositors. Fausset (Com. loci) has, ‘“‘ private (the mere indi-
vidual writer’s uninspired) interpretation,’’ i.e. they were not the words of themselves
to be interpreted by themselves, but the words of the Holy Spirit. Alford (Com.) ex-
plains : “‘ springs not out of human interpretations,” i.e. is not the result of “ a man
knowing what he means when he utters it,” etc.
PROP L7,| THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 173

of prophecy gives us a clue to its language and the expressions peculiar to itself, and
thus constantly enlarges the facilities for comprehending the same. Without diligent
study of the more obscure allusions, it would be impossible to predicate a fulfilment of
them when accomplished, unless proper comparison were instituted. It was, probably,
in view of this, that Sir I. Newton, Obs. Apoc., ch. 1, p. 253) said: ‘‘ Amongst the inter-
preters of the last age there is scarce one of note who has not made some discovery
worth knowing.”’
The objection grounded on alleged obscurity is urged to evince that we can know
but little concerning it, and that, therefore, our explanations are worthless. For the
present, it is only necessary to reply : (1) How comes it, then, that if they are necessarily
so obscure that nothing certain can be gained respecting the Kingdom and its manifesta-
tion, they themselves so confidently appeal to and interpret them concerning the same?
Thus e.g. every one of them brings forward a favorite theory of the Kingdom and Millen-
nium, and to sustain his position largely quotes the figurative and even the symbolical
prophecies, and these, when thus applied by themselves, are no longer obscure ; nay, more,
are become so decidedly clear that they are used in preaching, prayer, and singing.
Singular change! In sermons, prayers, and hymns, when confidently used by them-
selves, prophecy is easily apprehended, but when Millenarians refer to it and endeavor to
show its relationship to the future, then, all at once, it is considered too dark and incom-
prehensible! Alas! men of ability resort to so pitiful a subterfuge, and actually infiu-
ence the ignorant by it. (2) They themselves, being the judges, decide after all that if
desirous to become acquainted with what God has revealed concerning the Kingdom
and its glory, we must turn to the prophecies abounding in figure. Hence censure in
this direction is scarcely compatible with their own course, they themselves affirming
that ‘‘ vagueness” gives place, by comparison and study, to certainty. (38) That when
not directly writing against us, they overlook this obscurity, making all the concessions
that are needed. (Comp. e.g. Barnes, Com. on 2 Pet. 1 : 20, 21 ; Rev.1:1; The Pres-
byterian Quarterly Review for 1853, quoted by Lord in Theol. and Lit. Journal for 1853, p.
258 ; Stuart’s Com. on Apoc. ch. 1:1-5; in brief, compare their expositions of such
passages and all others urging us to the study of prophecy.) (4) That really there exists
but little difference—if any—between us so far as the grammatical and rhetorical meaning
is concerned ; and the same is true even in many cases of the symbols employed ; we
both are agreed how the tropical language is to be interpreted, viz.: by the ordinary
rules governing all language. The difference between us lies in the fact that after the
plain, unobscure sense is presented, then, in opposition to us who hold to the sense
thus conveyed, another ungrammatical and unrhetorical operation must be performed,
viz.: this sense thus obtained must have engrafted upon it (as e.g. David’s throne and
kingdom) a different and very spiritual or mystical meaning ; must be tortured by the
Origenistic process until it evolves something that suits the taste or option of the inter-
preter ; must, in brief, be explained by a mode that has never been applied to any other
written document in existence, and which is utterly unknown to the laws of language.
Here is where the obscurity obtains—certainly not on the side which limits itself by
regular, well-known law, but on that which passes beyond those ascertained rules, and
allows in addition a sense whichis unconfined and unlimited in variety at the discretion
of spiritualistic assumption, making the plainest of passages inflated, involved, and
transcendental. The writer does not exaggerate on so important a point, for the proof
ot its being unconfined and unlimited consists in this : that no work, addicted to spirit-
ualizing, is in existence (within the knowledge of the author) that gives the laws regulat-
ing the obtaining and applying of such an added sense, thus leaving it unconfined at the
pleasure of the expositor ; the unlimited variety can be readily seen in e.g. the mean-
ings attached to the Kingdom, in various commentaries, in Swedenborg’s works, in the
writings of the mystics, etc., numerous examples of which will be quoted as we
proceed.
In reference to the old and oft-refuted objection, making a total obscurity—‘“‘ that
prophecy is so arranged that it is not to be understood until its fulfilment’’—this too is
already answered by the course of our opponents, who against this alleged axiom profess
themselves able to express a confident opinion as to fulfilment. Some professed Chris-
tians almost seem to have adopted, with reference to unfulfilled prophecy, the inscrip-
tion (‘‘ nil scire tutissima fides’’) over the gateway of the famous mansion of Claas van
Olden Barneveld, expressive of the faith that to know nothing is the safest belief. Let
those who urge such objections answer questions like the following :What propriety
and force is there in Amos 4 : 7, 8, Hos. 14 : 9, Dan. 12 : 4, Apoc. 1 : 3, and kindred pas-
sages? Where is the Scripture that contains such a rule for our guidance? Why are we
so expressly exhorted to read and study it, and why is the non-discerning and neglect of
 174 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 17.

it so rebuked, if we can know nothing about it until fulfilled? How can prophecy be a
light, if it is dark? What encouragement, profit, hope, ete., is to be derived from it
previous to fulfilment? Why do some of these very men rashly attempt to elucidate
prophecy, as in commentaries, sermons, books on prophecy, etc.? Why confidently
declare that we are certainly wrong, if they know nothing about it; for might we not
even happily guess at the true meaning? Why, in contending with unbelievers, quote
prophecy against them, if it has no more weight than this? Why refer to it in encourag-
ing the faith and hope of the church? The reader must not censure because so much
space is occupied with such objections, for the writer has been often pained to find
good and learned men urge them against us, and then turn around and, in the same
book, plead the usefulness and benefit of prophecy in throwing light upon the, what
would be otherwise a dark, future. Some are like Sir Thom. Browne (Christian Morals,
s. 13), who said : ‘‘ Study prophecies when they are become histories, and past hovering
in their causes ;” but they do. not assign as a reason one given by him: ‘‘ The greatest
part of time being already wrapt up in things behind us, it’s now somewhat late to bait
after things before us ; for futurity still shortens, and time present sucks in time to
come.’’ . . . “If the expected Elias should appear, he might say much of what is
past, not much of what’s to come.”’ On the other hand, Moody (How to Study the Bible)
remarks : “ If God did not wish us to understand the Revelation, He would not have
given it us at all. A good many say that it is so dark and mysterious common readers
cannot understand it. Let us only keep digging away at it, and it will unfold itself by
and by. Some one says it is the only- book in the whole Bible that tells about the
devil being chained ; and as the devil knows that, he goes up and down Christendom,
and says : ‘It is no use, you reading the Revelation ; you cannot understand the book ;
it’s too hard for you.’ The fact is, he doesn’t want you to understand about his own
defeat.”
Another and favorite mode of discrediting prophecy as employed by Millenarians
must, in justice to ourselves, be briefly noticed. It is charged that its study has led to
foolish interpretations and rash expositions. This, alas, is true, and one of the results
of human infirmity. But the abuse, the perversion does not discredit a proper use of
the truth, for otherwise no truth—for what has escaped—would be left to us. After
many years of careful study and reading, embracing the writings of all classes, it is cor-
rect to assert as a well-weighed opinion, that if we were to measure the extravagance of
Anti- and Post-Millenarians—our opponents—with that of Millenarian writers, the for-
mer would greatly exceed in the scale of folly and rashness. Thus e.g. Pres. Edwards
(His. of Redemp.) employing prophecy to make this earth (to which prophecy offers re-
demption) the future, eternal hell ; Prof. Stuart’s Neroic theory ; Dr. Berg making the
Fifth Kingdom of Daniel the United States ;Swedenborg’s appropriation of the New
Jerusalem prophecies ; ‘‘ the Apoc. Unveiled,’’ making the angel of Rev. 10 the symbol
of *‘ the present age of steam-power and the magnetic telegraph,’’ etc., ete.

Obs. 9. Millenarians, in order to secure the belief of others, constantly

appeal to a literal fulfilment of prophecy. They indorse the language of
Tertullian (Apol. ch. 20) : ‘t The daily fulfilment of prophecy is, surely, a
full proof of revelation. Hence, then, we have a well-founded belief in
many things which are yet to come, namely, the confidence arising from
our knowledge of the past, because some events, still future, were foretold
at the same time with others which are past. The voice of prophecy
speaks alike of each ; the Scriptures record them equally ; the same Spirit
taught the prophets both. In the predictions there is no distinction of
time ; if there be any such distinction, it is made by men ; while the grad-
ual course of time makes that present which was future, and that past which
was present. How can we, then, be blamed for believing also what is pre-
dicted respecting the future, when our confidence is founded upon the ful-
filment of prophecies relating to the present and the past?’ (quoted by
Cumming’s Lect. on Dan., p. 425, from Chevallier’s Trans.). We lay
much stress on this feature in the present work.
In view of this fact, something more may be said to impress its value. No one can
fail to see that prophecy in the past and present has been minutely fulfilled—i.e. fulfilled
Prop. 17.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 175
according to the plain grammatical sense contained in it. Analogy, logically applied, de-
mands, as Tertullian asserts, a confident belief that that portion relating to the future
will be fulfilled in the same manner. The same God gave both, and the same power will
be exerted in fulfilment. The value of prophecy in this direction arises from the ful-
filment according with the grammatical sense—the one that the language obviously con-
veys, for then only can it be legitimately employed as an argument against unbelief.
Thus e.g. in the prophecies pertaining to Tyre, Babylon, Nineveh, Jerusalem, the Jewish
nation, the church, Rome, etc., all writers lay great stress upon history accurately cor-
responding with the predictions in their grammatical sense. No one doubts the propriety
and force of this so far as it relates to the past and present, but just so soon as we under-
take to insist upon the same grammatical sense pertaining to prophecies describing the fu-
ture, then a multitude arises and derides our system of interpretation as crude, unreason-
able, Jewish, etc. The experience of the past and present is set aside, the appeal of Script-
ure tosuch a fulfilment is ignored, in order that a favorite system of Eschatology, incon-
sistent with a continued application of this sound principle, may besaved. Our adherence
to such a literal interpretation is pronounced extravagant, enthusiastic, and even fanati-
cal, because, forsooth, in every case we may be unable to explain just how the things pre-
dicted are to beaccomplished. Our faith in God taking care that His Word shall be fulfilled
when the time arrives is decided as childish and unworthy of intelligent piety. Sober-
ness, intelligence, and piety, they inform us, call for a figurative, spiritual, or mystical
interpretation of these prophecies. Alas! what exhibition of faith in God’s Word!
Learning, ability, piety, are joined in resisting one of the plainest and safest rules of in-
terpretation given in Scripture and corroborated by history, and no sarcasm or ridicule
is spared to make our position odious. Let it be so ; nothing that we can say or do will
alter the Word or retard its fulfilment. Wisdom will be justified by her children. But
may we appeal to such by making a supposition : Suppose that we and our opponents
lived just before the First Advent of Jesus, with our respective systems of interpretation.
Suppose these systems be applied by us to the prophecies pertaining to the coming Mes-
siah, what would be the inevitable result? Our literal system would, of course, bring
out the birth, life, sufferings, death, burial, etc., of Jesus as they took place. The
other system, spiritualizing on account of supposed difficulties, would necessarily make
tigurative or symbolic the facts as predicted. The supposition shows how contradictory
the one system would be to fulfilment. But to neutralize this supposed case, it will,
perhaps, be said, that we are under another dispensation, and that the history of the
church indicates that much is also to be spiritually understood to make it harmonize
with the Scriptures. As this matter will hereafter be fully answered in our line of
argument, it is sufticient now to say that the change of dispensation does not affect the in-
terpretation of the Word, no change of the latter being anywhere intimated ; and that the
reason why so much is spiritualized respecting the church, etc., is simply owing to the
sad fact that predictions solely relating to the future, to another dispensation, to the Jew-
ish nation, to the period after the Sec. Advent, men apply to the present time, to this
dispensation, to the Gentiles, and to the church, and the result unavoidably is, that an
immense amount of spiritualizing and accommodation must take place to cause these
things to fit into their system of belief. A system of interpreting prophecy that cannot
be equally available in any period of history, in any dispensation, is open, at once, to the
gravest suspicion of unsoundness. We, at least, with the early church, reject it as
entirely untrustworthy, and in the following pages assign our reasons for the same.
176 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 18.

Proposition 18. Zhe prophecies relating to the establishment of

the Kingdom of God are both conditioned and unconditioned.
By this paradox is simply meant that they are conditioned in
their fufilment by the antecedent gathering of the elect, and hence
susceptible of postponement (as will be shown, ¢.g., Props. 58-68) ;
and that they are unconditioned so far as their wltimatée fulfilment
is concerned, which the conduct or action of man cannot turn aside
(as is seen, ¢.g., at the very time of the kingdom’s manifestation,
the nations, Rev. 19, will be arrayed against it). The kingdom
itself pertains to the Divine Purpose, is the subject of sacred cove-
nants, is confirmed by solemn oath, is to be the result or end de-
signed in the redemptive process, and therefore cannot, will not,
Jail. The inheritors of the kingdom, however, are conditioned—a
certain number known only to God—and the kingdom itself,
although predetermined (Prop. 2), is dependent (for this also is
God’s purpose) as to its manifestation upon their being obtained
(the time when this will be accomplished being also known to God).
Obs. 1. Some writers (e.g. Hengstenberg, Art. Prophecy, Kitto’s Ency.,
referred to by Fairbairn, On Proph., p. 72) hold that all prophecy is un-
conditional ; others (e. g. Olshausen, Com. Matt. 24, vol. 2, p. 255) make
it conditional ; others again (e.g. Fairbairn, On Proph., p. 72) argue that
some are conditional and some are unconditional. There is truth in all
these positions, and by combining them the whole truth will appear.
Let the reader notice : (1) To make all prophecy unconditional is to contradict the
case of Jonah and Nineveh, Hezekiah, the offer of the Kingdom to the Jews, the temple
service of Ezekiel, etc. Take e.g. that of Nineveh: the language was absolute, ‘‘ yet
forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” Jonah understood it as absolute. But
Jonah did not understand what Jeremiah (ch. 18 : 7-9) afterward declared, that under-
neath predictions which related to the moral condition of man there is involved a moral
principle of government which God, in justice to His own character and attributes, and
also in behalf of the good of man, necessarily cherishes, viz.: that the good or evil pre-
dicted of any person or people is dependent upon their moral action. The language of
Jeremiah, as Fairbairn justly observes, cannot be otherwise explained: “‘ At what in-
stant I shall speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to
pull down, and to destroy it,’’ ete. (2) It does not follow from this that all prediction is
limited by such a restriction, and hence in its fulfilment is conditioned by the action of
man. This would be to narrow it down to mere contingency. Ifdependent on the re-
pentance and faith of man, then there could be no certainty of its truthfulness, for it may
fail, or it may not, according to the use made of moral freedom. Whilst this condition-
ality is evidently true so far as man is personally or individually concerned, to apply —
this to those predictions referring to the Divine Plan of Redemption is at once to limit the
foreknowledge of God, making it impossible to prove that He foreknew the end from
the beginning. Such a process would lower prophecy to a very indecisive proof of God’s
Omniscience and Power. But if God, on the other hand, evinces His foreknowledge by
showing in His predictions (as many do) what this freedom of man’s will accomplish
(without interfering with, or curtailing it), and that He can, and often does, overrule it so
Prop. 18.] TIE TIEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 177

that it shall not interfere with a set purpose (as e.g. Rev. 17 : 17), then there is a most
decisive proof of God’s Omiscience and Power, of a fixed design which will ultimately be
realized ; and then, too, His appeals to predictions possess a validity and force which,
if altogether conditioned, they otherwise could not possess. (3) While both facts are
found to be true, conditioned as to personal freedom and unconditioned as to God’s
ultimate purpose, some take advantage of this feature, and under its shelter make more
of the prophecies conditional (e.g. in reference to Jewish nation, kingdom, etc.) than
is allowable by the positive declarations concerning the Divine Purpose in the Redemp-
tion of man and the world. The student, then, must be guarded in the application of
the principles which underlie the prophecies.

Obs. 2. The passages (Numb. 23 : 19, 1 Sam. 15 : 29, ete.) which speak
of predictions as unconditional, and those (Jer. 18 : 7-10, etc.) which in-
timate their conditionality, are easily reconcilable from the simple fact,
that the purposes of God run in connection with moral freedom, and that
whilst the former is not set aside by the action of the latter, yet in the cases
of individuals and even nations sufficient latitude is given so that there shall
be no violation of that freedom. It may be proper to give some marks by
which we may distinguish predictions that will finally be fulfilled from
those that are merely conditional. They are the following: 1. Predictions
that are bound up with the Divine Plan of Redemption, as e.g. those re-
fering to Christ’s birth, life, death, ete. 2. Those which are confirmed by
solemn affirmations or by an oath, as e.g. Numb. 14 : 20, 28, Heb. 6 : 17,
etc. 3. Those that are incorporated in the Covenants, as e.g. the Abra-
hamic and Davidic covenants. 4. Predictions which expressly declare that
they will take place irrespective of what man will do, as e.g. Dan. chs. 2
and 7, the Apocalypse, Ps, 89 : 33, 34, etc. 5. Predictions that form the
basis of succeeding ones and of promises, as e.g. Nathan to David, 2 Sam.
7: 5-17 (this at first sight might seem an exception, but in another place
its due fultilment will be proven). 6. Those that are illustrated by a par-
able, as e.g. parable of the tares, net, nobleman, etc. (the parable enforces,
or takes the fulfilment for granted). 7. Predictions relating to the des-
tiny of the good, whoever they may be. 8. Those referring to the destiny
of the wicked, whoever they are. 9. Prophecies given to the Jews re-
specting other nations, and not to those nations themselves for purposes of
repentance, as e.g., Babylon, Tyre, etc. 10. Those that relate to the estab-
lishment of the Kingdom of God, being a revelation of God’s will and
pleasure respecting redemptive ordering. 11. Those that describe the
final restoration of the Jewish nation, this being (as will be fully shown
hereafter) essential to secure the manifestation of the Kingdom and the
Salvation of the Gentiles.
Stillingfleet gives (Orig. Sac., quoted by Fairbairn, On Proph., App. D.) four marks
for prophecies of an absolute character, viz.: 1. A prediction accompanied by a miracle,
by which authenticated as God’s fixed purpose, 1 Kings 13:3. 2. A prediction, when
the things foretold exceed all the probabilities of second causes, as deliverance from
Egypt, Babylon, ete. 3. A prediction confirmed by an oath, Numb. 14:28; Ps.
89 : 31-36 ; Heb. 6:17. 4. Predictions concerning blessings merely spiritual, because
such blessings flow from grace and not merit.
A number of writers, in opposition to us, make prophecy conditional. This arises
from (1) applying nearly all predictions (pertaining to the future) to the present dispen-
sation, and not seeing them verified as given, claim that they are conditional. (2) From
not noticing that God has a fixed Purpose, and that the unbelief of individuals and of
nations cannot defeat that Purpose. (3) In not distinguishing between what relates to
the individual and what to the Divine Purpose, as e.g. God purposes to make a certain
number of Kings and Priests, which number will be made up notwithstanding the unbe-
lief of many. (4) In not observing that the postponement of fulfilment, occasioned by
178 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 18.

the unbelief of man, does not warrant the belief that there will be no fulfilment. (5) In
not perceiving that if God’s promises relating to the future are conditional, then His
Word becomes unreliable to such an extent that fulfilment cannot be predicated of it,
and hence history fails to become the witness that God claims. (6) In not noticing that
they lower the foreknowledge of God ; for if He promises in explicit form a certain
event that is to take place and it does not, owing to man’s action, then if prophecy is to
be a comfirmatory witness as intended, the failure, or the reason for the same, ought
also to be stated. (7) In not seeing that they reverse the test given by God Himself
(Deut. 18 : 21, 22), in answer to the question, ‘‘ If thou say in thy heart, How shall we
know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the
name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath
not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously.’’ (8) In not considering
how they themselves constantly violate such a rule when referring to Christ, their view
of the Kingdom, etc., claiming that the things believed by them were predicted and thus
realized. Awriter in the Princeton Review, Jan., 1861, on *‘ The Fulfilment of Prophecy,”’
opposes the notion of conditionality on the ground that (1) it is opposed to the inspired
criterion, Deut. 18 : 22; (2) Jeremiah 18 : 7-10 did not nullify this test, as appears Jer.
28 : 9; (3) the specific nature of prophecy demands it ; (4) Nineveh no objection, for, as
Hengstenberg observes, we have only the general statement of the preaching, and not the
preaching itself. Comp. p. 12, Lange’s Com. on Hosea.

Obs. 3. In view of the important bearing that this point has upon sey-
eral subjects connected with the Kingdom, it may prove desirable to an-
swer, briefly, a few of the more generally used objections urged against our
position. Fairbairn (avoiding the extremes of many writers, and more or
less favoring a due medium) says (p. 60, On Proph.): ‘* The announce-
ments, consisting of direct promises of good things to come, can enly be
expected to meet with fulfilment in so far as the church is true to her
calling.’’ This is only a half-truth ; the promises of future good will be
fulfilled, notwithstanding the church’s failings, for this God expressly
declares (Lev. 26 : 44, 45, Lev. 5 : 42, Isa. 62, Ezek. 14 : 22, 23, and in
numerous passages), not indeed in the unfaithful, but only (and here is the
condition) in the faithful. The objection stops short at this half truth,
forgetting to add (which makes it unconditional, i.e. not dependent on
man) that God will secure the faithful in whom the promise, éo its full-
est extent, will be realized.
To indicate the correctness of our position, reference is made to Fairbairn’s conces-
sion (On Proph., p. 62), when he tells us that the rule applied to good things does not
hold good when evil is threatened, for the latter is unconditional. But this is a distine-
tion without any difference ; for if the blessing can be forfeited by evil doing, then also
the punishment can be averted by repentance and well doing. The truth appears to be
this : they are conditional as to individuals, who, according to their action, will be blessed
or punished ; and they are at the same time unconditional so far as the purpose of God is
concerned, which is to fulfil His promises to the good and His threats to the evil, i.e.
the promises and threats both will inevitably be verified in actual realization. This also
covers the leading objection urged by Olshausen (Com. Matt. 24) : ‘“‘ Everything future, as
far as it concerns man, can only be regarded as conditional upon tbe use of this free-
dom.”’ This is most certainly true, but only to a certain extent, so far as the individual
personally is concerned, and does not affect the prediction or promise itself which is
based on two things : (1) God’s purpose, and (2) those will be raised up in whom it will be
carried out. So far as we are personally concerned it is conditional, for we can choose,
etc., but in reference to man even it is unconditional on the ground that it is based on
the foreknown fact that some men would experience it. This really is, after all, both’
Olshausen’s and Fairbairn’s view, although advantage is taken by others to press their
language beyond their intention. Thus, to illustrate, an inheritance is predicted and
promised to the saints. The saints are conditioned (i.e. they must possess the required
characteristics conditioned), but not the predicted inheritance, which will most assuredly
be given to those (others, if necessary) for whom it is intended. The future things,
therefore, in themselves are not conditioned, only our personal relationship to the same.
Prop. 18.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 179
The promise and the threat both remain on the same footing, seeing that both will be
experienced by some. Kven when the individual is specifically mentioned or hinted at
(as e.g. Paul, Judas, Peter, John the Baptist), the foreknowledge of God embraces the
fact that the person designated will, with use of freedom, perform or experience what is
predicted. Matt. 19:28 is no exception, seeing that Judas (who proved unfaithful) is
carefully excluded by the expression ; ‘‘ Ye which have followed me.”’

Obs. 4. The Kingdom itself ig not dependent on the acceptance or re-

jection of its doctrine by man. Man’s entrance into and enjoyment of it
1s conditioned on his character, but the Kingdom itself will most certainly,
at the appointed time, appear. It belongs to Jesus the Christ ; itis His in-
heritance, the result and product of Eternal Wisdom in behalf of man and
the world. Jews may reject it (some Jews also, Knapp’s Vheol., p. 324,
reject Jesus as the Christ, and account for the non-appearance of the Mes-
siah and Kingdom on the ground of the conditionality of the promises—
sinfulness preventing their realization), Gentiles may pass it by as unwor-
thy of credence, men may even ridicule it as fantastical, etc., but its estab-
lishment is so certain, that if absolute necessity required it, God would,
rather than failure should intervene, raise up children for it by an imme-
diate (Matt. 3 : 9), supernatural creation. We hold that (Rom. 11 : 29)
‘* the gifts and calling of God are without repentance,’’ i.e. God changes
not; man may change, but God’s purposes to bestow gifts upon man
through Jesus Christ and His Kingdom shall never fail, for (Numb.
23:19) ‘* God ts not aman that He should lie ; neither the Son
of man that
He should repent ; hath He not said, and shall He not doit? or hath He
spoken and shall He not make it good?’ (Comp. Zech. 1:5, 6; Isa.
14:24, 27; Hzek. 24:14; 1 Sam. 15: 29 ; Isa. 46:9, 10 ; Ps. 89 : 35,
36 ; Isa. 48 : 3-6; Tit. 1:2; Heb.6:18;Jam. 1:17, etc.) Hence two
extremes are to be avoided : one is to press the conditional side so far as to
involve no settled purpose in God concerning Redemption ; the other, to
urge the unconditional aspect until it gives hope where none exists.
Let the reader carefully observe this fact, that the Kingdom of God itself is not con-
ditioned, because the promises pertain, in inheriting it, to the seed of Abraham ; for if
the natural seed at any time makes itself unworthy of it, a seed, engrafted, will be
raised up unto Abraham. The promises of God fail not because of the unworthiness of
any to whom they are tendered. He will provide, as will be abundantly shown hereaf-
ter, the requisite regal body by which the Kingdom shall be powerfully and triumph-
antly manifested. ‘The inheriting, and not the Kingdom, is conditioned. In this con-
nection, to avoid mistake, another feature must be constantly kept in view, viz.: that the
Kingdom is intimately and essentially connected with the Jewish Commonwealth, that it is
the Theocratic Davidic throne and Kingdom restored under the mighty Theocratic Per-
sonage Jesus Christ, and that hence (1) all inheritors must be engrafted, and (2) the Jewish
nation itself must inevitably be restored to its land. This at once indicates the logical
and scriptural position of the early church, which insisted that the prophecies pertaining
to the Jewish nation, whilst conditional as to individuals, and to the nation for a certain
determined period, would finally be realized as given. Therefore, one of the essential
elements of prophetical interpretation is this : to observe that the prophecies relating to
the future glory of the Jewish nation—indeed postponed on account of sinfulness—are
not conditional, but present us an ultimate purpose, which shall be verified in its actual
history.
sGeshe is thus early in the argument called to this feature, that the student may
keep it before him as we proceed in the development of scriptural facts and statements.
The importance of this is not overestimated, seeing that neglect of these cautions has
embarrassed and vitiated the interpretation of much Scripture. Two illustrations may
suffice: Dr. Alexander, Com. on Isa., following others in elucidating the predictions
pertaining to the Jewish nation, is very careful to show how the curses were fulfilled in
the history of that nation, but with equal care bestows the blessings promised to the iden-
180 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [Prop. 18.

tical nation—to the church. The Christian church is substituted for the Jewish nation, and
prophecy is lavishly accommodated to the substitution. Thus e.g. one of the strongest
efforts in this directionisfound in the comments of Isa. 63, but he overlooks the entire
connection—-who is pleading, whose cities are wasted, who is to be restored to the land,
the reference to the Sec. Advent, the day of vengeance and year of Jubilee, in which de-
liverance to a down-trodden people is given. As this passage will be considered at length
hereafter, it is passed by with the remark that all such interpretations assume as their
foundation that the promises to the Jewish nation are conditional, and the nation failing
in meeting the conditions, it will never be restored, and it will never realize the fulfil-
ment. But strange, it is still supposed that the promises themselves remain intact when
appropriated to the church, provided some incongruities are let alone, such as the prom-
ises of the return of material prosperity to a down-trodden land, etc., which is to be
spiritualized. Waggoner (Ref. of the Age to Come, p. 74) plainly says under the heading,
‘The conditional nature of the promises made to the Jews :’’ *‘ It may be remarked that
all of God’s promises to man are conditional. To deny this is to advocate Universalism,
and even to deny Free Agency,’’ etc., quoting in proof of such conditionality Ex. 19: 5-8,
and then argues that the Jews being disobedient, not complying with imposed condi-
tions, the promises of God will ever remain unfulfilled. This is taking a one-sided view
of the case ; it is true to a certain extent and within a given time, but utterly untrue in
so far as it implicates the non-fulfilment of the promises ultimately to the nation. For
the promises of God, given with the foreknown knowledge of the defection of the nation
and its resultant rejection during ‘“‘ the Times of the Gentiles,’’ are based on and con-
firmed by the oath of God (Ps. 89, etc.). As already shown, the Divine Purposes are not
limited by what man does. Thus e.g. in reference to the Kingdom, with which the Jew-
ish nation is allied, and in which the nation is promised a pre-eminent commanding
position, the promise is most specific; and hence, no matter how many reject the con-
ditions, or how the nation must suffer a prolonged punishment for sin, a sufficient num-
ber will be gathered out of the obedient who will form its ruling force, and the nation
itself will, as also promised, be brought to repentance and faith, resulting in its glory as
predicted. We must leave the discussion of the restoration to Props. 122, 123, and 124.
It may, however, be added: if the Kingdom and the promises pertaining thereto de-
pend merely upon the reception or rejection of the truth by the Jewish nation, how are
God’s promises to be verified to the believing portion of the nation and to that engrafted
line? If the fulfilment is conditioned by the disobedience of the unfaithful portion, are
the pious Jews to miss the promises of the Kingdom on account of the wickedness of
others? Are the promises given to David made null and void? ‘I'his opens an abyss
for our opponents. At present, it may only be said that such a course would neither
be just to man nor honorable to the oath-bound promises of God. Therefore, the Bible
teaches us that God, foreseeing this defection of the large portion of the nation, postpones
this Kingdom, both as a punishment to the nation and as a merciful provision, that He
may gather out from among the Jews and Gentiles the people necessary for its re-estab-
lishment upon a glorious and triumphant basis. ‘The truth is, that this whole matter
rests on the question whether the covenants which declare this Kingdom to pertain to
the Jewish nation are temporary or not. This will be discussed in its proper place, and
then the reader will be prepared to decide whether the Jewish nation is entitled to any
special privileges in virtue of its covenant relationship. Some writers cannot, and do
not, distinguish between the Mosaic covenant and the Abrahamic and Davidic, placing
all in the same category. Hence a confusion, and worse, a corresponding restricted in-
terpretation, which quotes prophecy just as it can accommodate it to the church.
Prop. 19.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 181

Proposition 19. Zhe New Testament begins the announcement of

the kingdom im terms expressive of tts being previously well
known.
This is an important feature. Any theory at variance with this
fact is, to say the least, open to the suspicion of being defective.
The statement in the Proposition is one that has been noticed and
duly acknowledged by numerous writers of almost every shade of
opinion. The preaching of the kingdom, its simple announcement,
without the least attempt to explain its meaning or nature, the
very language in which it was conveyed to the Jews—all presup-
posed that it was a subject familiar to them. John the Baptist,
Jesus, and the Seventy, all proclaimed the kingdom in a way,
without definition or explanation, that indicated that their hearers
were acquainted with its meaning.
Obs. 1. On the face of the opening pages of the New Test. it is taken
for granted that the Kingdom was something well known, already the ob-
ject of faith and hope. Theologians generally, either unable to reconcile
this with their church theories, or deeming it unimportant while acknowl-
edging the fact, pass it by in silence, or give us some apologetics to ac-
count for it, which are derogatory to the age, to the believers then living,
and to the Word. ‘The destructive critics, seeing bere a point of leverage,
insist upon it that this was evidence of the prevalence of ‘‘ Jewish forms,”’
and scoff at it as a decided indication of weakness and failure. By us—for
we make no apology, needing none—it is regarded as prerequisite and
essential to the truthfulness and unity of our doctrine.

Obs. 2. The feature in the Prop. is an indispensable accessory. With-

out it, there would be a flaw, a missing link in the chain ; with it there is
completeness ;—for if the Kingdom is to be understood in its Uiteral cove-
nanted aspects as predicted by the prophets, then it is easy to see that the
New Test. consistently announces the same. If the Kingdom, however, is
what the multitude now believe and teach, then the announcement is sin-
gular, strained, and even inconsistent with the circumstances of the age,
the true meaning of the Kingdom, the preaching presented, and the alleged
substitution. Nothing, if the latter is correct, in the shape of apologetics
can save it from the condemnation and jeers of unbelievers, for, at the
most, it would be a mere humiliating accommodation to Jewish prejudice
and ignorance. There is no escape from this dilemma.
We are willing to accept of the strictures passed on this feature of the New Test.
(viz.: its accommodation to the grammatical sense of the Old Test.) by Strauss, Baur,
Renan, etc., and instead of seeking out some way of escape which in itself lowers the
truth and the character of God in giving such a sense, find in them (avoiding their unjust
 182 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 19.

conclusions) renewed strength and power. As the objections of unbelief will hereafter be
met in detail, it is sufficient, for the present, to say that Von
Ammon (Bib. Theol.), and
after him many others, throw doubt on the credibility of the Scriptures on the ground
that the New Test. in the very outset indicates that John the Baptist, Jesus, and the
disciples were susceptible to the errors and prejudices of their Jewish forerunners and
hearers, and that consequently, instead of there being one great design relating to the
future as attributed to them, we have, in view of the subsequent change in the meaning of
the Kingdom (i.e. in the discarding of the strictly grammatical sense and the substitution
ot a spiritual sense), only detached, isolated positions, lacking cohesion and unity.
Sherer (Mis. of Relig. Crit.) takes the same view, objecting to the authority of the New
Test., because it thus evinces the influence of Jewish traditions, Rabbinical arguments,
Messianic hopes and expectations not in accordance with external facts. Numerous tes-
timonies of a similar nature might be adduced from recent writers ; these, avoiding
their deductions, we will accept, and show, step by step, in a logical, scriptural man-
ner, (1) how they take the unreal nature of the expected and preached Messianic King-
dom for granted, and (2) how every writer unjustly overlooks the expressly predicted post-
ponement of the realization of those Messianic hopes, and from such a deliberate ignor-
ing of a scriptural fact draws inferences to suit his own fancy and theory.

Obs. 3. 'To impress this point, let us place ourselves in the position oc-
cupied by the first hearers of ‘‘ the Gospel of the Kingdom.’’ Consider
that the Old Test. is alone in our hands, and that the plain grammatical
sense is the one in which we receive the predictions of the Kingdom. Sup-
pose, under such circumstances, we would have heard John, Jesus, and
the disciples preach the Kingdom of God in the manner indicated, what
would have been the impressions made upon our minds? Certainly, among
other things, that we already knew what the Kingdom was, viz.: the The-
ocracy as it existed previously, permanently united with the Davidic throne
and kingdom. The preaching, let us not forget, directly appeals to a well-
known kingdom, and surely we, too, would have, under its influence, im-
bibed the very views of the Kingdom, which the mass of the church now
regards as a Jewish weakness, a lack of discernment, in the early history
of this subject. But the question, which but few ever consider, is,
whether, after all, this was an error. The answer will follow, in detail,
with proof attached.

Obs. 4. If the Kingaom, as multitudes maintain, was not thus known ;

if it is correct to assert that the Jews and the disciples at first utterly
misapprehended its meaning ; if the announcement denoted one thing to
the hearers and yet contained in itself a spiritual idea which the future
was to develop—how comes it, then, that Christ could send out disciples to
preach the Kingdom without previous instruction as to its real meaning ;
and even invite strangers (Luke 9 : 56, 57, 60) to ‘‘Go and preach the
Avingdom of God.” Why does not John and the disciples first receive pre-
liminary counsel, so that, themselves freed from alleged error, they may
properly teach others respecting the Kingdom? It can be safely asserted
(the proof following, as the argument is continued) that it is a well-grounded
belief that the Kingdom was something that they were acquainted with,
and concerning which, as to its nature or meaning, they needed not, owing
to its plain portrayal in the Old Test., any special instruction. No other
explanation will cover the facts in the case, or sustain the character and
position of the first preachers of ‘‘ the Gospel of the Kingdom.”
Prop. 20.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 183

Proposition 20, Zo comprehend the subject of the kingdom, tt is

necessary to notice the belief and the expectations of the more
prous portion of the Jews.
This is a rule, covering doctrine, laid down by the ablest of
writers ; it is found in works introductory to the Bible or in de-
fence of the Scriptures (e.g., Horne’s “ntroduction, vol. i., p.
393, Birk’s Bible and Modern Thought, ch. 12, Dunn’s How
to Study the Bible, etc.), as a leading one in the doctrinal inter-
pretation of the Word; its importance and value are urged by
various considerations as the only possible way to attain to @ con-
sistent sense of a doctrine. If the rule applies to doctrine in gen-
eral, especially ought it to be observed in that of the kingdom.
Modern systems of theology are erected in such an elaborate and systematic mode, a
scientific and philosophical manner, that they are widely different from the simple and
unscientific—yet purposely designed—treatment of doctrine in the Bible. The effect
sometimes is, that the student, attracted by the elegance and magnitude of the super-
structure of such systems, underrates the more rugged but firmer stones of the founda-
tion in the Scriptures. Impressed by modern modes of thinking and the results of
modern thought, he forgets to transport himself back to the ancient manner of thinking
and expression. He lives in a world very different from that which existed when
prophets predicted and disciples preached. This naturally leads to misconception and
misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Hence it is, that the rule (which Horne, in Jntrod.,
justly remarks, is constantly violated by commentators and others) appropriately com-
mends itself : ‘‘ We must endeavor to carry ourselves back to the very times and places
in which they (the Scriptures) were written, and realize the ideas and modes of thinking
of the sacred writers.”’

Obs. 1. It is universally admitted by writers of prominence (e.g. Nean-

der, Hagenbach, Schaff, Kurtz, etc.), whatever their respective views con-
cerning the Kingdom itself, that the Jews, including the pious, held to a
personal coming of the Messiah, ¢he literal restoration of the Davidic
throne and kingdom, the personal reign of Messiah on David’s throne, the
resultant exaltation of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, and the fulfilment
of the Millennial descriptions in that reign. It is also acknowledged that
the utterances of Luke 1: 71 ; Acts 1:6 ; Luke 2 : 26, 30, etc., include
the above belief, and that down, at least to the day of Pentecost, the Jews,
the disciples, and even the apostles held to such a view. Itisnot denied, by
able Protestant or Romanist, Christian or Unbeliever, that they regarded
the prophecies and covenanted promises as literal (i.e. in their naked
grammatical sense) ; and, believing in their fulfilment, looked for such a
restoration of the Davidic Kingdom under the Messiah, with an increased
power and glory befitting the majesty of the predicted King; and also
that the pious of former ages would be raised up from the dead to enjoy
the same.
184 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. LRROP., 20:

Obs. 2. It is noticeable, that in all the rebukes given to the Jews by

John the Baptist, by Jesus and the apostles, not one refers to their belief
and expectations concerning the Kingdom. ‘The rebukes pertain to their
superstition, traditions, bigotry, hypocrisy, pride, ostentation, violation
of duty, etc., but nothing is alleged that they misapprehended the King-
dom of the prophets in its fundamental aspects. ‘This is indeed abun-
dantly taken for granted by theologians, but without the least proof to sus-
tain it. The student will see, as the argument proceeds, that such sup-
posed ignorance would reflect severely upon the covenants, prophecies, and
preaching of the first preachers of ‘‘ the Gospel of the Kingdom.”’

Obs. 3. A few brief testimonies are annexed: Van Oosterzee (Theol.

New Test., p. 53-55), alluding to the belief of the Jews, informs us that
they held to Messiah’s coming in a time of tribulation (which the New
Test. confirms at the Sec. Advent), when Antichrist was reigning, and
which would result in a great battle (so also Rey. 19, etc.) with hostile
world powers. The Christ will be a descendant of David’s, will be
anointed with the Holy Spirit, will set up his Kingdom in Israel, will remove
evil and suffering, will introduce peace and blessedness, perform great
miracles, awake first the pious dead Israelites, triumph over the heathen,
and allow also non-Israelite nations to enjoy salvation. He then adds:
** Of this Salvation, Jerusalem will be the centre; the purified earth, the
theatre; and the restoration of all things, the crown.’’ Reuss (fis. Ch.
Theol., p. 115), under the title ‘‘ Messianic hopes,’’ says: ‘‘ The object of
Christ’s coming may be stated in general terms to be the fowndation of
the Kingdom of God.’’ ‘* There was needed, first, @ political, moral, and
religious restoration of Israel, such as the ancient prophets had foretold,”’
including ‘‘ the recall of the dispersed Jews,’’ and ‘‘ the re-establishment
of the throne of David.’? Schmid (Bid. Theol. N. Test.) declares that the
Jewish faith embraced the idea of ‘‘ a Kingdom of kings and priests ; in-
deed of a Theocracy under a monarchical form,’’—‘ an ideally real Theo-
cratic Kingdom of the Messiah.”’
Knapp (Ch. Theol., p. 323) has a singular statement. First, he acknowledges that
“the ancient opinion’ of the Jews was that ‘‘ He (Christ) would bea temporal deliverer
and a king of the Jews, and indeed a universal monarch, who would reign over all nations.
Thus they interpreted Ps. 2:2, 6, 8; Jer. 23:5, 63; Zech. 9:4, seq.” Secondly, he
confesses: ‘‘The apostles themselves held this opinion wnlil after the resurrection of
Christ, Matt. 20 : 20, 21; Luke 24:21; Acts1:6.’ Thirdly, he endeavors, as a sup-
port to his own theory of the Kingdom, to make out that a smal] number, instancing
Simeon and the malefactor on the cross, did not so much expect an earthly kingdom as
spiritual blessings. Fourthly, he makes out that many united the idea of an earthly king-
dom and spiritual blessings. His concessions are all that we need ; the effort to intro-
duce the modern spiritualistic view in the vase of Simeon and the malefactor fails—(1)
because all Jews believed in the plain grammatical sense of covenant and prophecy ; and
(2) because otherwise he makes these two to take a higher rank in the true knowledge of
the Kingdom than the apostles (comp. above his concession), who were specially in-
structed inand preached the Kingdom.

Obs. 4. Some writers (as e.g. Thompson, Theol. of Christ, p. 33) take
the unwarranted liberty of assuming, that at the First Advent the Jews
(Nicodemus is instanced) believed themselves to be ‘‘ already in the King-
dom of God by virtue of their birth in the lineage of Abraham,’’ and
therefore only ‘‘ looked to the coming of the Messiah for a higher assertion
of that Kingdom.’’ This is misleading. Where is the slightest proof for
Prop. 20.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 185

so sweeping an assertion? All testimony is opposed to it. Instead of the

Jews believing themselves to dein the Kingdom, they were looking for
at to come. In the very nature of the case, it could not be otherwise, since
all the prophets foretold its downfall, and its re-establishment under the
Messiah. While holding that their relationship to Abraham would give
them admittance therein when it arrived, there is no reason to think that
a single Jew believed himself to be ‘‘ already in’’ the Kingdom. On the
other hand, we have the most abundant testimony to the contrary in Jew-
ish faith, Jewish tradition, and the intimations of their belief,in the New
Test. Nicodemus, thus singled out and a foreign faith thrust upon him,
was a Pharisee, and the Pharisees (Luke 17 : 20), instead of holding that
the Kingdom was already here and that they were im it, demanded of
Christ ‘‘ when the Kingdom of God should come.”’
As intimated under Obs. 3, some writers endeavor to smooth over this Jewish faith as
much as possible. Knapp has been instanced. Another specimen in the same direction is
to be found under Sec. 99, 1 (4), in his Ch. Theol., where he tells us that some of the Jews
gave to the Kingdom ‘“‘ a moral and spiritual sense, denoting and comprehending all the
divine appointments for the spiritual welfare of men, for their happiness in this and the
future life,” ete. The truth is, that this is taking a modern spiritualistic conception of
the Kingdom and fastening it upon the Jews, who never thus entertained it. Knapp
gives no proof for his assertions, and they are not susceptible of any. All Jews held to
the Messiah’s Kingdom in the same way, viz. : as the re-establishment of the Theocracy,
allied with the Davidic throne and kingdom, and whilst some laid more stress on the
temporal advantages and blessings resulting therefrom, others united with those the
highest spiritual and moral happiness. The student, at the vestibule of our argument,
cannot be too cautious in receiving such statements unguardedly made by good men.
Attention is thus called to them, since they have an important bearing in shaping the
interpretation of Scripture. Farrar (Life of Christ, vol. 1, p. 105), admitting that the
phrases ‘‘ Kingdom of heaven” and ‘‘ coming time” ‘‘ were frequent at this time on pious
lips,’’ adds: ‘‘ It seems clear that Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Keim (as against Volkmar, etc.),
are right in believing that there was at this time (at the Iirst Advent) a fully developed
Messianic tradition.’’ Aside from the direct arguments adduced in favor of such a view,
the manner in which the New Test. begins (Prop. 19) is amply sufficient to prove it.
Hence we deprecate such misleading statements as the following: Walker (L’hilos. of
the Plan of Salv., p. 128), after referring to the views of the Jews at the time of Christ’s
appearance (viz. : that they believed that the Messiah ‘‘ would deliver them from subjec-
tion to Gentile nations and place the Jewish power in the ascendant among the nations
of the earth,’’ etc.), says : ‘‘ Although some of the common people may have had some
understanding of the true nature of the Messiah’s Kingdom, yet the prominent men of
the nation, and the great body of the people of all classes, were not expecting that the
Kingdom of Christ would be purely spiritual, but that it would be mainly temporal.’’
Now where is a particle of evidence that any Jew—much less ‘‘ some’’—had the slightest
idea of a ‘‘ purely spiritual’’ Kingdom. If it existed, the favorers of such a spiritual
ideal would only be too happy to produce it as favoring their own view. They, by such
efforts to link their modern conceptions of the Kingdom with some unknown Jews, only
increase the difficulties of their view, for they make these unknown persons far superior to
the twelve, who, although enjoying special teaching and revelation, and actual preachers af
the Kingdom, entertained (e.g. Acts 1 : 6) the Jewish view down to the ascension of Jesus.

Obs. 5. If, in support of our Prop., Jews were selected, who are not ap-
provingly mentioned in the New Test., it might be alleged that they
misconceived the truth. Itis proper, therefore, to confine ourselves to such
as are evidently spoken of with divine approbation ; who were under the
divine guidance, and whose statements remain uncontradicted. Being
pious, accredited believers, their testimony, whatever it may be, should
haye considerable weight, and be received as reliable. In confirmation of
our position, we appeal to the expressed views of Elizabeth and Zacharias,
of Mary and Joseph.
186 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 20.

Let this be amplified. Take Elizabeth and Zacharias, who were “ righteous’’ and
“blameless,” and the phraseology of both fully accords with the idea of the literal King-
dom beligved in by the Jews. When e.g. appealing to the prophets as predicting a horn
of salvation in the house of David:to save the nation from its enemies, to perform the
covenant made with Abraham, etc., what was their understanding of this matter? Cer-
tainly an implicit trust through the Spirit, that all that the prophets predicted would be
verified—not something else, but the real predicted subject matter conveyed by their ex-
pressions, received in strict usage with the common laws of language. That is, they un-
derstood the prophecies in their plain grammatical sense, and thus trusted in a literal,
earthly kingdom to be erected. The proof that they did so is very evident in the his-
tory of their son John the Baptist. The son could not receive, being instructed by
them, any other idea of the Kingdom than they themselves possessed. Now it happens
that the very writers who so significantly laud and magnify ‘‘ the enlightened piety’ of
Elizabeth and Zacharias, and endeavor to engraft upon their language modernized notions
respecting the Kingdom, all, without exception, estimate John’s knowledge of the King-
dom as very ‘‘ limited and Jewish.” Well may we ask, How comes it, if the parents were
so enlightened that the son, specially consecrated, etc., failed in obtaining the same views?
The simple fact is, that the knowledge of the Kingdom in both parents and son did not
materially differ from that entertained by Nathanael, Nicodemus, or the Jews generally.
Next, take Mary and Joseph, and from the announcement of the angel down to the very
last—just like the apostles Acts 1: 6—they believed literally (what has since kecome so
unfashionable, and is stigmatized even by pious men as a mere “Jewish form’’ or
‘““ husk’) that ‘‘ the Lord God will give unto Him the throne of His father David, and He
shall reign over the house of Jacob forever,’ etc. Why they thus believed, and whether
they were correct in it, will be apparent when we come to consider the covenants and
promises. The comments of men that these Jews were miserably mistaken and self-de-
ceived are far-fetched and derogatory to the Word ; and it they only came from unbeliey-
ers it might be safely passed by ; but coming also, as they do, from able advocates and
defenders of Christianity, it is depressing to the truth. It gives a deplorable cast to the
age and to the Scriptures, which, on their face, encouraged such faith and expectations.
It ignores the express declarations that some of these Jews (as e.g. John the Baptist)
were filled with the Holy Ghost when they held to this faith, and boastingly asserts the
modern supremacy over these ‘‘ ignorant’ Jews. We, on the other hand, deeply feel that
respect for the Messiah-announcing angel, due regard for the utterances of the Spirit, a
proper estimation of the character of those ancients, require us to insist that these Jews
well knew what their owh language indicated, and that they were not deceived in its
application. Consequently we object to the statements made by the writer of the Art.
“* Kingdom of God” (MClintock and Strong’s Cyclop.) : ‘‘ In these (prophetic) passages
the reign of the Messiah is figuratively described as a golden age, when the true religion,
and with it the Jewish Theocracy, should be re-established in more than pristine purity,
and universal peace and happiness prevail. All this was doubtless to be understood in
@ spiritual sense ; and so the devout Jews of our Saviour’s time appear to have under-
stood it, as Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, and Joseph.’’ Afterward he confesses that “this
Jewish temporal sense appears to have been also held by the apostles before the day of
Pentecost.” Observe : (1) The confusing of “ figurative” with ‘‘ spiritual ;’ (2) that the
apostles not holding to this spiritual conception before the day of Pentecost were not
“ devout Jews ;’’ (3) that it is admitted that the languge predicts a Jewish Theocracy,
true religion, peace, and happiness, but this, grammatically taught, is to be spiritualized ;
(4) that the four persons named thus spiritualized it (!), having higher spiritual attain-
ments than the Twelve—at least, being more ‘‘ devout.”

Obs. 6. A large class, to make the ancient Jewish faith unreliable and
inapplicable, fully admit the same, but then gravely misjudge the belief
by pointing to the result, i.e. the non-realization of their faith, as evidence
that the Jews were mistaken and wholly ignorant of the true idea of the
Kingdom. No such Kingdom as they anticipated was raised up under
the Messiah, and, therefore, this evidences either the human origin of their
faith, or else that the language must in some way be susceptible of a
meaning different from that contained in its legitimate grammatical sense,
which they, in their ignorance, could not understand. But the question
is, were they mistaken? This is too much taken for granted, and upon its
Prop. 20.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 187

assumption a huge superstructure arises. Briefly and anticipatingly : the

non-fulfilment thus far is no evidence against the faith, for there are valid
and satisfactory reasons given in the New Test. why it should not down to
the present time be realized. This is far from saying that it never will be
attained. ‘* Zhe Word of the Lord abideth forever,’’ and every ‘‘ jot and
tittle’ will be fulfilled in God’s own time and way. This is simply pre-
judging the case from unreliable data—a jumping to conclusions from
false premises. The reader may, prematurely in our argument, endeavor
to decide how it comes then that this Jewish faith, if so erroneous and
shown to be void by what actually occurred under the Messiah, still con-
tinued generally, almost universally, in the Primitive Church for three
ecnturies.

Obs. 7. Another large class, agreeing with the former in the result, in-
form us that the non-fulfilment of the Jewish Messianic Kingdom expecta-
tions, indicates a Jewish misapprehension of Scripture language ; and that
hence, however the grammatical construction may demand it, the Jan-
guage, covenant and prophetical, expressive of such a faith must be inter-
preted to correspond with the result thus far attained. The non-fulfil-
ment becomes both the rejecter of the ancient faith and the apologist for
applying a@ spiritualistic interpretation. It is assumed that the prophecies
relied on by the Jews to sustain their faith must mean something very
different from its natural meaning—in brief, words, phrases, and sentences
that had a definite meaning for centuries are, under the impulse of this
misconception of the actual facts in the case, transmuted into something
else to suit existing circumstances. This, too, is represented as faith in
the Word—a reception of its divine teachings with implicit confidence.
Need we be surprised at infidelity exulting in the gross confusion’ thus
occasioned, and the more gross by implicating as utterly unreliable repre-
sentative men, men of faith in the ancient church.
The question returns, Were the Jews really mistaken and is any one authorized to
engraft another and diverse meaning upon the prophecies which excited their faith, in
order that the language may be reconciled with a certain supposed result? The sim-
ple, sad fact is this: in this whole matter the Word of God is unfairly handled by the
multitude. According to their notion of the church as the covenanted Messianic Kingdom,
both the primitive and Jewish faith must be discarded, and the predictions of the Word
must be made to accommodate themselves to this Church-Kingdom theory. The true and
honorable method is the following : If the events did not take place, and have not yet
occurred as predicted and believed in by these ancient worthies (1.e., as far as relates to
the Kingdom), it ought to suggest the inquiry, Why have they not been realized ? and then
receiving the plain reasons presented in the Word why they have been withholden, deeply
ponder them, and allow them the weight that divine teaching possesses. It is premature
to assume, without mature examination, the foregone conclusion that they will never be
verified in the believed-in grammatical sense, and thus bring reproach on the Scriptures
containing and leading to such a sense; thus heap discredit on the belief of those
ancient saints, making them misguided and ignorant Jews ; thus hold up to scorn the
faith of the Primitive Church, regarding it as mistaken in the leading doctrine of the
Kingdom ; and then, asa resort against infidelity, search for some accommodation theory to
shelter those believers and the Scriptures. How can it be shown, with the reasons be-
fore us of the postponement of the Kingdom to the Sec. Advent, that God will not, as predicted,
ultimately perform this glorious work? Instead of spiritualizing the language of the
Word away into vagueness ; instead of decrying the hopes of the pious of former ages
(with well-intentioned motives and feelings), would it not be better to look at the most
solemnly given assurances, coming from the Christ Himself, that these things are pur-
posely postponed? Some preliminaries must first be logically passed over before we are
fully prepared to discuss this postponement ; if the student will patiently follow our
188 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 20.

steps he will be enabled to appreciate the irresistible force of the reasons assigned—rea-
sons which for several centuries influenced and pervaded the Christian Church.

Obs. 8. The Apologetics of the Church makes too many concessions to

unbelievers respecting the Jewish and Primitive faith, and, alas, too many
sneers—according well with the ridicule of infidelity—are cast at their
‘‘low,”’ ‘‘grovelling,”’ ‘‘carnal’’ views of the Kingdom. Gentiles, in
their self-approbation of position and favor, forget the caution given by
Paul in Rom. 11 : 20.
Would it not be well to reflect over that which Peter tells us (1 Pet. 1 : 10-12), and
not hastily accuse those to whom things were revealed, and to whom the proclamation
of the Kingdom was intrusted, as knowing nothing of the true nature of the Kingdom
and its resultant salvation. We, having the advantage of additional revelations and
fulfilment, know indeed more respecting the method of God's procedure, the duration
of the postponement, the manner in which the Kingdom is to be manifested, the events
which are to precede and accompany it; but they, as well as we now can, knew the
main, leading predictions concerning the Kingdom, correctly apprehended the great
outlines, perfectly comprehended its nature and relationship to Christ—for all these
were plainly given in the Scriptures, connected with covenanted promises and con-
firmed by oath. The difficulties of distinguishing between the First and Sec. Advents
(which many eminent men now experience in appropriating prophecies to the First that
only pertain to the Second), a smitten and triumphant Saviour, a crucified and exalted
King, etc., did not, by any means, efface a scriptural view of the Kingdom itself. This
is already shown by the preceding Proposition ; for, if otherwise, then no satisfactory
reason can be assigned for the extraordinary manner in which the New Test. opens,
taking, as it does, a previous knowledge of the Kingdom for granted. If they did make
a mistake in their absorbing contemplation of the glorious Kingdom of the Messiah so
as to overlook the antecedent humiliation, suffering, and death of the King, let not
the man accuse them of ignorance concerning the Kingdom, which led to such a re-
strainment of prediction, when he to-day reverses their conduct by confining himself
so much to the sacrifice that he overlooks the Kingdom.

Obs. 9. The force of Prop. 16, begins to appear. The knowledge that
we have of this Kingdom is invariably attributed to the Old Test. Jewish
and Primitive belief—over against the modern notion which would only
find it in the New Test. and then by inference—based itself upon what the
Old Test. declared concerning it. ‘This fact meets us at the very begin-
ning of the Gospels, and comes to us directly in the early preaching of
“the Gospel of the Kingdom.’’ What Kingdom is taken for granted as
known? Evidently the one predicted in the older Scriptures, and hence,
without an investigation of the Old Test., from whence the Jews and the
first Christians obtained their views and expectations, it is simply im-
possible to obtain a correct idea of the Kingdom. The New Test.
begins with the conviction that the source of all true knowledge concern-
ing it is to be found in the Word of God previously given.' And this in-
formation imparted is not merely elementary in the sense that it is to be
superseded by something else, for, as we shall show, it is so encompassed
by covenant and prophecy, so imbedded in the Divine Purpose as unfolded
and attested to by oath, that it becomes and ever remains wnchangeably
essential and fundamental in its nature. God will not, cannot produce a
faith by the unvarnished grammatical sense of His Word, existing for many
centuries, and then supersede it by another through men engrafting a
different meaning upon the identical Scriptures which led to the former.
Multitudes, indeed, dream that this actually takes place, but it is a vain,
idle vision, productive of vast injury to the truth.
Prop. 20.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 189
1 One of the greatest marks of declension in Church Theology was the neglect that
the Old Test. received in certain ages, and one of the most recent signs of improve-
ment is the great attention which it now receives from many able writers in Europe and
this country. This was brought about, in a great measure, by the severe attack of
Rationalists, etc., upon that portion of Holy Writ. Whatever may have originated the
valuable contributions, especially by German theologians, in this direction, it is now
fully conceded that without the Old it is impossible to properly comprehend the New,
and that both are indispensable to preserve a unity in the Divine Purpose. It is
suitable to add, that this is specially and pre-eminently true of the leading doctrine of the
Kingdom.

Obs. 10. The belief in this Kingdom had a preservative influence upon
the Jewish nation. For, inspired by the hopes set forth in prophecy, it
preserved even under the most adverse circumstances a tenacious trust
which largely contributed in keeping them from the enervating influences
and the idolatry of Asiatic nations. It kept them also, as Mill observes
(Rep. Gov., p. 41), from ‘‘ being stationary like other Asiatics.’? The hope
of the future, as prophetically allied with the nation, served as a bond of
union, imparted patience under trial, and kept them separate and distinct
among other nations.
190 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 21.

Proposition 21. The Prophecies of the Kingdom, interpreted

literally, sustain the expectations and hopes of the pious Jews.
This is universally admitted, even by those who contend that the
same prophecies are susceptible of a different interpretation. The
plain literal sense expressly teaches what the Jews anticipated;
and no author has yet arisen who has dared to assert that the
grammatical construction of the Old Testament language, received
according to the usual laws, does not convey the meaning found
therein of a literal restoration of the Theocratic-Davidic throne and
kingdom as expected by the believing Israelites. Even after the
attempted undue advantage taken of this circumstance by unbe-
lieving writers, and after Apologists have informed us that this
naked sense is only ‘‘ the husk’? to be discarded, no one has
attempted to call the fact of such an existing sense into question.
Believers, infidels, and semi-infidels teach this fact ; every author and commentator
consulted, every Life of Christ, every Introd. to the Bible, etc., fully admits it. With
infidels it is a standing joke that the prophets predicted such a Kingdom. Thus e.g.
Renan (Life of Jesus, p. 86) calls it ‘‘a gigantic dream for centuries,’’ and “ they
dreamed of the restoration of the house of David, the reconciliation of the two fragments
of the people, and the triumph of the Theocracy,’’ etc. ‘‘ They dreamed of the Messiah
as judge and avenger of the nations,” of ‘‘ a renewal of all things.” In view of this, he
informs us (p. 266) that ‘‘ the first Christian generation lived entirely upon expectations
and dreams,’’ and that it required ‘‘ more than a century’ for the church to disengage
itself from such ‘‘ dreams,” which, however (p. 251), were more or less held, although
but “a fantastic Kingdom of God,” etc. All that our argument at present requires is
simply to direct attention to the concession, however scornfully put, or however at-
tempted to be weakened by accommodation, that the Jewish and Primitive faith is based
on an acknowledged grammatical sense. We are not concerned at the protest, that if the
covenant and prophecies are thus understood, then there is presented ‘‘ an ideal Jewish
King,” “ languid dreams,’’ ‘‘ impracticable pedantries,” ‘‘ carnality,’’ ete. The conces-
sion is all that is required at this stage of the argument, forming a necessary and important
link, for it evinces a correspondence existing between the Word and the early belief,

Obs. 1. Here, then, is something that all, both Jew and Gentile, frankly
admit, however some may afterward attempt to break its force and con-
tinued application. Let the reader keep this point in view: here is a sense
(let it be despised and rejected) that all acknowledge does exist ; and this
sense, thus contained in the Word and for many centuries received by the
pious, is the one that we receive, until it is proven that there is a command
or revelation from God to set it aside, or until it is shown that it is in
direct conflict with Revelation itself. We have by its adoption (Prop. 4) a
sure foundation for interpretation, based on a sense which all are forced,
willingly or unwillingly, to concede is fownd in the Scriptures ; and one,
too, which, with a proper theory of the divine and inspired, cannot be
easily discarded without doing violence to the Word and to the wisdom of
Prop. 21.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 191

God in bestowing it. This sense obviously contained in the Scriptures

formed the scripturally derived basis of the Jewish hopes.
Having this allowed sense—i.e. the grammatical—one that the words naturally con-
tain, the student is placed on ground, acknowledged to pertain to Scripture, by which
he can test other alleged senses, varied in form, that others engraft upon it. If the care-
ful reader finds that this literal sense produces a harmonious whole, an unbroken unity in
the Divine Purpose (the great test after all), he surely is authorized, in confirmation of
faith, to receive and treasure it as a most precious guide.

Obs. 2. Two classes array themselves against this obvious, admitted

sense entertained for centuries. The one party, enemies of the revealed
truth, honestly accept of it as existing, but discard it on the ground of its
conveying human, not divine, notions and expectations. The other class,
friends of the truth, also find and admit this sense, but believing it to be
““ gross and carnal,’’ endeavor to adapt its language to their own ideas of
the fitness of things, and hence attach to it another, distinct, separate sense
(some even adding two or more), which, rejecting the grammatical, we are
to receive as the true intended one.
May it be allowed, without reflecting upon any writer, to say, that such an Origen-
istic appliance of language which casts us loose from a sense actually contained in the in-
spired Record, is taking dangerous and undue liberty with the Word of God. Look at its
sad results in the overwhelming mass of mystical interpretation which a taxed ingenuity
and an apparently profound learning have heaped upon the Scriptures, rejecting the
visible, outward Kingdom taught by the prophecies and substituting for it the vaguest of
explanations, and making it appear that God said one thing but meant quite another; the
Jews, John the Baptist, the disciples, being deceived by what was said, not being able to
comprehend the spiritual and mystical interpretation that afterward such men as Origen,
Jerome, Augustine, and others bestowed upon the grammatical sense. If we reject this
one fully acknowledged sense, who can prove to us that any other of the conflicting
senses, added by men afterward, is inspired, is truly the Word of God? What guide have
we then—man’s added sense, or the one given by God? Thuse.g. if David’s throne and
kingdom is not David’s throne and kingdom as the words indicate, and as fondly believed
in for centuries, but is, as men in their wisdom afterward developed, the Father’s throne
in heaven and the Father’s Kingdom on earth and in heaven, how then can we reconcile it
with God’s own assurances of veracity, desire to instruct, undeviating truthfulness, etc.,
that He would clothe His own gracious and merciful words in a dress calculated to deceive,
and which did beguile the Jews and Primitive Christians, His children, into a false faith
and hope. No! never, never can we receive any theory, however plausibly and learnedly
presented, which thus reflects on God’s goodness, makes Him virtually a party to gross de-
ception, and which degrades the intelligence and piety of former saints. Who can cen-
sure us for believing in a sense so generally admitted as given by God Himself, placing
ourselves where prophets, pious Jews, and the early Christians stood? Having thus in
the outset a vantage ground, needing not to prove what multitudes already concede, let
us lay aside our ‘‘ worldly wisdom,” and ina childlike dispostion for instruction, fol-
low this grammatical interpretation, carefully gathering up the detached portions, and see
where it will lead us. It will reveal a strangeness most surprising, a sublimity most in-
spiring, and a beauty most delightful, in God’s work.

Obs. 3. In view of the faith of the Jews, and from whence derived, it
may well be asked : Is it reasonable to suppose that God would give utter-
ances by His prophets respecting a Kingdom, which, taken in their usual
literal sense (making due allowance for the usage of figures common to all
languages), positively denote the re-establishment, in a most glorious form
under a Son of David’s, of David’s cast-down throne and kingdom, etc.,
and yet that all these assurances must be taken in a different sense?
Men, eminent for ability and piety, tell us that such a transformation is
demanded. They may, under the specious garb of ‘‘a higher sense’’
192 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 21.

honestly think to elevate our notions of the predictions, but in reality it

is a lowering of the sense actually contained in the Word ; for attributing
to it (through human authority) another sense, it virtually assumes the
position that Holy Writ contains language and ideas that cannot be main-
tained ; that God, foreknowing the result, intentionally conveyed one
meaning whilst (like the Delphic oracle) another was intended.
Let the careful student, at the threshold of our subject, reflect whether such a dis-
crepancy is not sufficient of itself to cause a thorough reinvestigation of this matter. If
the Kingdom is not such as these Jews held it to be, who is justly chargeable with their
error, if it be not the great Author of those prophecies? Every reflection cast upon the
Jewish faith in this direction in fact recoils back upon the Giver of the predictions,
seeing that on their surface is the meaning which led to the universal belief. Now in all
honesty, every believer, desirous to vindicate both the Scriptures and the Author of
them, must turn away from theories which necessarily reflect upon the Bible, its
Author, and the hopes excited by its plain grammatical sense. In the following pages
it will be shown at length, every step supported by Scripture, that God gave the prophe-
cies as truth, couched in truthful language in their grammatical sense ; that all, as written,
will yet be fulfilled ; and that the hopes of His people, excited and fostered by the ex-
press lanquage, will not, as multitudes hold, be disappointed. We may hesitate to adopt,
under all circumstances, the bold expression of Pascal : “ God owes it to mankind not to
lead them into error ;’’ for God, in the provisions made and in the truth given, does not
encroach upon an element of liberty, freedom of choice, in human destiny from which
may arise error and even crime (by perversion, etc.), as the painful history of Christianity
and the world attests. While this may be viewed as permissive and in accord with
moral freedom, yet Pascal is correct if the language is applied to a revelation given by
God. His language, or the ideas conveyed by the same, involve the God directly, person-
ally, and, therefore we cannot, dare not, believe that He will give a revelation that will,
if the grammatical sense is received, lead into error.

Obs. 4. As intimated under previous Props. and above (Obs. 2), this
grammatical sense thus received and introduced into the New Test. with-
out any declaration of a change, is seized by unbelief as evidence of the
non-inspiration of the Scriptures. Thus e.g. Morgan (Moral Philosopher)
finds, what Baur and others have developed, decided indications that por-
tions of the New Test. contain a deposit of Jewish-Messianic ideas, ob-
tained through adhesion to the plain sense of the Old Test. The Swiss
Rationalists (Hurst’s His. Rational., p. 436) declare on this ground that
Jesus Christ is not the Messiah foretold by the Prophets and preached by
the Apostles, simply because He did not establish the Kingdom as plainly
predicted, etc. They, and others, insist that a fatal discrepancy exists
which is not removed by the Christ and the spiritual Kingdom created by
theologians. We acknowledge, as essential, this ‘‘ Jewish-Messianic’’ de-
posit ; we admit that under a misapprehension of the actual postponement
of the Kingdom and the still future realization of those ‘‘ Jewish-Mes-
sianic”’ predictions, theologians have to readily spiritualized the proph-
ecies to make them applicable to Christ, and to the Church at present (and
thus make the Messiah and Kingdom assume characteristics very different
to those assigned in prophecy) ; but we beg all such to consider, what they
on both sides carefully ignore, the express promises that all such Messianic
expectations are only to be realized at the Sec..Advent. The verification of
them, owing to sinfulness, was postponed, and the object of following
i nee is to bring forth this truth prominently as given by Jesus
imself.
Obs. 5. Men, in their eagerness to rid themselves of the grammatical sense
of the Old Test. prophecies and the consequent Jewish belief, resort to the
PRoP. 21.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 193

most desperate arguments and reasoning. Some of these have already been
given ; others will be presented hereafter ; one may be appropriately men-
tioned in this connection. It is said (and even Martensen, Ch. Dog., p.
235, falls in with the notion) that ‘‘ the prophecies themselves are typical.”’
This conveniently enables the student to reject the literal sense, and en-
graft upon it whatever he may consider a suitable fulfilment of the type.
It isa dangerous procedure, opening a wide door to arbitrary interpretation,
and it is pointedly condemned by the rules (comp. Jntrods. to the Bible)
specifying and controlling types.
This assumption is a modern philosophical conceit that admirably answers to cover
up deficiencies in making out the Church-Kingdom theory—i.e. it attempts to reconcile
prophecy with an alleged fulfilment in the church. But it is unscriptural and destructive
to prophecy ; it removes the veracity of God's Word in its grammatical sense by leaving
the fulfilment at the option of the interpreter ; it weakens an appeal to prophecy, under-
mining its strength as proof. While there are a few prophetical types (e.g. Isa. 22 : 2 ;
Jer. 13 : 1-7 ; Jer. 16 : 2, etc.), these are but rare, exceptional cases ; the immense mass
of prophecy, in no shape or sense, is typical, but real descriptions or representations in
language of things to come. Prophecy is a delineation of the future, and not an adum-
bration of a thing typified, not something that in itself represents an antitype, excepting
only in so far as language ordinarily may by use of figure or symbol represent the
future. Strictly speaking, however, Prophecy when employing symbols or figures of
speech is not typical (Comp. Sec. 3, Part 2, Book 2, Horne’s Jntrod.), and to make it
such gives place to endless mystical exegesis. Martensen himself aftords an illustration
of the latter, when, in support of the typical nature of Prophecy, he quotes 1 Cor. 13 : 9,
prophecy being also ‘‘ in part,’’ overlooking its plain meaning that our present limited
knowledge is only compared by the apostle with what it will be hereafter, there being no
allusion to the characteristics of Prophecy. Having previously shown the nature and
intent of Prophecy (Prop. 17, etc.) as the grand guide into the Divine Purpose, it is un-
necessary to repeat.

Obs. 6. It is only when we retain the expressed sense of prophecy as held

by the Jews and Primitive Church, and as admitted to be contained in it,
that one of the offices of Prophecy is fully maintained. Thus e.g. Kurtz
(Sac. His., p. 32) justly observes that “‘it is the pre-eminent design of
prophecy both to furnish the age to which it is given with a knowledge of
itself, that is, of its position and obligations, and also to render the same
service to every succeeding age, in so far as its condition, wants, and obli-
gations are similar to those of the former.’’ He explains thisby adding
that ‘‘ Prophecy designs, by means of its divine knowledge, to inform the
generation of men to whom it is given, respecting both their present acqui-
sitions and also their actual wants, for the purpose of guiding alike in
the right employment of the former, and in an earnest search after all that
must yet be acquired, before their wants are supplied.’’ ‘Take, now, for
granted the supposition of the multitude that for many centuries the Jews
miserably misunderstood the prophecies, that they had no correct ideas of
the Messiah or of His Kingdom, etc., and what becomes of the instruction
of prophecy to the generations of men who held to the grammatical sense ?
And if the office of prophecy really was to impart information, to give cer-
tain knowledge, to clearly indicate the present and future state, how
could such an office be compatible with the unjust inference now made by
theologians, viz.: that this information and knowledge was concealed in
an inner, hidden sense, which would require the raising up of swch men as
Origen, Jerome, etc., to bring it forth out of its ‘‘ husk,’’ and that for
ages men, eminent for piety, must be content with “‘ the outward shell,”’
194 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 21.

Never can we receive any theory which thus degrades “‘ the light’’ that
God has given ; and, briefly, it would be well for us to be guarded, lest by
rejecting what all are agreed the prophecies really contain, we place our-
selves in the posture of, and ultimately receive the rebuke given to, the
disciples : ‘‘ fools and slow of heart to believe what the prophets had
spoken’ (Luke 24 : 25).
Propsi2e: TUE TILEOCRATIO KINGDONX. 195

Proposition 22. John the Baptist, Jesus, and the disciples, em-
ployed the phrases “ Kingdom of heaven,” “ Kingdom of God,”
étc., in accordance with the usage of the Jews.
It is admitted by all authorities that this phraseology was cur-
rent among the Jews, and was adopted by the first preachers of the
Kingdom.
Compare e.g. Knapp’s Ch. Theol., p. 323 and 353; Pres. Edwards’s His. Redemp., p.
395 ; Neander’s Life of Christ, also, His. Chr. Ch., His. of Dogmas, ete. Commentaries,
Apologetical works, Dogmatics, etc., distinctly announce this fact. Parkhurst’s Gr. Lex.
refers, as all do, the phrases to a derivation from Dan. 2 : 44 and 7 : 13,14. Meyer (Com.
Matt. 3 : 2) says that the Rabbins often used it (referring to Targ. Mich. 4 : 8, Wetstein,
p. 256, with which comp. the Mishna) to designate the Kingdom of David’s Son. But
we allow an opponent (already criticised, Prop. 20, Obs. 5, note) to testify. Art.
‘* Kingd. of God” (M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclop.), which spiritualizes these phrases.
makes this frank confession : ‘‘ There is reason to believe not only that the expression
‘ Kingdom of heaven,’ as used in the N. T., was employed as synonymous with ‘ King-
dom of God,’ as referred to in the Old Test., but that the former expression had become
common among the Jews of our Lord’s time for denoting the state of things expected to
be brought in by the Messiah. The mere use of the expression as it first occurs in
Matthew, uttered apparently by John the Baptist and our Lord Himself, without a note of
explanation, as if all perfectly understood what was meant by it, seems alone conclusive evidence
of this.”

Obs. 1. The Prop. needs no proof, for the fact is self-evident. First is
to be found the well-known expectations of the Jews based on a literal in-
terpretation of the prophecies ; next, these are summed up in the expressive
phrases ‘‘ Kingdom of heaven,”’ etc., taken, as numerous writers inform us,
from Dan. 7 : 13, 14; finally, John, Jesus, and others take the very phra-
seology adopted by the Jews to designate a certain definite Kingdom, and.
use it without the slightest intimation or explanation of a change in its
meaning ; and this employment of the phrases, with a correspondent Jew-
ish meaning attached, continued (as admitted by our opponents, e.g. Prop.
20, Obs. 3, n. 1) at least down (Acts 1 : 6) to the ascension of Christ.
Some, indeed, tell us that Christ had a different conception of it; but they give us
no direct proof, but only the most remote inferences of theirown. The Scripture relied
upon for such a view will be examined hereafter in detail. At present it is sufficient to
say, that even those addicted to the theory that Jesus gradually engrafted a new mean-
ing, i.e. spiritual, upon the notion of the Kingdom, still frankly admit that Jesus em-
ployed the Jewish mode of expression (Neander calls them ‘‘ Jewish forms,” as e.g. in
“ Ser. on the Mt.”). Additional proof and illustrations will be given, to save repetition,
under the Props. relating to the first preaching of the Kingdom. Our argument and
doctrinal position demands that the language of the Jews by which their anticipations
were expressed and the language of John and Jesus should happily correspond. Explain
it as we may, this certainly is the case, and thus far decidedly in our favor.

Obs. 2. Here, at the very fountain head, in the presence and under the
sanction of the Master Himself, there must be no discrepancy. The fond
196 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRoP. 22,

hopes and the ardent anticipations, aroused by the speech of the prophets,
are too dear to be trifled with, or to be confirmed by a mere spirit of ac-
commodation. It would, if the Jews were in error on so fundamental a
point, be simply cruel to adopt their expressive language and ¢hus confirm
them in an alleged blunder, a vital mistake.
With due respect and love toward the eminent men who differ from us, it can be un-
hesitatingly said, that an error here, and continued for several centuries in the churches
established by the apostles, cannot but vitiate the entire succession. A rule in law, often
quoted, holds good in this place : “ Quod initio vitiosum est, tractu temporis convales-
cere non potest,” or the old adage is applicable : ‘‘ As the fountain, so the stream.” Men
tell us that the phraseology used, “ the Jewish forms,” employed, was only ‘‘ the husk ;”
let it be so, we claim it to be a God-given ‘‘ husk,” amply sufficient to satisfy the longings
of humanity. No! if these noble preachers of the Kingdom are to inspire unshaken
confidence, we must not, with infidels, acknowledge that they believed in, and pro-
claimed, “ Jewish error.’’ For, if this is done, the fountain head itself is corrupted,
and all the sophistical glosses, philosophical conceits, additional senses developed,
heaped upon it by way of explanation, extenuation, or apology, cannot hide from cap-
tious critics the ugly feature—one, too, so glaring and wide-reaching that no person,
addicted to reflection, can pass it by without serious misgivings.

Obs. 3. When significantly pointing to the fact, that the idea of a King-
dom of God was familiar to every pious Jew, for which he longed, and
prayed, and waited, and that the first preachers adopted the very language
in familiar use by the Jew to signify his hope, Apologists inform us (Hcce
Deus, p. 329) that ‘‘ Christ carhe to give that conception a profounder in-
terpretation, and a more intensely spiritual bearing,’’ that ‘‘ the Jew had
a carnal idea of a spiritual fact.’? But where is the proof of this carnality
and substitution? Neander, and others, in reply, tell us, that it is found
in the higher spiritual conception being wrought out afterward in ‘‘ the
consciousness of the church.’ When, where, and by what instrumentali-
ties, was this accomplished? Was it done by Origen, or Jerome, or the
Popes, or the Councils, or shall we allow the claims of Swedenborg and a
host of fallible men in this direction? Admit this, and we plunge our-
selves into an abyss of pretensions and demands, exalting uninspired men
above those who were under the special guidance of the Spirit.
It is impossible, with consistency and safety, to leave the original Record, and seek for
a doctrinal position is so important a matter, derived from men who lived after the apos-
tolic period. If the notion of a Kingdom, such as was afterward developed by the Alex-
andrian school, is not to be found in the Gospels, in the opening of the New Test., as
recent valuable works on the Life of Christ frankly confess, then surely it is not taking
unwarranted liberty to reject it as unreliable, contradictory, and the mere added opinion
ot fallible men.

Obs. 4. In view of this alleged change in the meaning of the Kingaom,

the Liberalists, etc. (as e.g. Johnson’s Orient. Religs., p. 794), assert,
that Christ proclaimed a Kingdom to come, but ‘‘ of the institutional
meaning of the approaching change, and of the special ways in which his
own name would be exalted therein, his record gives no sign that he had
the least presentiment.’’ This indicates unfamiliarity with the covenants
and the prophecies, the Jewish faith and that of the New Test., for (1) it
was not necessary to enter into any explanation concerning the nature of
the Kingdom, it being something that was well understood, as seen by the
adoption of Jewish language, etc. ; (2) it is utterly unfair to pass by the
Scripture given by Jesus illustrative of the reasons why the Kingdom was
Prop. 22.] THE THEOORATIC KINGDOM. 197

not then realized as anticipated by the Jews and disciples ; and (3) it is
uncandid to ignore the express declarations (which will be presented in
their place hereafter) of a postponement of the Kingdom believed in until
the allotted times of the Gentiles had expired, because of Christ’s rejec-
tion by the nation.
The usual method of dealing with Johnson’s objection is to urge that the time for
developing the true idea of the Kingdom had not yet arrived, and, therefore, but little is
said respecting it, because the Jews and even the apostles themselves were (Acts 1 : 6)
unprepared for it. Thus e.g. Schlegel (Phil. of His., Lec. 10) fully admits the views of
the Jews concerning the Kingdom and apologizes for their opinions by saying : that the
portrait of the Deliverer was drawn by the prophets “in such vivid colors in those ancient
prophecies, that the description might, in many passages at least, be easily mistaken for
one of an earthly monarch ;” and adds, that the Jews were the more excusable since
‘all the followers of our Saviour and His most trusty disciples, were at first under the
same delusion,’’ etc., and finally explains these discrepancies by taking refuge in some
generalities, especially that of ‘‘a higher spiritual signification’ being ultimately at-
tained. But what force has such reasoning with the unbeliever, which places the Divine
Teacher, His forerunner, the disciples, and believing Jews in a most unenviable position—
one opposed to all our notions of propriety and honor? Let the reader keep in view, as
additional reasons are presented in the progress of our argument, the utter inability of
the prevailing view to reconcile this early belief and usage of language with its modern
transformations and substitutions.

Obs. 5. The student is directed to a proof that this subject affords in be-
half of the early origin of the Gospels. In looking at the opening of the
New Test., the subject-matter of the Kingdom, how it was introduced and
retained its ‘‘ Jewish forms,’’ it shows how unfounded is the view of Edel-
man, etc., that the New Test. was written in the time of Constantine,
or that of more recent writers who make the Gospels proceed from the
Alexandrian school, or to be an offshoot of the latter part of the second, or
the production of the third century. The Alexandrian school could not
possibly, with their ideas of the Kingdom, have originated the Gospels, and
this is true of all the later periods assigned.
Thus e.g. the later origin of the Gospels is sufficiently disproven by the exclusive
preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Jewish nation (Comp. Prop. 54). Such
an idea of exclusiveness could not, in the nature of the case, have originated at so late a
period as that assigned by Strauss, Baur, etc., it being opposed to the actual condition
of things then existing. Sentences confining the preaching of the Kingdom only to the
Jewish nation, ascribing salvation to the Jews, etc., could not have been concocted at the
times assigned ; it is opposed to the habits and mode of thinking already introduced.
Unbelievers themselves acknowledge this, as e.g. the Duke of Somerset (Ch. Theol. and
Mod. Skep., ch. 4), who refers to ‘‘a Jewish kingdom under a national Sovereign,’’ as
clearly taught, and then gives us some reasoning, based on this fact, in favor of the early
production of the Gospels. (1) He tells us that the first generations of Christians had
in many respects ‘‘ the distinctive features of Judaism,’’ especially in their notion of
the Kingdom. (2) That in ‘‘a subsequent generation’’ “ the whole character of Chris-
tianity was already changed.’’ (3) Hence, “this chronological testimony appears to re-
fute the theories which ascribe the Gospels to a later period.”
198 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRrop. 28.

Proposrrion 23. There must be some substantial reason why the

phrases “Kingdom of God,” etc., were thus adopted.
Amid the diverse and antagonistic theories, the only one that
rescues the Word from unjust suspicions, that preserves the integ-
rity of the New Testament from entangling concessions and
alliances, that honors the faith and intelligent piety of ancient be-
lievers, is that which affirms that the truth itself was contained in
the derivation of this phraseology, in the hopes excited by it, and
in the subsequent adoption of it.
One party (e.g. Apostolic Fathers, with whom we agree) holds, that the adoption of
the Jewish phraseology precisely covered the truth, and that, although not realized at
the time for certain good reasons, it will yet be verified. Another party (e.g. Rationalists,
Freethinkers, etc.) asserts that no reasonable excuse can be given for the use of such
language, and that all the parties employing it were under a delusion. Some (e.g. Sem-
ler, etc.) explain it by the accommodation theory : that John, Jesus, and the apostles
accommodated themselves to the prejudices and ignorance of the Jews. Others again
(e.g. Neander, etc.) find reason for its use in the development theory, that an outward
envelopment of ‘‘ husk” was well adapted for future growth, the requisite preliminary.
Some (e.g. Thompson, etc.) suppose that a very spiritual conception was really taught
while the old form was only held in phrase. Others (e.g. Barnes, etc.) admit the diffi-
culty, but without attempting an explanation or removal of it, confine themselves to the
new enlightenment given at the day of Pentecost, which they declare transmuted the
meaning. Stiil others (e.g. Renan, etc.) declare that the language was used at first in
good faith as the Jews themselves understood it, but that Jesus, finding His own hopes
and expectations unrealized by the unbelief of the Jews, changed His plan and a new
meaning was introduced. _To indicate the extremity to which men are often pushed in
the attempt to assign a reason, an extreme and far-fetched one—proven mistaken by the
facts—is that of Fleck (De Regno Div., noticed by Lange, Com. Matt. 3 : 1-12), who says
that Matthew chose this phrase “ in order to distinguish the Christian Kingdom of God
more fully from the Jewish theocracy.” Acts 1:6 is a sufficient answer.

Obs. 1. The attacks of Rationalistic criticism has induced the advocacy,

by many, of the accommodation theory. ‘This, however, is a virtual con-
cession to the force of destructive criticism, and, as such, is hailed asa
decided indication of weakness. It is reluctantly wrung from the advo-
cates of Christianity, because, with their theories of the Kingdom of God,
with their rejection of the Primitive view, they could not invent a better
refuge from their assailants. It is but a sorry refuge in the end, seeing
that it teaches, when stripped of its cirenmlocutory and apologetic dress,
that the Jews held one notion of the Kingdom and Christ entertained
another; and that for fear of the Jews, who were unprepared through
prejudice to appreciate the Kingdom, Jesus adopted their language, saying
one thing, but all the time meaning something else. Or, in other words, He
taught, under a borrowed garb, what the language did not and could not
indicate to the Jew, as evidenced in the history of His own disciples, Acts
1:6. Butis such a hypothesis, for a moment, tenable? Can we enter-
tain the idea that teachers of the character and profession like John,
 Pa iBeta
gars oe oh A a) LF

LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA
Prop: 23.) THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 199

Jesus, and the disciples, would directly or indirectly connive at that which
is false? ‘The moral and divine position of the persons makes the sup-
position inadmissible. If it were allowable to do soin reference to so vital
a subject as the Kingdom, how can we be sure that other declarations are
not alsoan accommodation ? What criteria could be given to distinguish be-
tween the false and the true? No: such atheory, however well intentioned,
is a virtual lowering of the divine teaching of Jesus, a rendering of the
utterances of the first preachers an uncertainty, and a yielding of Revela-
tion to the sneers of unbelief at its lack of coherence.
It is the fashion of a large class of modern critics and historians (in otherwise esti-
mable writings), unable to reconcile the preaching of John, etc., with their own notions
of what the Kingdom should be, to inform us that the first preachers of the Gospel of
the Kingdom accommodated themselves in the doctrinal exposition of the Kingdom to
the prevailing opinions and prejudices of the Jews, waiting for time and cautiously
given lessons to enlighten them by degrees, etc. Many who censure Semler for pressing
his theory beyond the bounds of propriety, and have even written against his more gross
departures and denials of truth, do not mend the matter when they themselves, on the
leading subject of the Kingdom, fully admit such an accommodation, on the ground that
the Jews were not prepared forthe real truth. For, receive this, and then it logically fol-
lows: (1) John, Jesus, and the disciples must have taught error, so far, at least, as the
outward form and the Jews were concerned ; how else, unless in their usual acceptation,
could the Jews understand their words? (2) If the Jews misunderstood them, how could
they be held accountable for it, when thus tempted to a misapprehension by the ambig-
uous use of current language? (3) The pure character of Jesus is presented to us in an
invidious and disreputable light. So long asthe theory is advanced, so long a dark
flaw appears, and all the apologies annexed to it cannot sustain His spotless reputation.
The only accommodation in Jesus, and from whence this theory is inferred, consisted in
His concealing, or not avowing, certain truths pertaining to His Person and the King-
dom until His disciples were better prepared for them, but never did He speak without
uttering the truth itself, both as to His Person and the Kingdom, sometimes plainly, some-
times in figure ; never did He use language which was specially adapted to lead into
and confirm error on account of the prejudices of others. It cannot be proven that He
in any way sought.refuge in words, that were outwardly compliant with ‘‘ Jewish error.”
If this were so, then Revelation itself would become involved in uncertainty, no one be-
ing able to discriminate between mere accommodation and its opposite. (Comp. Knapp,
Horne, Schmucker, Storr, Titman, Heringa, and others, who expose this fallacy.)

Obs. 2. In immediate connection with the accommodation theory, not

pressed however to the same extreme, is that of the development theory.
While noticed under Prop. 4, yet its important bearing to our subject
and its extended use, will allow additional remarks. To avoid misappre-
hension, let it be premised that we also believe in development, in the
progress of Christianity, in the continuous gathering of the elect, of ‘‘ them
that believe.’? We also hold to doctrinal progress in a certain sense, dis-
tinguishing between the primary and inferred truths; the former being
solely contained in the Scriptures and obtained by comparison of them ;
the latter being the result of reasoning induced by such comparison, by ob-
serving the statements, history, analogy, etc., of doctrine. ‘The former be-
longs more to the vision of faith, the latter to that of reason ; for the one
contains things beyond human knowledge, and the other is the outgrowth
of the activity of man’s mind, arising from induction, deduction, infer-
ence, etc. Having already defined our position under Props. 9, 10, 15, it
is sufficient to add, that we cordially accept of the truthful utterance of
Dr. Schaff (quoted Hurst’s His. Rational.) : ‘‘ Christianity itself, the sav-
ing truth of God, is always the same and needs no change, yet this can
by no means be affirmed of the apprehension of this truth by the human
200 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 28.

mind in the different ages of the church.’’ Two cautions are only to be
observed : (1) never to elevate this apprehension of the truth by the human
mind and expressed in books, writings, etc., to the same standard of excel-
lency as that of the Scriptures themselves ; and (2) never to allow such an
apprehension to be rated as a legitimate progression of divine‘inspiration.
On these two points, the development theory pushed to an extreme,
offends. This will be presented, to save space, in the following note.
It may be well, first of all, to notice that this notion of doctrinal growth, under the
development theory, from the imperfect conception of the apostles to the full revealed
truth in “church consciousness’’ (whatever this glittering generality may mean), is
sought to be based on two passages of Scripture, viz.: Mark 4 : 26-29 ; Matt. 13 : 31-33.
The Parables will be examined in detail hereafter ; it is sufficient to remark on the first
one, which is regarded (Neander, Introd. to Uh. His.) as the keystone of the arch, that
the seed sown, the blade, the ear, the full corn in the ear, have no reference whatever to
doctrinal progress or development, for if it had, then, logically, the harvest at the end
would be a harvest of doctrines fully grown, an evident absurdity. What is here meant
is clearly seen by the parallel passage in Matt. 13 : 24-30, when the tares and wheat are
separated, etc. Truth, doctrinal truth, the same that Jesus and apostles taught, is the
seed deposited in the heart, and its moral influence is delineated. The parable clearly,
in its connection and design, shows that the seed has its effect on the man, its germ be-
ing holiness, producing piety in the individual, which enlarges and develops. The seed
of truth is always the swme—it changes not—being the same to-day that John, Jesus,
and the apostles sowed ; otherwise, taking the development for granted we would
sow, not seed, but the blade or the ear, or even the full corn, which is an absurdity.
The analogy that they seek to draw out of it, does not hold good ; the growth is rep-
resented as continuous, but such a doctrinal growth is not to be found in the church,
for as the history of the church attests, faith in some very important points was
frequently shifted and became antagonistic.
The development theory, virtually taking a low estimate of the contents of Scripture,
and yet anxious in some way to honor them, has recourse to a divine outgrowth from
them in man in order to obtain decisive truth ; and this alleged result of outgrowth it
elevates to an equality with, and even, in many instances, above the Scriptures. Take
the most guarded and able expositor of this theory, as Dr. Neander, and the student
becomes painfully conscious that something sadly defective must exist in a system which
causes so good a man to teach that the mental and moral condition of the Jews, the
disciples, and the aposties was such that Jesus had to give them the truth ina very
diluted form—so fine indeed that it was only “‘ the germ,” and this surrounded by “a
materialistic husk.” Gravely, honestly, naively we are told, that this ‘‘ husk” was the
only thing that was perceived and appreciated until a process of growth removed it.
Conceding that some things were not revealed until a later period, that other things
were purposely given with obscurity (comp. Props. 11-15), it is an unfounded and dam-
aging opinion that a leading doctrine, the prominent subject of ,preaching, the opening
doctrine uf the New Test., was thus confined in “a husk,” and finally correctly appre-
hended. The tendency of such a theory is to disparage the early ministry to the Jews
and to lower the apostolic times, showing that by growth the church has undergone ma-
terial modifications in doctrine, and then defending such radical changes on the ground of
progress, and appealing for proof, to sustain all this load, to the authority of ‘‘ church
consciousness.” While admitting the idea of progress and growth, but in a different
way, it does not follow that such modifications, because they took place in the church,
are indicative of true progress. Indeed in the Word itself we are warned against doc-
trinal and other changes as productive in error, fruitful of unbelief, and prolific of evil.
Under the plastic hand of this theory, some venture even to take the relapses, divisions,
weakness, etc., of the church, and turn them into signs of life and vigor, telling us that
these things were necessary for the age as educators, forerunners, etc., in order that
greater good might result therefrom. In a specious philosophical manner attempts are
made, in violation of all order, to weave into the web of Christianity, as essential to prog-
ress, conflicting theologies, rival sects, the corruptions of man, etc., until finally, as
Eaton (Perm. of Chris., p. 45) says: “It is like a tree drawing its growth from its own
dead leaves.” Men of ability will, in this direction, sagely declare that what was once
truth in one age must, in the march of progress, give place to other truth better
adapted to the knowledge and wants of man—the successive shells give place to new-
Prop. 23.] THE TIHEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 201
fledged outcomers. This nonsense—for it is nothing less—passes for wisdom with many
who profess intelligence, not seeing that it strikes a vital blow at all established truth, and
leaves us no firm scriptural foundation for our feet. Let us not credit such palpable
absurdities, which, intended by amiable men as a defence of Christianity, strike deadly
blows at the very heart of all scriptural truth, and ultimately find their resting place in
a disguised formula that evil in growth is a necessary adjunct to produce the good, ob-
tain the proper symmetry, etc.
The last expressed thought is abundantly justified by the use to which this theory
has been applied. Under the friendly manipulations of men like Dr. Neander, under
the amiable, kindly handling of Dr. Nevin, under the pious touch of Rev. Miller, it
might not result in great injury, however it prevented a reception of apostolic truth be-
cause of its supposed incipient state. But this fascinating favorite of so many of the
Orthodox happens to be a double-edged sword, that cuts both ways. The Hegelian view
that every development of life starts from its lowest, poorest form to rise to a higher and
richer one by slow degrees, and which was deemed so appropriate to cover up supposed
(not existing) deficiencies in doctrine, has been seized by the Tiibingen Baur and
others, and has been applied with tremendous force to the apostolic times, so that the
multitude, misled by the caricature given of its beginning (the lowest form), and tram-
melled by its apparent contradictions, violently oppose the Bible itself. Christianity,
too, is put down as a development in the history of universal religion, which in this on-
ward growth, constant advancement, irresistible progress, must give place to “the full
ear in the corn.” Leckey (His. Rational.) informs us that in the progress of the race,
Christianity was indeed a necessary but still imperfect development, and that the high-
est will be found in reason accepting from all the past forms of belief that which best
corresponds with the freedom of progressive reason. This is a favorite theory with
Freethinkers (e.g. Essays and Reviews) of every class (as e.g. Biichner, etc.), and under
its ample folds they find congenial shelter and warmth for their various systems. With
united voice, aided and strengthened by honest and unsuspecting believers, they tell us
that the early church did not clearly apprehend the truths of Christianity, especially not
that pertaining to the Kingdom ; that it was enveloped in Jewish forms and Jewish
thought ; and that it required centuries of natural progress from the lower to the higher
before the truth could be fully presented ; and which truth, finally in the shape of well
grown “wheat,” is harvested by themselves. How large a number of books are issued
to-day full of this plausible theory, in which unbelief characterizes doctrinal Christianity
as ‘‘ a stage of progression in the human mind,” and portrays “‘ all religious truth as nec-
essarily progressive,” so that we, by development, can improve upon the ‘‘ germs” given
by God and His Son. It acts out this spirit by changing, adding, striking away, and
substituting, until it glories in producing a new religion, the much boasted one of
humanity. Its humanity can be safely admitted.
Let no firm believer of the Supremacy of the Word, even if in a Christianized form
addicted to this theorizing, censure us for writing so plainly our convictions, It isa
subject upon which we deeply feel, knowing full well that it is the great obstacle in the
way of intelligent men to a return to the Primitive doctrine of the Kingdom, and that it
is the grand source from whence issue the shafts poured against the teaching of the apos-
tolic church. Its ramifications are found everywhere. and its adherents form the im-
mense majority. Leckey (fis. Rational., p. 183) thus eulogizes its extent: ‘‘ This idea
of continued and uninterrupted development is one that seems absolutely to override
the age. It is scarcely possible to open any really able book on any subject without en-
countering it in some form. It is stirring all science to its depths ; it is revolutionizing
all historical literature. Its prominence in theology is so great that there is scarcely any
school that is altogether exempt from its influence. We have seen in our own day the
Church of Rome itself defended in ‘An Essay on Development,’ and by a strange appli-
cation of the laws of progress.’’ Every student knows the tremendous influence that
this theory is now exerting in its modified or extreme, Christianized or rationalistic,
forms. Rioting in its assumed intelligence, it starts out with the principle, often glossed
over and refined with velvety language, that the writers of the New Test. were not infal-
lible, for in some things (e.g. the preaching of the Kingdom) they were in error, encom-
passed by ‘‘Jewish forms ;” then it advances the self-satisfying notion that in and
through the church there is a progressive revelation of the truth, so that as.the Grénin-
gen school (re-endorsed by the Parker school, etc.) boldly proclaims, Augustine stands
higher and knew more of the truth than John or Paul, Luther had far more than Augus-
tine, more recent divines of eminence have more than Luther, and, to keep up the in-
tended comparison, these Gréningens (Parkerites, etc.) have more truth than all the
rest that preceded. Here, at least, is modesty in a modified, developed form! How
202 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP.° 23:

prevalent to-day, under its influence, in organized bodies, sects, conventions, etc., is the
spirit of the Leyden school (Hurst’s His. Rat.) that, owing to these ‘‘ husks’ found in the
early mistaken preaching, we must distinguish between the Scriptures and the Word of
God ; that the former are human compositions, containing some truth, it istrue, but that
the latter, which God reveals in the human spirit and in the progress of man, is to be
vastly preferred ; thus opening the cry from ten thousand thousand throats, ‘‘ We have
the revealed Word of God in its advanced and latest form.’” From whence mainly come
those questionings of the Primitive view of the Kingdom of God ; those assertions that
the Jews, disciples, and early Christians grossly misapprehended the Kingdom ; those
affirmations that the Reformation showed its weakness and inconsistency by substitut-
ing the authority of the letter for that of the Spirit ; those claims of the exclusive pos-
session of the truth to the disparagement of ‘* holy men of old ;” those epithets of scorn
and derision so liberally applied to the grammatical sense of the Scriptures? They
spring chiefly from this development theory, forming ‘‘ the Modern Theology,”’ “ the
Liberal Theology,” ‘“‘ the Free Religion,” ‘*‘ the New Church,” etc. The theory itself is
abundantly developing fruit in the hands of infidelity, making men wiser than the Script-
ures, far better preachers of the Kingdom of God than John the Baptist, disciples
and apostles ; and this is either elegantly or offensively maintained according to the cult-
ure of the adherent, thus calling upon us to put our trust in men as they successively
arise. We desire, however, a more solid foundation than the shifting utterances of men,
one superseding another in endless succession, and this we find only in the plain teach-
ing of Revelation, embraced even in the first preaching of the first great teachers com-
missioned by heaven. For us, the development theory, as currently expounded and in-
corporated in theologies, is too latitudinarian either for doctrine, well-grounded con-
scious belief, logical connection of Scripture and history, and honorable, consistent de-
fence of the truth. Pushed to its extreme, it constantly shifts its position, claims mew
and antagonistic doctrine (or none at all), casts aside faith and exalts reason, glories not
in prophets and apostles, but in modern scientists, buries itself in hypotheses, mere spec-
ulations, and calls such divine revelations. In all its varied forms, one distinguishing
feature appears, viz.: that it is destructive to the authority of the Scriptures by raising
above it the utterances of fallible men. This is clearly seen in the history of the leading
doctrine of the Kingdom.
The development theory is also becoming patronized by Roman Catholic theologians
(e.g. Dr. Newman), for it becomes the best medium through which to apologize for doc-
trines unknown to the first teachers of Christianity, and for the non-reception of doc-
trines (e.g. Millenarianism) once generally held in the church. It is admirably adapted
to excuse and gloss over the recent authoritative doctrines of the Immaculate Concep-
tion and Papal Infallibility. J. H. Newman (Hssays, etc.) tells us that Christianity re-
quired time for its comprehension and perfection, and hence, to understand it, a growth
is necessary, so that we in this age, availing ourselves of the teachings (growth) of the
church, understand divine truth better than apostolic fathers, etc., because time enables
it to free itself from all foreign elements, etc. This then is applied to the doctrinal state-
ments of the Bible—e.g. the early preaching of this Kingdom—and we are justified in
receiving “‘the traditions of men’’ in their place. “ Liberal Christianity” desires no better
basis than this to rest itself upon ; and numerous recent works abundantly avail them-
selves of it. Hvenif the mildest form of its advocacy by Neander and others is care-
fully examined, it leads us precisely to this Roman exaltation of ehurch authority. It,
too, begins with a lower form and rises during the centuries to a higher ; it also tells us
that the noticeable deficiency of true knowledge of the Kingdom in John, the disciples,
and apostles—this presentation of “the husk” containing the still unappreciated
‘* germ’’—is to be fully made up in ihe aftergrowth of the church, i.e. in its teaching and
consciousness. If we ask, whose teaching cr consciousness is to be followed as a guide,
the Romanist’s response comes back to us : that of the church in the decisions of Popes
or General Councils ; the Protestant, wedded to this conceit, answers: that of the
church as contained in Councils, Synods, Creeds, etc. ; and both in the reception of a
doctrine (e.g. of the Kingdom) afterward fastened upon the church, elevate this to an in-
spired position, making it of equal weight with the Scriptures, and if it happens to be
opposed to Holy Writ, even placing it above the Word. Practically there is no differ-
ence between the two ; both profess that their church decisions emanate from the Holy
Spirit ; both claim that the truth developed by growth is superior to the germinal doc-
trine of the Kingdom ; both decide that the utterances of the prophets (i.e. the inter-
pretation), the expectations of the Jews, the first preaching of the Kingdom, the faith of
the disciples, must be tested, as to the amount of truthfulness, by what the church said
and decreed long after ; both attempt to correct the grammatical sense by an added one
PROP 22..| THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 203

to make it a little more accordant to present views ; and both, by such a judgment of
doctrine under the plea of growth, degrade God’s own revelation to a secondary place.
This may answer to prop up a tottering system, but we earnestly protest against this
leavening process being introduced into—with the purest of motives—Protestantism—a
process by which, under the plea of progress and development, the authority of Bible
truth is certainly undermined. Let us be sure of this: that any professed increase of
knowledge which conflicts with the plain meaning of the Bible is not in the direction of
true development.
Even men who are strongly inclined to our views, and in many places admirably sus-
tain them, fall into this development theory. Thus e.g., to indicate how it influences
even the minds of earnest thinkers, let the reader calmly consider Lange (Com., vol. 1,
p. 236-7) where the parables, under this notion, are treated as representing a historical
succession of periods or stages in the church. This can only be done by an arbitrary
use of the parables, forcing them from their legitimate design, and making them incon-
sistent one with the other. They indeed represent or illustrate things pertaining to the
church, individual and world, in relation to the Kingdom, but no such succession can be
possibly obtained from them without violence. Many examples, where this theory is
pressed into the aid of interpretation or application of Scripture, will suggest themselves
to the reader. We muy conclude, then, by saying, that a theory which can take a once
universally entertained faith of the church (as in this doctrine of the Kingdom) and sub-
stitute another for it without the express warrant of God’s own Word, is certainly unre-
liable and defective. And any theory which, under the specious plea of progression and
perfection, promises constantly increasing and advancing knowledge until the develop-
ment brings forth the blaze of the noonday Sun, runs directly against the plainest teachings
of the Holy Scriptures that inform us of the contrary. If there is a truth clearly taught
it is this : instead of looking for such pleasing growth, we are exhorted to look for con-
tinued apostasy, rejection of the truth, etc., until it culminates in the oppression of the
church, the martyrdom of saints, and such fearful woe that the Lord Christ Himself
shall come in vengeance as the Deliverer. Alas! why will men allow some favorite
theory to obscure the clearest announcements of heaven ?

Obs. 3. Others arise who totally ignore any reason whatever for such
phraseology. Advocates of progress, they do not even seek to employ the
phrases as expressive of a higher or deeper meaning, gradually evolved in
the advancement toward perfection of knowledge. Like the Parker school,
they tell us that God is constantly issuing New Testaments, inspired by the
same common, universal inspiration, and the later supersede the earlier.
The Kingdom once preached is an idle dream, fit for ignorant Jews and
disciples ; for inspiration in others (as e.g. Renan) has announced it to be
“a chimera.’? Many, too, that would recoil, justly, from being classed
with such men, adopt theories respecting the Kingdom and the early be-
lief, which logically and consistently places them on a leading doctrine of
the Bible in the same category. Allusion has been made to such under
Prop. 5, and it is found that they all claim, under special enlightenment,
the liberty of rejecting the meaning attached to the Kingdom before, and
at, the First Advent, and for several centuries following. They assume
the additional liberty of substituting a meaning, which to them seems cor-
respondent with their ideas of things now existing.
It is a sad fact, that it has become fashionable to place the fulfilling of the law and
the prophets in a purely moral light, and the more spiritual it can be made to appear, the
more satisfactory the explanation. The literal aspect of the subject is overlooked, passed
by in silence, or obtains a subordinate toleration, both as it refers to the First and the
Sec. Advent. The great boast of the age, coming from the most adverse directions, is the
wonderful increase of spiritual knowledge—a spiritual illumination that smiles at and
ridicules the simplicity and credulity that can believe what the plain grammatical lan-
guage of the opening New Test. teaches. Men arise, and, under the seductive influences
ot mystical conceptions, gravely claim that they, like—yea, some even more than—the
apostles, are led into all truth by the Spirit. For all such there is an unerring test: if
204 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 23.

any teaching is directly opposed to that which is recorded in Holy Writ, it is to be re-
jected at once, because the Spirit will not be in conflict with truth previously given.
Truth is harmonious and not discordant ; the Spirit is not antagonistic to itself. Ad-
mitting progressive knowledge in some things, it is derogatory to true knowledge to say,
as do others (Ecce Deus., p. 39), that the men of to-day know everything concerning the
Kingdom better than the original disciples and apostles ; which, echoed from many a
platform, is levelled at the foundation of scriptural authority in order to secure its over-
throw. For, if we are better witnesses, more competent to state the truth than those
specially selected for this purpose by Jesus, what force can their words possess? ‘To avoid
this destructive rock of unbelief, it is necessary to hold that irve progressive knowledge
must be in strict accordance and sympathy with the first preachers of the Kingdom of God.
Cast down the position that the Holy Scriptures contain the doctrinal truth, and the
wide door is opened either to boasting unbelief, or to the traditionalism of Roman Cathol-
icism, or to the vagaries of mysticism, Swedenborgianism, Fox, Ann Lee, Joseph Smith,
and a thousand others (including the latest, J. T. Curry of Georgia, the so-called
‘‘ prophet and apostle of a new dispensation’’), together with the speculations of Spirit-
ualists, Liberals, Freethinkers, Friends of Light, ete. If we once cast loose from the
anchor provided by heaven, there is no end to the claims made upon our belief —every
one, too, assuring us that he has the truth. The simple fact is this: it requires an
immense amount of assurance and pride (without questioning the honesty and motives
of the parties) to think that we know far more than Peter, John, Paul, etc., when all our
knowledge of divine things is based on that given by them, and when we really have
but a small portion of that which they possessed under the special guidance of the Spirit.
Hence, we repeat, that increase, growth in our knowledge must, so long as we receive the
Scriptures as divine and authoritative, be in unison with them. Every enlargement of
doctrinal apprehension, every conception of doctrinal truth, must find its affinity, its
foundation in the Word of God. In the development of view, that which occurs outside
and as a consequence of the Divine Record, the expression of human opinion, must be
carefully distinguished from a doctrinal growth legitimately (i.e. by comparison, analogy,
etc.) derived from Holy Writ (comp. Prop. 9, Obs. 3, on Doctrine). Any growth un-
natural to the Word itself (i.e. not plainly contained in it) may be set down as a foreign
growth, produced by grafting on the stock a branch taken from an outside source. Men
in search of truth must return to the old-fashioned notion that God’s words are “ pure
words,’ and that His doctrine does not require the devices of human wisdom either to be
remodelled, or changed, or burnished. They speak for themselves.

Obs. 4. Others, again, under the plea of non-essential, pass by this early
use of phraseology and its resultant effect on the church. In the reaction
against formalism, infidelity, etc., they go to the extreme of asserting that
a few elementary truths, sufficient to reach the masses, such as repentance
and faith, are all that are requisite. Their theological sphere is the most nar-
row and contracted, and the great fundamental theological questions relat-
ing to the Divine Purpose in Redemption are totally ignored. This class
finds no difficulty whatever in the early preaching ; for whatever does not
directly teach their view of the Kingdom is easily made to do so by spirit-
ualizing the grammatical sense.
Obs. 5. One of the most skilful, but abortive, efforts to reconcile the ut-
terances and expectations of the disciples and apostles with the notion of a
present spiritual Kingdom, is given by Reuss (His. Ch. Theol. of Apos.
Age). He frankly acknowledges, what he calls their Judaistic views, etc.,
but in the attempt to explain the matter, most amazingly sacrifices the
character of the apostles. Their reputation and scriptural standing as in- -
spired teachers, suffers in many a sentence, and a devout believer of the
Word arises from the perusal of the work with a deep feeling, that if Chris-
tianity needs a defense so depressingly apologetic, and so shockingly de-
grading to the first teachers of it, then something is radically wrong in its
fundamental source. It will not answer: to find, with a Hegelian micro-
PRoP. 23.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. - 205

scopic vision, a germ here and a germ there enveloped in a rude ‘‘ husk.”’
Truth, when thus handled, must, and does, suffer in the house of its
friends.
Many writers of eminence fully admit what they call “ Christianity circumscribed at
first within the narrow limits of a people’s hopes,’’ but assert as Reuss, ‘‘ The more con-
version and faith were recognized as the essential elements of the Gospel, the more did
mere hope become subsidiary.’’ Right here is one of the difficulties: hope, which is
also one of the essentials (‘‘ we are saved by hope,” etc.) of the Gospel, is placed in the
background because deemed ‘‘ circumscribed,” and individual religious experience,
mystical conceptions, etc., take its place. Illustrations drawn from various authors will
follow in succeeding Props.

Obs. 6. We are indebted to Jerome, and others like him, for the pecul-
iar style—now so familiar—in which the old views respecting the Kingdom
of heaven are sought to be eradicated, as based on no solid reason, by usin
the epithet ‘‘ Judaizers.’? Thus e.g. in his note on Isa, 11 : 10-16, he
lays down the broad, erroneous canon (which Fairbairn, On Proph., p.
254, seems approvingly to quote) : ‘‘ Let the wise and Christian reader
take this rule for prophetical promises, that those things which the Jews
and ours, not ours (but) Judaizers, hold to be going to take place carnally,
we should teach to have already taken place spiritually, lest by occasion
of fables and inexplicable questions of that sort (as the apostle calls them),
we should be compelled to Judaize.’’ What an admirable guide! Under
the plea of carnality, which is made to cover the grammatical sense and
literal fulfilment, the prophecies are to be spiritualized, no matter how,
only so that they teach nothing which may be accounted ‘‘ Jewish.’’
Need we wonder that the truth was overpowed by such tactics of interpre-
tation.
Obs. 7. All these methods assume as fundamental, that the Jews and
early believers were certainly mistaken and deluded. Not one attempts to
give a valid reason for the belief entertained. Now the impression made
to cover up a supposed deficiency in the Jews and ‘first preachers, and also
produced by the rejection of the doctrine of the Kingdom (held for several
centuries), on the specious but treacherous ground of superior knowledge
—no matter how obtained, by growth, spirit, reason, spiritualizing, etc.—is
this : that 1f the Word of God is really founded on what it professes, viz.:
the inspiration of holy men, 7¢ must not contain so glaring an inconsis-
tency. We shall now proceed step by step, continually fortified by Script-
ure, to show that the inconsistency only exists in the imagination of men ;
that the grammatical and historical sense is fully sustained by a continu-
ous Divine Purpose ; that the first preachers of the Kingdom, although
not acquainted with all the designs of God in relation to the Kingdom,
were not in error on the nature of the Kingdom itself ; and that neither
they, nor Jesus, by the use of the literal sense, accommodated themselves
to the prejudices, etc., of the Jews, depending on a future development
or revelation for a purer doctrine. To do this, constant appeal shall be
made ‘‘ to the law and the testimony ; if they speak not according to this
word, it is because there is no light in them’’ (Isa. 8 : 20); but while
thus employed, itis hoped that the reader will not fail to imitate the
noble Bereans (Acts 17 : 11), who, instead of looking outside of the Script-
ures for growth, etc., ‘* received the Word with all readiness of mind, and
206 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 23.

searched the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.’’ Sucha
position is the more necessary, since many professing to make this appeal
darken the simple testimony of Holy Writ to sustain an honestly entertain-
ed theory—a failing to which, through infirmity, we are all liable. Hence
the greater need of caution, and of a personal reference to the Word.
Prop. 24.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 207

Proposition 24. The Kingdom is offered to an elect nation, viz. :

the Jewish nation.
This election is so plainly stated in Scripture, and it is so cur-
rently admitted in our theological works, that it needs no proof.
Such passages as Deut. 7:6 and 14: 2, Rom. 11: 28 and 9: 11, etc.,
are decisive, that the sovereignty of God chose in the descendants
of Abraham, the Jews, a people through whom should be mani-
fested his Divine purpose in the salvation of man. Kurtz
(Sac. His., p. 71) has aptly said, in view of children being
raised up to Abraham against the course of nature: ‘‘ He, there-
fore, chose in Abraham a people which was called into existence
only by his almighty creative power.’’ This election is not to be
regarded, as some tell us, an act of favoritism, but as founded in
that wisdom which adopted it (as the end will manifest) as the best
means, under the circumstances in which fallen humanity was
placed, to reach, consistently with moral freedom, the largest por-
tion of mankind, having in view the ultimate establishment and
triumph—in opposition to depravity—ot God’s Kingdom.
The Kingdom was offered to this chosen, elected nation, as is
evinced, e.g., in Ex. 19: 5, 6, where it is declared that if faithful
and obedient, it should be God’s ‘‘ peculiar treasure above all peo-
ple,’ and it should become ‘‘a kingdom of priests and a holy
nation.”
The reason for such election is given, e.g. Deut. 7 : 7-11, and the assurance of its
perpetuation is also presented in God’s love and oath. The reader ought not to over-
look this, as it has an important bearing on the subject of the Kingdom, as developed
more fully hereafter. Some infidels ridicule the smallness of the Jewish nation in this
connection, as if it was unworthy of Deity to stoop so low and exhibit such interest to a
few people ; but the Spirit expressly asserts that the nation was not chosen ‘‘ because ye
were more in number than any people ; for ye were the fewest of all the people.’’ God
thus forestalls the wretched attempt at witticism so current in recent books. In refer-
ence to the passage Rom. 9 : 11, Schmucker (Pop. Theol., p. 117) justly argues that it
does not relate to personal salvation, but has a national aspect. But he, with many
others, emasculates the force of the election when he only makes this nation God’s “ ex-
ternal, visible people, whom He determined to separate from the rest of mankind and
make the depositories of His religion.” This, as the reader will see, is only a small por-
tion appertaining to their election.

Obs. 1. The Kingdom itself thus offered to them is @ divine-political

(church and state united) dominion, over which God Himself, as an earthly
Ruler, presides or rules as the Supreme. Moses and the Prophets clearly
show this by constantly uniting the divine and the political in their instruc-
tions ; by making God’s commands, both civil and religious, the sovereign
law ; by stating that the object of the nation’s call, and the bestowment
208 THE TITEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 24.

of peculiar privileges and power, was the overruling and superseding of all
earthly governments, thus exalting their God and King over all ; and by
teaching that through the Kingdom thus established, al] nations should
ultimately be brought under the subjection and allegiance of the great
King.
As we proceed, the Scriptures teaching this will be abundantly adduced ; for the
present it is sufficient to direct attention to the beginning and end of God’s plan. Who
doubts that this was the purpose (i.e. to make it a universal dominion over the earth)
when God determined this kingdom from the foundation of the world? Theologians
justly tell us that anything less would have been derogatory to the honor, the sovereignty
of God. Why, then, gloss over Dan. 2:44 and 7 : 14, 18, 27, etc., and deny that God
ever contemplated for this Kingdom such a union of church and state, a political dominion
wholly under divine control? It is a refreshing omen to see men hostile to our views, still
admit, as Neander, etc., that God’s purposes in relation to this Kingdom must inevitably
—if Scripture is fulfilled —exhibit itself in a great, outward political world dominion, under
divine rule and guidance. Hundreds of quotations (some will be given hereafter) from
eminent men attest that such is the scriptural idea. Men, too, like Dr. Arnold, feel that
the biblical idea of such a dominion has been kept in the background, and they strive to
revive it, but mistake the time and manner of its manifestation, attributing to this dis-
pensation and to present means what Holy Writ ascribes to the following dispensation
and to Jesus the Christ. Such deep thinkers as Rothe are nearer the truth, and coincide
with prophecy, when they make the church, as now existing, but a temporary institu-
tion, making it to be united with the state in one great theocratic ordering, and the
realization of such a permanent union depending on the future personal manifestation
of the Saviour Jesus. . Look at the end contemplated, as predicted by the prophets (e.g.
Zech. 14 : 9, etc.), and given in the last testimony of Jesus (Apoc. 11: 15, etc.), and this
is the grand position that the Kingdom of God is to attain : absolute control over all
the kingdoms of the earth—such a world-wide dominion that all nations shall bend in
joyful, blessed obedience to its behests. This was the Kingdom offered to the Jewish
nation.

Obs. 2. The attention is now directed to the fact that the Jewish nation is
an elect nation to whom a Kingdom is offered—which election, although
occupying an important place in the consideration of the Kingdom, is
passed over or ignored in many theologies, even in recent Bib. Theolo-
gies, just as if it was not reconfirmed by the apostles. Explain it as we
may, this election is a fundamental fact, which (as will be proven here-
after) has a deep and permanent significancy in relation to the Kingdom.
The infidel, of course, rejects the claim, and makes it the subject of ridicule. The
extreme Calvinist finds here a very tender place, in which (as e.g. Pres. Edwards, etc.) he
manifests a glaring inconsistency. With his views of election in reference to the indi-
vidual, viz.: that it is fixed and eternal, he cannot possibly explain this election of the
Jewish nation, so long as he claims that it was transient, failed, etc., and takes the bless-
ings promised to this elect nation and heaps them upon Gentiles. Hence it is that for
the sake of theory he wisely (?) passes it by as a discordant element. The low Armin-
ian, who makes all election to consist in foreknown belief, etc., finds in this subject
some stubborn facts, indicating that God’s ultimate purposes are not invariably thus
conditioned, and he, too, turns from it as unwelcome. The student willing to receive—
whether Calvinist or Arminian, irrespective of previously formed opinions—the teach.
ings of Scripture, will not turn away from this point.

Obs. 3. Briefly, let some of the reasons underlying the Prop. be pre-.
sented. (1) The Jewish nation, as a nation, was thus chosen; for the
Kingdom having in view, as intimated, a divine political world dominion,
it is pre-eminently suitable that a nation—alone susceptible of kingly goy-
ernment, etc.—should be selected for its acceptance and final realization.
God in His Sovereignty and mercy raised up this nation. It is customary
 Prop. 24.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 209

' with some writers to designate this election ‘‘ a historical claim,’’ which,
indeed, may be allowed, but has no particular signification. (2) Admit-
ting cheerfully the historical connection as indispensable, we see in it a
deeper design, out ef which history itself arises. The election embraces a
nationality, viz. : the natural descendants of Abraham in their associated
capacity. It includes them all, so far as descent im a certain line is con-
cerned (as well as those who may be adopted by the nation), which is
clearly seen by what some term ‘* exclusiveness’”’ (but actually necessary,
indispensably so, to preserve a unity in the intended dominion), or by
** the middle wall of partition’? which divided them from other nations, or
by the declaration of Paul (Rom. 9 : 4 and 11 : 28), that even to the unbe-
lieving Jews pertained ‘‘ the adoption,’’ i.e. this election in view of national
connection, and that, although ‘‘ enemies’’ yet, ‘‘ as touching the election
(i.e. this choice of the nation), they are beloved for the father’s sake.”’
In other words, none but a member of this nation, being a Jew, had this
Kingdom offered to him until the election—unmistakably enlarged—
embraced others by way of adoption as the seed of Abraham. (3) This
election of the Jewish nation was an absolute, unconditional (i.e. relating
to the Purpose of God) election so far as its national descent from Abra-
ham is affected, i.e. the kingdom is solely promised to the descendants of
Abraham in their national aspect (which is verified, as we shall see here-
after, by the covenants, confirmed by oath) ; and hence arises the necessity
of Gentiles (as we shall show), who shall participate in this Kingdom,
being grafted in, becoming members of, the commonwealth of Israe). (4)
The unbelief and sinfulness of the nation may, indeed, for a while remove
the mercy and favor of God, but it does not remove the election ; for when
the children of Abraham, composing this nation, are gathered out, both
natural and engrafted, the election, never set aside, conditions the restora-
tion of the nation in order that the promises to the nation, as such, and to
the faithful Jews, as members of the nation, may be fulfilled. Hence the
restoration of the nation is invariably linked with the setting up of the
Kingdom.' (5) The Scripture indicative of this continued election will
be brought forth as our argument advances. It is amply sufficient at this
stage to direct the earnest attention of the reader to the last, solemn, most
intensely impressive words of Moses, Deut. 32 : 1-43, in which the elect
condition of the nation is delineated, then a deep and long-continued apos-
tasy is represented as pertaining to this favored nation, followed by pro-
longed punishment ; but this does not vitiate the nation’s election, for
God’s Purpose in reference to it still stands good, and the promise of the
Eternal, Unchangeable is recorded, that the same elect nation, chastened
and scourged, scattered and dispersed, shall be recalled and exalted in
glory. (6) While the nation, comprising the natural descendants of
Abraham, is thus chosen, it does not follow that every individual in it is
thus personally elected. The election is ¢wofold—in its reach after the
nationality, and in its application to the individual member of the nation.
It, in the latter case, only pertains to the believing, obedient portion of
the nation. This Paul, in Rom. 9 and 11, distinctly teaches. ‘he nation
in its corporate capacity may reject the truth, but God, when for a time
punishing the nation, instead of raising up children to Abraham out of
stones (Matt. 3: 9) to keep up a seed unto Abraham, gathers them out
from among the Gentiles, grafting them in, adopting them with pre-
ceding believers as the nation, restores the Jewish nationality as pre-
210 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 24.

dicted, and gives to them the Kingdom—His Divine Purpose is carried out ;
His election fails not. But with the individual it is far otherwise :
God chooses him conditioned. to faith and obedience, and if these fail, if
the conditions are unfulfilled, then God has no other purpose ; the indi-
vidual fails to become of the elect, the chosen, the predetermined number,
to whom the Kingdom is given. In the case of the nation the ultimate
Divine Purpose is wnalterable ; even if the nation for a time prove unfaith-
ful, that Purpose is assumed by the Saviour (e.g. Matt. 19 : 28) as wn-
changeable ;but this is not so with the individual, for in this particular
the assumption is, that he may not receive the Kingdom—some other one
(Rev. 3 : 11) may obtain the crown.’ (7%) The election is made in view of
this kingdom, so that it can be established and manifested. Through the
elect Jewish nation, in its restored Davidic throne and Kingdom, under
the personal rule of David’s Son in glorified humanity, and through the
elect (natural and engrafted) Jews, who are ‘‘ chosen in Him (Christ) from
the foundation of the world’”’ (i.e. they being predetermined associated
rulers with Christ), shall this divinely constituted world dominion be ex-
hibited. These particulars, thus epitomized, will be fully confirmed by
the Propositions following, the Scripture proof being given and the vari-
ous objections answered.
1 Baldwin (Armageddon, p. 88) totally misapprehends the elect condition of the nation
in the Divine Purpose, and hence gives place to such ideas as the following : ‘‘ The sole
and simple secret of their (Jews) existence, as a distinct people, is their infidelity. And
God has no further interfered in this preservation than may be implied in His making
their sin their curse.’’ According to this new theory—advanced by various writers and
held by some sects—unbelief is a most excellent national preservative! Those who deny
the future restoration of the nation are met in their denial by this election and its
design.
2 Reference is made to the doctrine of election to distinguish between that pertaining
to the nation and personal election or choice. How the latter is produced, etc., does
not fall within our discussion. The temperate view of Horne (Introd., vol. 1, p. 23, foot-
note) is ours ;to which we may add, that persons discussing the subject of personal
election too much overlook the foundation of this term as seen in the predetermined num-
ber of inheritors of this very Kingdom. In this conection it may also be said, that some
of the Jews recognizing the election of the nation, so distinctively taught, made it cover
the personal election of the individual—thus relieving him of responsibility, and making
birth a sufficient test and merit. Thus e.g. Turretin (quoted by Horne, Introd., vol. 1,
p. 394) gives a passage from the Codex Sanhedrin, which affirms : “ that every Jew had a
portion in the future world,” and another from the Talmud, which says: ‘‘ that Abra-
ham is sitting near the gates of hell, and does not permit any Israelite, however wicked
he may be, to descend into hell.” The mere sign of circumcision, although a sign
pertaining to the elect people, did not in its outward application make one of the elect
unless accompanied by a corresponding moral and religious spirit. So Jesus teaches,
John 7 : 34-44. But still the elect were circumcised as a sign of covenant relationship.
The same is now true of baptism ; the outward, unless accompanied by the inward,
avails nothing, although every believer receives it as indicative of covenant relationship,

Obs. 4. Recent writers (e.g. Fairbairn, On Proph., p. 60) speak very

disparagingly of reckoning the natural descent from Abraham as part of
the election, stating that the election had sole reference to a higher, viz.:
a spiritual distinction and significance. But this is antagonistic to the
Word and the facts as given. How comes it, then, that the covenants are
given fo the Jewish race? That this election is confined to the Jewish race
and those adopted into that race? That the election is traced directly
through the descendants of Abraham and those incorporated as Abraham’s
seed? That all the prophets, all the inspired teachers, Jesus and the
Prop. 24.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 211

apostles, are Jews? That the election of the nation is recognized dy Jesus
and the apostles, and that the Gentiles were only afterward admitted by
special revelation, and then only as the acknowledged children of Abraham ?
These and similar questions must first be answered before we can possibly
accept of such a theory. The misapprehension arises from not discrimi-
nating that the true seed are faithful Jews, or become such by faith, . being
the actual descendants of Abraham, or accounted such—part of the race to
whom the covenants are given. It does not follow, because God designs to
exalt and bless the nation, that a disobedient Jew will obtain the blessings
of election ; for while the race, as a race, is chosen, it is not said that
every individual of the race is also ultimately chosen. The fact is, that
very few, comparatively, may avail themselves of the opportunity afforded ;
but that does not vitiate the election of the portion of the race that is faith-
ful, and it does not alter God’s final purpose in reference to the nation it-
self. If we reject this, then we surround the calling and separation of the
Jewish race with insurmountable difficulties. The effort to spiritualize it
away is not sustained by a single fact. Let the reader but consider : if
the election only embraced the pious, irrespective of Jewish descent, why
was the election hedged around dy the restriction of descent? why was the
calling of the Gentiles postponed to a definite time? why fordid the first
preachers of the Gospel of the Kingdom to go to the Gentiles, ete. ?
Theologians speak most depreciatingly of this election, and of the Jewish view based
on it. Itis true that some Jews perverted it to the extent, that personal salvation, no
matter what the life, was deduced from it. But the perversion does not affect the doc-
trine. Dr. Knapp (Ch. Theology, p. 319), misapprehending the election in its reference
to the Jewish nation, thus endeavors to rebuke Jewish belief : “ The national pride of
the Jews led them into the mistake that God had @ special regard for them ; that they
were more agreeable to him than other nations ; that they exclusively were his children ;
and that the Messiah was only designed for them,” etc. That God had “a special re-
gard for them,” that He esteemed them beyond other nations, that they were specially
under His fatherly care, that the Messiah was from them and for them, etc., is specifically
asserted, and the Jewish covenant relationship conclusively proves it. Even Knapp him-
self, if ever saved with perfected Redemption, will be saved as an adopted son of Abra-
ham’s. Knapp’s references to sustain his rebuke have no force argumentatively, for the
one based oun the rejection of the Kingdom by the Jews, and the other on the foreknown
rejection of the nation and call of the Gentiles, overlook the predictions and prom-
ises that such a rejection is only temporary—the nation is punished for its unbelief and
sinfulness. Gentiles, alas, forget the relationship that they sustain, as believers, to this
very nation ; and such rebukes fall, unjustly, upon the foundations of our hope. On he
other hand, it is a matter of surprise that Jews are so unappreciative of their most hon-
orable extraction, that some foolishly endeavor to conceal their Jewish origin, even to
the changing of their names, as e.g. from Abraham to Braham, etc, The day will come
(comp. Prop. 114) when such conduct will be reprobated.

Obs. 5. The saying of Augustine, quoted with such evident approbation

by Fairbairn, ‘‘ The faith of Abraham is the seed of Abraham,’’ has been
received by multitudes as containing the whole sum of truth, when, in
point of fact, it simply grazes the truth. If Augustine is correct, why
confine the election to a certain period exclusively to the Jewish race, and
why, when afterward the election embraced the Gentiles, have the believ-
ing Gentiles held as grafted in and adopted as one with that same Jewish
race? This at once removes volumes of sophistical reasoning on this sub-
ject. The Jew, if faithful, was of the election ; the Jew, if unfaithful,
was reckoned as a heathen ; but it was stzll the Jew, the actual descendant
of Abraham, that was saved. Why the Jew? Because God made a cove-
212 TILE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 24.

nant with their ancestor, and gaye certain promises through that covenant
pertaining to that ancestor’s seed. If any one says (as, alas, many do),
perverting the language of Paul applicable to another feature, that the
having the blood of Abraham in their veins amounted to nothing (which
is true, when accompanied by unbelief, as Jesus taught), he simply fails
to recognize the plain fact that Jews were called, and not Gentiles ; a coyve-
nant was made with Jews, and not with Gentiles ; the promises were given
to Jews, and not to Gentiles ; that salvation 7s of the Jews, and not of the
Gentiles ; that this salvation is yet to be openly manifested through the Jews,
and not through the Gentiles ; and that Gentiles receive and inherit with
the natural descendants of Abraham only as they areincorporated. If some,
or many, of the Jews made themselves unworthy to receive the promises,
that does not alter the unchangeable fact, that the worthy descendants, and
engrafted ones, of Abraham do obtain them. Hence we dare not say:
‘Their condition did not essentially differ from that of the heathen,’’
because facts are against it.
Obs.6. Therefore it is inconsistent to make (as e.g. Fairbairn, Whate-
ly and others) this elect people a type of others—the type of a future
people—thus misapplying the word “‘ Israel.’? The reason is apparent: a
type prefigures or foreshadows something that is to be accomplished or
realized in the future, but the election made out an accomplished, con-
stantly realized fact ; for they themselves were chosen, and not typically
chosen to represent some future choosing ; and hence, as we shall show,
the elect in the future, i.e. in this dispensation, are held up to us as a con-
tinwation of the elect nation—of the same divine purpose in selecting a
people who, ancient and modern, are to be constituted members of the same
covenanted people, and thus, by virtue of their relationship, the inheritors
of God’s Kingdom. If they are such members and heirs, it is folly, de-
structive to a proper apprehension of much Scripture, to make them types.
The typical arrangements (“‘ the shadow of things to come”), which were designed to
sustain the faith of these elect, are unnecessarily confounded with the elect themselves, and
this introduces confusion, breaking the unity of the Word. Ifa Moses, or Aaron, or
Joshua, in their official capacity sustained the relation of types, it does not follow that their
election is also typical, for if 1t were, then the natural result of types would appear, viz.:
that when the antetype is revealed the type itself must vanish, thus destroying the
hopes, etc., of these ancient worthies. It is therefore misleading to say, as Martensen
(Ch. Dog., p. 233), that the Jewish nation is “ the typical people.’’ The nation is no type,
for it composes the real Kingdom of God when the Theocracy is manifested within it ; and,
hence in view of this relationship, the necessity of incorporation with it. If it were
merely typical of another people (viz.: Christian believers in the church), why must such
a people also become Abraham’s seed? The only Scriptures adduced by Martensen in
support of his opinion, say nothing of the typical character of the nation, but refer to
certain acts (1 Cor. 10 : 11) that were typical, and (Heb. 10) that even in the Theocratic
ordering some incorporated religious rites were only a foreshadowing of “‘ good things to
come.” Nowhere is the nation itself made a type, for this, if done, would be fundamentally
opposed to covenant and promise. This misapprehension of an important fact by so care-
ful a writer as Martensen, and which necessarily colors the interpretation of much Script-
ure, only reminds us how careful man ought to be when dealing with the things of
God. Even Macknight (Com. Rom. 9 : 8) declares: ‘‘ The natural seed (is) the type of
the spiritual, and the temporal blessings the emblems of the eternal.” Our argument, as
we proceed, will conclusively show that the Theocratic ordering alone, inseparably joined
to the nation, proves the nation no type.

Obs. 7. Pressense (The Redeemer, p. 61) says: ‘‘ The election of a family

and of a people has not for its object to create a privileged race.”? This
Prop. 24.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 213

against Deut. 7:6; Rom. 9 : 3-5 andch. 11, and a host of passages, be-
sides the important part this people is yet to play (Prop. 114) in the
world’s history. He endeavors to show that the election is a ministry by
which others are to be blessed. While most cheerfully and reverently
acknowledging that the present and ultimate purpose of this election is to
bless all the families of the earth, yet to effect this very design one object
is to raise up a privileged class, through whom this shall be effectually and
permanently accomplished. 'This will be seen under the Propositions re-
lating to the Covenants, the Kingship and Priesthood of the saints, ete.
yen Pressense contradicts himself when afterward he speaks of the Jews’
isolation, receiving revelations, promises, etc., above all other nations,
which certainly indicates them to have been a highly privileged people.
Failing to perceive that the election itself is bound up in and part—out-
wardly expressed—of the Divine Purpose, he boldly adds the following:
“*A transient (?) fact (viz. : election) having a special object is converted into
a permanent fact. They (certain interpreters) make the church a satel-
lite of Judaism, called to shine in the future only (?) with the brightness
which it borrows from that system. That there are blessings reserved
(why ?) for this people, we cordially concede, but that their destiny shall
forever be as if it were the axis of universal religious history, we deny,
even in the name of Abraham’s election.’? Alas! when the stock upon
which we are grafted is thus slightingly treated ! How largely it affects
the interpretation of God’s Wordand Purpose! Our reply to this—as well
as to the expression : ‘‘ Humanity exists only for the Jews, and not the
Jews for humanity’’—will be found under the Abrahamic and Davidic cov-
enants and the calling of the Gentiles, for our reliance is upon Scriptural
evidence.
It is proper to refer to this matter in this connection, that the reader may clearly see
the fundamental questions that must, preparatively, be discussed. Theology, departing
from the Primitive Church view, has too often grossly misconceived and perverted the
election of the Jews, because all the purposes contemplated by that election have not yet
been made manifest. And some deny that it any longer exists, being, as Pressense as-
serts, ‘‘ alransient”’ matter. Our faithin this national election must be like Paul’s (Rom.
11), that, cut off from its realization for a period, it is still sure, and will be openly
shown by their being re-engrafted, because (od's purposes are unchangeable, and cannot
be defeated by man. If the election is ‘* transient’ and not continued in engrafting
Gentiles, who are to inherit the promises given to the elect Jews ; how do Pressense
and others indulge the hope of inheriting the promises with the Patriarchs? It is still
true to-day, if we properly apprehend the foundations of our hope, what God puts in the
mouth of man, as a suitable, comprehensive petition in Ps. 104:4, 5, It is vain to
interpose our own systems, as if they were God’s arrangements.

Obs. 8. ‘* The middle wall of partition’? proves both the election and
the elevation to a privileged class. But many writers (e.g. Hodge, Sys.
Div., vol. 3, p. 810) boldly and self-confidently assert, without the least
Scripture to sustain it (being sheer inference), that this ‘‘ middle wall’’ was
broken down between the Jewish nation and other nations. This is a grave
mistake, as every one can readily see by a comparison of passages relating to
it. The Scriptures simply declare, that the ‘‘ wall’’ is broken down between
natural Jewish and Gentile delievers, so that all of every nationality, when
exercising faith in Jesus, become one in Christ. Instead of being broken
down between nations, the fact is asserted only respecting believers ; and this
is proven by the additional fact, that no other nation sustains the same rela-
tionship to God that the Jewish does, i.e. is a covenanted nation, ete. We
214 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 24.

are informed, however, by our opponents, that the expression means that
all the restrictions between Jew and Gentile were removed. The Word
teaches the exact reverse, that some still remain. Thus e.g. to the natural
descendants of Abraham is exclusively given a covenant with certain prom-
ises ; only those who are identified with the nation—this distinctive race—
have any right to the covenanted blessings. The nation is chosen not
merely as a depositary of the truth, but as the vehicle or medium through
which the Saviour is to come, and finally completed Redemption in a man-
ifested Kingdom under the reign of that Redeemer ; for, somehow, all the
prophets link the glory of the Messianic Kingdom with the Jewish race.
The individual Jew, on the principle of faith, can only justly claim the
promises given by covenant to his people. But now an emergency arises to
test the validity and perpetuity of covenant relationship. The nation
proves unfaithful, and now God, to fulfil this sume covenant and the iden-
tical promises given to this people to be realized through them, extends this
principle of faith to the Gentiles, no¢ by demolishing the covenant and prom-
ises and election, not by taking the same away from the race (for then the
election, confirmed by oath, would prove a nullity, and God had undertaken
what He could not accomplish), but, as Paul expressly informs us, by graft-
ing the Gentile into the Jewish stock, by adopting him (in law) as a veri-
table child, legally constituted descendant of Abraham, and entitled by vir-
tue of such adoption to the privileges and blessings promised, through
Abraham, to his seed, the Jewish race. If there is no restriction, why vs it
necessary to become a child of Abraham’s, and thus inherit the promises
with the faithful Jews? This very incorporation, so much insisted on and
regarded as essential, proves that ‘‘ the wall’ is only broken down between
believers ; and to facilitate this incorporation or engrafting, the rampart
itself, i.e. the Mosaic ritual, was removed, giving Gentiles better access
wherever they are. The Mosaic economy—likened also to a wall or forti-
fication—introduced to preserve intact the elect nation, owing to its sep-
arating and exclusive injunctions, is not the election ; it is only a tempo-
rary outgrowth from it, and hence may be abolished without in the least
affecting the foundations, which lie beyond it in the Abrahamic covenant.
This will be seen as we proceed with the argument.
This most effectually answers the objections urged by Hengstenberg in The Jews and
the Christian Church, when he makes ‘“‘ the type of Jewish nationality stamped on ail
nations that entered into the Church of Christ,’’ so that, at the Christian era, ‘‘ their
true nationality terminated.’’ The Church of Christ is not composed of nations,
but of individuals out of the nations, and those very individual believers are incor-
porated into the commonwealth of Israel, i.e. they are by faith engrafted, and this,
now accepted by faith as in God’s purpose, will be openly manifested at the restoration of
the Davidic throne and kingdom. And then it will be seen, that instead of ‘‘ their orig-
nal nationality having become the common property of all Christians” in the sense of
‘¢ Christian nations,’’ it belongs exclusively to believers. The objections urged against
our view, and the resultant restoration of the Jewish nation, which inevitably must fol-
low, are inferential, and are chiefly drawn from the present state of the nation, over-
looking that this period is ‘‘ the times of the Gentiles,’’ which are to end so that God's
purposes concerning the Jewish nation may be manifested. The simple fact is, that in
this respect Hengstenberg, and others, look at the Record in the light of a preconceived
idea of the Christian Church being the properly covenanted Kingdom of God, and this
influences the interpretation of election, covenant, and prophecy.

Obs. 9. In this connection, most briefly we say, that the election of the
Jewish nation, and the tender of the Kingdom to it, positively requires, if
PROP. 24.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 215

the purposes of that election are ever carried out, the perpetuation of the
Jewish nation, even if it be in a very reduced form, comprising a mere
remnant. ‘The natural seed itself must be preserved, in order that God’s
faithfulness in promise may be exhibited in and through the nation.
Hence, this is most strikingly represented in Isa. 6 : 9-13, where, after pre-
dicting the unbelief of the nation and the consequent devastation and re-
moval for a time from the land, this giving up ‘‘ to destruction (is) like the
terebinth and like the oak, of which when they are cut down, only a root
stump remains: such a root-stump is a holy seed.’? That is, it is regarded
sacred, and will ultimately become holy. Following Propositions will, at
length, indicate why and how this is done. God will never utterly forsake
them, but. will remember what He has so often declared, as e.g. 2 Sam.
7:24. The punishment, the scattering and desolation, of the Jewish
nation is itself proof of their election as, e.g. Amos (ch. 3 : 2), declares :
‘* You only have I known of all the families of the earth : therefore I will
punish you for all your iniquities.”” This casting off is only temporary,
as evidence e.g. Zech. 10 : 6, etc.
216 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 25.

Proposition 25. The Theocracy was an earnest, introductory,

or initiatory form of this Kingdom.
The Theocracy, which had typical and ceremonial observances, as
Paul teaches, that were to be removed in Christ, had a form of
government which, prophecy instructs us, is to be fully exhibited
in all its beauty and excellency wnder the Messiah, the great
Jewish king, David’s son. A host of able writers, as, e.g., Mar-
tensen (Ch. Dog., p. 230), call ‘‘ the Theocracy the Kingdom of
God.”
Provisionary in some of its aspects, the Theocracy still possessed the essential elements
of God’s Kingdom, and gave an earnest only of what God intends. It was a form of
government under the sole, accessible Headship of God Himself (Deut. 5, etc.). He was
the Supreme Lawgiver in civil and religious affairs (Deut. 4:12 and 12 : 32), and when
difficult cases required it (Deut. 17 : 8-13), the Divine Arbiter or Judge. In brief, the
legislative, executive, and judicial power was vested in Him, and partially delegated to others,
to be exercised under a restricted form (Deut. 16:18, etc.). All the people (Deut.
29 : 10-13), in their civil, religious, social, and family relations, were to acknowledge, and
be obedient to His expressed will, He communicated His will according to an or-
dained manner, and when not declared, or where there was doubt, the princes or lead-
ers could come for inquiry and receive specific directions. As an indication and re-
minder of this Supremacy, all the people were required at certain times in the year
(Deut 16 : 16, etc.) to visit the place of special manifestation, and renew their vows of
allegiance. The prophets (e.g. Isa. 1 : 21-24) spoke for God to the highest and lowest,
and their rebukes were in the name of the Supreme Head. M’Clintock and Strong’s
Cyclop., Art. ‘‘ Monarchy, Israelitish,’’ says : ‘‘ According to the sense of the Mosaic
constitution, the Hebrews were erected into a kind of republic under the immediate
dominion of Jehovah, forming a strict theocracy.’’ Fairbairn (Typology, vol. 2, p. 391) gives
as the true idea, and distinctive nature of a Theocracy, ‘‘ the formal exhibition of God as
King, or Supreme Head of the Commonwealth; so that all authority and law emanated
from Him, and, by necessary consequence, there were not two societies in the ordinary
sense, civil and religious, but a fusion of the two into one body” (comp. his able article
on ‘*‘ The Jewish Theocracy’’ and Locke’s definition in ‘‘ Treat. on Toleration’’).

Obs. 1. Kurtz (Sac. His., p. 113) has aptly defined : the ‘‘ Theocracy is
a government of the State by the immediate direction of God ; Jehovah con-
descended to reign over Israel in the same direct manner in which an
earthly king reigns over his people.’’ Gleig (His. Bible, vol. 1, p. 218)
says: ‘‘ With wisdom worthy of Himself, He assumed not merely a
religious, but a political, superiority, over the descendants of Abraham;
He constituted Himself, in the strictest sense of the phrase, Aing of
Israel, and the government of Israel became, in consequence, strictly and
literally, a Theocracy.”’
Comp. Horne’s Jntrod., vol. 2, p. 41, Art. ‘‘ Theocracy” in Smith’s Dic.; Kitto’s,
Calmet’s, etc., Cyclops. Indeed, many, unaware bow fundamental an accurate knowl-
edge of the Theocracy is for a proper understanding of the Kingdom of God, and how
largely it enters into the composition of the Millenarian argument, make all the conces-
sions possible, viz.: that it is the Kingdom of God, a kingdom on earth, over which God
rules in a special, direct manner as an earthly king, etc. References in abundance
might be adduced, for good definitions are to’ be found in many able works. Josephus
Prop. 25.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 217
(C. Ap. 2: 17) appropriately called this government of God’s over: their nation, so differ-
ent from a simple monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, or any other form, ‘‘ @ Theocracy,”
which expresses the leading fact, thatof God Himself being the recognized King. Some
definitions are defective, and lead to error on an important point. Thus e.g. Dixon
(quoted by Stanley, His. Jewish Ch.) pronounces it to be ‘ta government by priests,
conducted in the name of God.’’ Stanley (Lec. 7) forcibly shows that this is opposed
by the facts, and then correctly says: ‘‘'The Theocracy of Moses was not a government
by priests as opposed to kings ; it was a government by (fod Himself, as opposed to the
government by priests or kings. It was, indeed, in its highest sense, as appeared after-
ward in the time of David, compatible both with regal and sacerdotal rule.” Originally
and primarily all civil and religious law proceeded from God, and others in the govern-
ment were subordinates to carry into execution the supreme will of the King, i.e. God. The
Theocracy is something then very different from the Divine Sovereignty, and must not be
confounded with the same, as e.g. is done by the able lecturer Cook who (as quoted in
Cin. Gazette, March 27th, 1877) says: ‘‘ We must assert, that the fact of the Divine Im-
manence in matter and mind makes the world and nations a Theocracy.’’ The word is
abundantly perverted ; Romanists apply it to their church ; Protestants, to the Christian
Church ; Unbelievers, to priestly rule ; writers, to Christian states, and even (as Milli-
gen) to the Turkish state, etc., thus violating the fundamental and essential idea involved
in its meaning. Baring-Gould (Orig. and Devel. of Relig. Belief, p. 134) correctly gives
the meaning, when he says that ‘‘ Jehovah, the Most High, was the Sovereign of the
race, reigning directly by Himself, and indirectly through Prophet, Levites, Judges,
Kings, and the Law ;’ but he fails in two points: (1) when he makes the Theocratic
form to have already existed in the days of the Patriarchs, and (2) when he remarks :
*“ the apostolic and sub-apostolic age was one of pure divine theocracy. To this succeeded
the sacerdotal theocracy of the Middle Ages, gradually tending toward the regal theoc-
racy, exhibiting itself in the consecration of kings and resignation to their hands of the
appointment of prelates and the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline.’? The simple
fact is, that since the overthrow of the Hebrew Theocracy, God has not acted in the
capacity of earthly Ruler, with a set form of government, for any nation or people on
earth ; and the application of the word to any nation or people, or organization since
then, is a perversion and prostitution of its plain meaning. Rogers (Superh. Orig. of the Bible,
p. 77) justly observes : ‘‘ The Jewish system of government was a@ genuine Theocracy.
God was presumed to have constituted Himself Monarch of the Stale, and hence its con-
trast with every other form of government in the ancient world. It was an anomaly.
Politics were identified with religion, the sacred and civil codes were essentiully one, and
the priestly functions assumed a paramount importance. God was the invisible but real
Sovereign. Moses himself was merely His servant and administrator ; he did not affect
to be, like the Grand Lama, or even the Pope, the visible representative and vicegerent
of God.’’ As this Theocratic idea will form an important element in our argument as it
advances, a few more references may be in place. The Ancient His. of the East, p. 99,
says : “ The fundamental principle of this legislation is the supreme authority of God
over the people of Israel (1 Sam. 8:7 ;12:12). He was in the literal sense of the word
their Sovereign ; and all other authority, both in political and civil affairs, was subordinate
to the continual acknowledgment of His own.’’ Wines (Com. Heb. Laws, p. 48-9) says
that Jehovah was ‘‘ the Civil Head of the State’ ; ‘‘ God was, by the compact which we
have been considering, constituted King of the Hebrews, a defection from Him was a de-
fection from their rightful sovereign.” And (p. 268) ‘‘ God was the temporal Sovereign of
the Israelites ;’ (p. 456), ‘‘ Jehovah was the Civil Head of the Hebrew state,’’ ‘‘ the law-
making power and the sovereignty of the state were vested in Him” ; (p. 481), “ God
condescended to assume the title and relation to the Hebrew people of chief Civil Ruler.
He established a Civil Sovereignty over them ;”’ (p. 538), “ The supreme authority of the
Hebrew state was in Jehovah--God Himself was properly King of Israel.’* But Wines
makes it ‘‘ a restricted Theocracy”’ and no ‘‘ pure Theocracy,’’ because it had other
‘* civil rulers, men who exercised authority over other men, and were acknowledged and
obeyed as lawful magistrates.’’ But the institution of such subordinate rulers is an
integral part of a pure Theocracy (as evidenced in the re-establishment), leaving the
Supremacy untouched and fully acknowledged. The purest Theocracy, adapted to the
government of nations, that reason can suggest, must necessarily, as a means of honor-
ing the Supreme Ruler and advancing His authority, etc., have its subordinate rulers.

Obs. 2. The Theocracy, as once established, is only the earnest, or initi-

atory or introductory form, giving the grand outlines or fundamental
 218 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 25.

principles, because it still lacked some features to perfect it, that God in-
tended (as will be shown hereafter) to develop afterward. Typical observ-
ances were to give place to the antitype ; religious ceremonials were to be
superseded by others. The King, too, was invisible ; His majesty could
not be revealed because a perfect Mediator was lacking—a satisfactory
atonement of sin was wanting. But when the Redeemer appointed has
come, when the atonement is made, when the Mediator is God manifested
in humanity, then provision is made to insure, when the time arrives, the
visibility of the Theocratic King Himself. Briefiy, turn to the Theocracy
as itexisted, and then ‘read what the Prophets declare of this same Theoc-
racy as tt shall be manifested under the reign of the Messiah, and it will
be seen that, while the fundamentals which constitute it a 'Theocracy re-
main intact, yet gloriows additions productive of happiness and blessing
are incorporated with it at its future re-establishment.

Obs. 3. Here is where eminent writers fall into a mistake, that greatly
influences subsequent interpretation of Scripture. Thus, e.g. Lange (Com.
Matt. 3 : 2) calls the Theocracy the Kingdom of God in its typical form.
(So Fairbairn, Typology, vol. 2, ch. 4; Neander Pl. Ch. Church, vol. 1, p.
499.) What, perhaps, leads to such an error, is the fact that typical rites
and temporary observances were connected with the Theocracy. But while
this is so, the Theocratic ordering or government, which for the time
adopted these rites and observances, is never represented as a type. This is
utterly opposed by covenant, and prophecy, and fact. The 'Theocracy did
not adumbrate something else, but was itself the Kingdom of God in its
initiatory form—a commencement of that rule of God’s as earthly King,
which, if the Jews had rendered the obedience required, would have ex-
tended and widened itself until all nations had been brought under its in-
fluence and subjection. This is seen in various promises to the Jews.
The real existence of the Kingdom as something that existed and shall,
although now set aside for a time on account of the sinfulness of nations,
exist hereafter, is seen, e.g. (1) in the actual exercise of Sovereignty by
God, which is no type, but @ reality ; (2) in its acceptance by the nation in
its associated capacity (Deut. 5, etc.), which was no type; (3) in the
realization of such rule, and in God calling them (Deut. 26 : 18) ‘‘ His
peculiar people,’ etc., which was no type; (4) for when this Theocracy
was overthrown, all the prophets, with one mind ané voice, proclaim that
the same identical 'Theocracy shall be restored again with increased splen:
dor and glory ; (5) it is covenanted to the Christ as David’s Son, and is,
therefore, His real inheritance.
Reuss (His. Ch. Theol., p. 29) forcibly says: ‘‘ The fundamental and formative idea
of the prophetic teaching was that of the Theocracy.’’ The restoration of the Theocracy
is the key note of prophecy. Well may it be asked, why change all this by spiritualizing the
prophecies to make them applicable to a Church-Kingdom theory, which, against the
plainest predictions taken in their grammatical sense, is supposed to fill out the measure
of the Theocracy under the Messiah. The readeris exhorted to notice that, as the nature
of the case absolutely demands, every prophet unites the restoration of the Theocracy with
the Jewish nation. It is assuming quite a responsibility to deny this, and thus pave the
way for confusion and misconception of the Kingdom of God. But we let Reuss tell
us: ‘‘ The prophets set forth as the end or the law of that national life, a state of
society in which all the citizens should be brought into a direct relation with Jehovah,
acceptirg His will as the sole rule of their actions, whether collective or individual, and
receiving in return for this unbounded obedience, the promise of peculiar divine protec-
tion, Israel, according to this ideal conception of it, was to be a people of saints and
 PRop. 25.] THE THEOORATIC KINGDOM. 219
~

priests.’’ Precisely so ; and this divine portraiture of the future will, most certainly, be
realized in all its fulness and preciousness, for God’s words are faithful and true. It is in-
dicative of great weakness that many professed treatises of Theology have much to say
about the Universal Divine Sovereignty, the Attributes of God, but absolutely nothing
respecting the only form of government in which He condescends to manifest Himself, un-
less it be in the way of typical application. In this connection the critical student is
reminded that our position is fortified by the very account given by Moses; for the
Theocratic ordering and its laws are contained in, and enveloped by, a regular historical
narration, or as a writer (Bib. Repos., Jan., 1848) phrases it : ‘‘ It is a code cf laws ina
frame of history.”’

Obs. 4. 'The Theocracy has been a matter of ridicule to unbelievers, who,

unable to see in it a far-reaching and most merciful Divine Purpose, re-
ject it as utterly unworthy of the Almighty. It is impossible, in the very
nature of the case, for any man to appreciate a Theocratic ordering, whose
heart rebels against the demands of obedience necessitated by such a form
of government. ‘This is the source of the attempted witticisms in this
direction, so dishonorable to the persons indulging in them, to the dearest
feelings of believers, to the dignity of mere history, and to God. It is the
beginning of just such an infallible rule as humanity needs ; and in its per-
manent distinctive features is indicative of wisdom transcendently supe-
rior to that exhibited in ail other forms of government. This has been
noticed by various writers, and will be referred to hereafter.
Thus e.g. Milman (His. Jews, Ap. vol. 3, p. 44) observes that ‘‘a great step in civil
improvement was made in the Hebrew polity ;’’ and adduces it as an evidence of the
overruling goodness of God, that—in opposition to the Oriental despotism, the abuse of
patriarchal rule, and the tyranny of aristocratical castes—the welfare of the whole com-
munity was assumed as the great end in view. This is true, for the lowest as well as the
highest, the poorest as well as the richest, was protected in his rights, and oppression,
tyranny, etc. was impossible (Deut. 16 : 18-20, etc.) under its constitution. But it was
far more than a mere “‘ step’’ in the right direction—it was the form of government,
given with broad outlines, which God--—who knows best—regards as most desirable for
man, indicated (1) by its first establishment, and (2) by its final re-establishment. To
have God directly for a Ruler, is both an unspeakable honor and inestimable blessing.
The ‘‘ Oracular Response” is especially the subject of unbelieving ridicule, pretending
it to be on a level with pagan oracles. For a discussion of the same see e.g. Wines’ Vom.
and the ch. entitled ‘‘ The Hebrew Oracle,’’ and other works devoted to the Hebrew Com-
monwealth ; Bib. Dicts., Arts. “Urim and Thummim,” etc. For the student two remarks
suggest themselves. 1. The ‘“‘ Urim and Thummim,”’ and the mode of oracular response is
unknown, as also the manner of response in the Holy of Holies, by which the Theo-
cratic orders and will were communicated. This lack of knowledge is providential and
-designed. These things foreshadowed the Theocratic ordering in the Person of the God-
man—whose union is undescribed—and this total silence of description, as well as over-
ruling any description to be given by participants, is purposely intended in order to pre-
vent its being claimed, perverted, and abused, as it inevitably would have been in the
history of the past. It is something so high, and personally related to God, that a judi-
cious silence preserves it from blasphemous use and being made the engine of ecclesias-
tical tyranny. 2. The replies usually given to infidels by Apologists to defend these
Oracular Responses from being classed with the Delphic Oracles, etc., are sufficiently
ample to cover the ground, although the main, essential reason for distinguishing be-
tween the two is either ignored or indirectly touched. The King being, from the nature
of the case, invisible, and yet, as the occasions of the state required, accessible, some
mode of communication between the King and nation was demanded. The Divine
Oracle is, therefore, a necessary part of a Theocratic government ; its absence would at
once, and justly too, lead the infidel to reject its Theocratic nature. Now the manner in
which this oracle was presented in the magnificent and typical Holy of Holies and the
breastplate of the High-Priest (accessible at all times as the exigencies required, and
that without making it—as heathen oracles—a source of revenue to the priests), accords
fully with the Theocratic idea, and without it a Theocracy could not possibly exist. It
is customary for some writers to say that this form of communication was adapted to
220 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 25.

the infancy or childhood of the nation and race, calling it a ‘‘ condescending method ”’
of instruction and discipline, but the student will find that immensely higher considera-
tions—-which do not lower the intelligence and understanding of the ancients, in order
to flatter our superiority—influenced its adoption, viz.: the Theocratic ordering.

Obs. 5. The blessings annexed to the Theocracy are numerous, and

precisely such (e.g. Levit. ch. 26, Deut. chs. 28, 30, etc.) as a people
here on the earth earnestly desire to attain. They culminate in the ex-
pression (Levit. 26 : 12): “‘ J will walk among you, and will be your God,
and ye shall be my people,’’ which is again reiterated (Rev. 21 : 3) at the
restoration of the Theocracy.
It has been maintained that all the blessings were of a purely earthly nature, prom-
ises of abundance, peace, etc., but this is not correct, since spiritual blessings, such as the
forgiveness of sin, the consciousness of faith, hope, love, adoption, etc., were pre-emi-
nently enjoyed, as the experience of Moses and the ancient worthies testifies. Exception
is taken by some because nothing is directly (as in the New Test.) said concerning the
resurrection or the future life ; and from this unbelief, unable to discern the consistent
policy of God in such reticence, has charged the record with inconsistency. But an ex-
act and beautiful consistency is strictly observed. The reason why these things, alluded
to, could not be directly revealed is this: the Kingdom is established in its initiatory
form, and under the blessings received through it, God wishes His people to attain unto
Abrahamic faith (in the case of Isaac), and trust that the blessings of the future—for
the resurrection and future life are included in them —shall, in God’s way and time, be real-
ized. Faith in the King is to be developed. The test. applied to Abraham is continued,
viz.: to secure an unbounded confidence in God that His covenant promises to Abraham
would be fulfilled, even if they required (as is the case) a resurrection from the dead.
The resurrection and the future life (as will be shown under the covenant) is most
strongly implied, and, indeed, without thera it is impossible to see how the promises can
be realized. But as this Kingdom was tendered to those then living, it would have been
incongruous to have told them at that period, before the unbelief of the nation and the
downfall of the kingdom made it necessary to particularize God’s purposes and to ex-
plain more in detail the manner of accomplishment, that they could only inherit the
Kingdom at the period of the resurrection. It would have been inconsistent (for they,
the future not known, could not have understood it), as they already enjoyed the earnest
form of the Kingdom. This, however, did not prevent Moses from giving intimations
in his last addresses, that the faithful of all ages—without entering into particulars how
God will accomplish it, after great evils had befallen the nation, after the calling of
others, after a period of terrible vengeance—would enjoy God’s special favor with the
nation itself restored. After the Kingdom was overthrown, then circumstances, to en-
courage the believing, called for a more extended statement of the resurrection, which
received its fullest need of being plainly taught when the Messiah came, tendered the
Kingdom and was rejected. But these subjects were not ignored in the first place, as
will be shown when we come to them in regular order. The objection that all the bless-
ings, in some way, related to this earth, has no force, because the Kingdom of God is a
Kingdom here on the earth, and in its final re-establishment is still on the earth, but an earth
redeemed from the curse.

Obs. 6. Briefly, attention is directed to the fact that while this

Theocracy was a Kingdom on or in the earth, it cannot be strictly called
an earthly kingdom. Many writers (e.g. Barrow’s Works, vol. 2, p. 705)
pronounce it an ‘earthly kingdom,”’ which is a mistake, made and in-
dulged to exalt the church by way of comparison. The Theocracy is from
God ; it was not of earthly or human origin, for it was divine, direct]
instituted by God, and having God for its Ruler. The Bible, through the
prophets, insists upon this point, which a believer in the Word, seeing its
foundation and superstructure, must concede. Hence Jesus, who is the
promised King of this re-established Theocracy, well says that His King-
dom is not of this world, etc.
PROP, 25,| THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 221

It may be suitable to remark that some writers (e.g. Castelar, The Republican Move-
ment in Europe, p. 98, Harper’s Mag., Dec. 1874) endeavor to make the Theocracy a Re-
public, but the Theocracy, in the nature of the case, is not a Republic. While it is not
a monarchy in the sense adverted to by Samuel, viz.: of purely human origin, yet it is
a monarchy in the highest sense. It is not a Republic, for the legislative, executive, and
judicial power is not potentially lodged in the people, butin God the King ; and yet it em-
braces in itself the elements both of a Monarchy and of a Republic ;—a Monarchy in
that the absolute Sovereignty is lodged in the person of the One great King, to which all the
rest are subordinated, but Republican in this, that it embraces a Republican element in
preserving the rights of every individual, from the lowest to the highest, and in bringing the
people, in their individuality, to participate in the government by the nation, as such, orig-
inally choosing the form of government, showing themselves to be “‘ a willing people,”
and aiding in electing the subordinate rulers. In other words, by a happy combination,
Monarchy under divine direction, hence infallible, brings in the blessings that would
result from a well-directed ideally Republican form of government, but which the latter
can never fully, of itself, realize, owing to the depravity and diversity of man. Baldwin
(Armageddon, p. 47), to make out his parallel between the Hebrew Theocracy and Amer-
ican Republicanism, declares : ‘‘ Church and State were disuniled by the Hebrew Consti-
tution, and placed in the relation of associates.” This is totally incorrect, as any work on
the Theocracy shows by reference to the laws and their practical workings. Suchanotion
is directly opposed to the meaning of a Theocracy.
222 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 26.

Proposrrion 26. Lhe Theocracy thus instituted would have been

permanently established, if the people, in their national capacity,
had been faithful in obedience.
By this is meant, not that the typical and provisionary adjuncts
would have remained unchanged, but that the direct, personal
rulership of God (i.e., the distinctive features which constituted it
a theocracy) would never have been, for a time, set aside, and that
the blessings promised under a Theocratic rule would have been
amply realized. No humble believer of the Word, reading the
covenant made at Horeb and pondering the blessings and curses
announced by Moses, can doubt this supposition. It is true God
foreknew the nation’s defection, which is already freely predicted
by Moses in his last addresses, but this does not prevent him from
offering this Kingdom for their continued acceptance and retention
in accordance with moral freedom.
What God would have done, in case the nation had ever proven faithful, in provid-
ing for the Salvation of man (i.e. by way of atonement), we are not concerned, for, while
feeling that His wisdom would have been equal to the development of a plan to correspond
with such faithfulness, we do know (and this confirms our faith) that this Theocracy it-
self is formed in an initiatory manner in view of the foreknown apostasy, and that out of
it, in the royal line, might come the Saviour—thus vindicating the knowledge of God.
We also are assured, that this same Theocracy—rejected by some—contains a divine
plan for the accomplishment of great ends, reaching from and through the Jewish nation
over the earth ; and that the unfaithfulness of man, however it may delay the final re-
sult, cannot alter or reverse it. Objections based upon what might have been, or how,
in certain contingencies, God would have ordered things, are always unsafe ; seeing
that we must take affairs as they have transpired and trace God’s overruling Providence
in them. Taking this scriptural view, it is impossible to break the force, e.g. of Isa.
ch. 58 or of Jer. 17 : 25, which sustain our Proposition. The expressive language e.g. of
Ps. 81 : 13-16 is sufficient :‘‘O that my people had hearkened unto Me, and Israel
had walked in My ways! Ishould soon have subdued their enemies, and turned My
hand against their adversaries. The haters of the Lord should have submitted them-
selves unto Him ; but their time should have endured forever. He should have fed them
also with the finest of the wheat ; and with honey out of the rock should I have satisfied
thee.”’

Obs. 1. ‘The erection of the Theocracy, and the exceeding great promises
annexed to it just before entering Canaan, where the matter was to be
tested—promises, too, which, if experienced, would exalt the nation adove
all other nations in power, wealth, plenty, etc.—has been pronounced by
unbelieversas exceedingly extravagant, full of Oriental hyperbole. Some
late writers take the liberty of sneering at God's ‘‘ little Kingdom” as
contrasted with the mighty empires of ‘‘ the poor heathen,’’ and sarcas-
tically compare the power and resources of the Jewish judges and kings to
that of present Arab sheiks. This attempt at wit fails, because it does not
allow the Record to speak. The comparison, unjust in several particulars,
PRopP. 26.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 223

does not notice that the reason why such promises were not experienced
and became history, lies in the non-performance of certain imposed con-
ditions—in the recorded unfaithfulness of the Jews.
When obedient, sufficient assurances are given in the history of the Jews to indicate
that, if they had continued so, God also would have been faithful to His promises in
elevating the nation. And in justice to God Himself, it must be kept in mind, that the
measure of their success was proportioned to His foreknown knowledge of the coming
hardness of their hearts. It would have been unwise to exalt the Jews toa degree for
which nationally they were unprepared ; and, therefore, in all His dealings with them,
He keeps in view the final purpose, viz.: to bestow without stint all blessings when the
time had fully come that this same Theocracy, under the Rulership of an immortal King
and subordinate rulers, would be established on a basis of stability and perpetuity, in
whichit would be impossible ever to pervert them. He, who sees the end from the begin-
ning could not, owing to the depravity of man, and the moral constitution of man under
government, shower His rich blessings profusely until He had first a reliable, tried, re-
deemed, God-fearing and serving race gathered out of the Jews and other nations, who,
by their station, power, influence, etc., would insure a complete and perfect fulfilment of
God’s own idea of government associated with Redemption. When we come to the final
restoration of the Theocracy, this fact (as we shall show) exhibits itself prominently, and
vindicates the wisdom, mercy, and justice of God in the past.

Obs. 2. The institution of the Theocracy with the claims annexed to it,
and the laudation put upon it by God Himself, marks not only its desira-
bleness, but that it is the settled purpose of God ultimately to establish its
supremacy.’ Its development, final attainment, is conditioned only by the
gathering of a people, who will “‘ be willing in the day of His power.’’
God, too, cannot and will not violate His own character, His moral goy-
ernment, and man’s free agency, by forcing this Kingdom with its blessings
upon an unwilling people. He may employ persuasion and correction to a
certain limit, but beyond that He never proceeds. However we may ex-
plain this—for some things in this conection are probably beyond human
comprehension, and honest differences of opinion may arise—the fact itself
is historical.?
1 For God never fails in any of His undertakings. If we are to believe men who reject
this Theocracy, then He failed to establish a Theocracy commensurate with the promises,
being insignificant in civil and political power when contrasted with earthly empires.
We are, however, content to await God’s own time for its re-establishment (Comp. Prop-
osition 201).
2 The Theocratic promises could not be realized, because the supreme love for the Ruler
was lacking in the nation. However excited in individuals, the nation by its sitfulness
showed itself unworthy of it. Hence God's plan for developing it in the future, which
plan we propose to follow to its consummation. The Theocracy was not simply prepara-
tory but initial, in the sense of its being a real Kingdom of God, which was established
in order to show forth to the nations of the earth the distinguished blessings flowing
from it. Had the Jewish nation been faithful to its engagements to the Supreme King,
had the subordinate rulers obeyed the Supreme Will, then the nation would—as promised
—have multiplied its blessings, enlarged its advantages and power, secured a supremacy
over all other people, and become the benefactors of the race in disseminating the
knowledge and truth of God. The place of its manifestation geographically considered
(centrally located), the form of government, the special promises given to it, the King
at its head, etc., evidence this, but, alas! depraved human nature forbade its
realization.
The student will observe the language employed by us in the previous Prop. and in
this one respecting the Theocracy, viz.: that it was initiatory, by which we mean that in
some of its laws and provisions it was susceptible of changes (but not in its funda-
mentals). Jesus Himself intimates only the relative goodness of some of the laws, Matt.
19 :8 ; Mark 10 : 5 ; comp. Ezek. 20 : 25, which Wines and others claim as teaching that
some of the laws were ‘‘ not absolutely the best, though they were relatively so.” Mon-
 224 THE THEOORATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 26.

tesquieu (quoted by Wines, Com., p. 119) sagaciously observes that this passage ‘‘ is the
sponge that wipes out all the difficulties which are found in the law of Moses.” The
entire spirit of the Bible clearly indicates that while the Theocratic idea and its main
supports are retained, special statutes and provisions were given because deemed the best
adapted for the age and people. For some of the laws were changed and others annulled
(see Wines, Michaelis, and others specially devoted to the Laws), as the advanced and
altered condition of the nation made requisite. (The phrase ‘‘ forever” appended to re-
pealed laws—e.g. comp. Lev. 17 : 7 and Deut. 12 : 20, 21—simply indicates that laws re-
main only in force until repealed or annulled by the Lawgiver. Hence if the Jews had
remained faithful, other changes, adapted to altered circumstances, might reasonably
have been anticipated, just as changes will be introduced at the restoration, without
affecting the Theocratic form.)

Obs. 3. The reader will carefully observe (as use will be made of it
hereafter) that this Theocracy is very different from God’s universal, gen-
eral sovereignty exercised by virtue of His being the Creator. Kurtz (His.
Old Cov., vol. 3, p. 104) says: *‘ As the Creator and Governor of the
world, He was the Lord and King of every nation, but He did not base His
kingly relation to Israel upon this foundation ; He founded it rather upon
what He had done especially for Israel: it was not as Elohim, but as
Jehovah, that He desired to reign over Israel,’’ etc. ; He also distinguishes
between a rule, the result of ‘‘ unconditional necessity,’? and one the
“consequence of the free concurrence of the people’’—one arising from
Creation, the other from Redemption. Kurtz is right in thus discriminat-
ing; but to make it more accurate, it is proper to add, that God also
founds this Theocratic rule upon His having produced this nation, as in
Isaac’s birth, out of due course of nature, and He appeals to His Creator-
ship (e.g. Deut. 32 : 8, 15, and 30 : 20), as a reason why this Theocratic
rule should be accepted ; but the main consideration urged is, that through
the Theocracy, God’s rule thus specially manifested through one nation,
and finally embracing all nations, the Redemptive Purpose shall be accom-
plished and (rod’s Sovereignty in all its fulness be recognized by every
creature. Attention is directed to this now to show: (1) that a special,
significant Kingdom was instituted ; (2) this Kingdom was pre-eminently
the Kingdom of God, to distinguish it from mere earthly kingdoms; (38)
such a Kingdom, differing from all others in that it had God Himself act-
ing as earthly Ruler, was given to the Jewish nation as a special favor and
blessing, with the idea of extending it, eventually, over the earth ; (4) that
if rejected or withdrawn from the nation, for a time, on account of un-
worthiness, the nation is still under God’s general sovereignty; (5) that
anything less than such a Theocratic rule, in which God is personally ac-
cessible and rules over the nation, is a lowering of condition, the non-be-
stowment of a most distinguishing privilege. The propriety and force of
this, will be seen as we proceed in the argument.
Suppose e.g. that the Jewish nation is again restored to God’s favor and their land
without a restoration of the Theocracy, then no matter what church privileges are be-
stowed, the nation, as such, forfeits its highest, dearest, noblest privilege and blessing.
And yet such is the position accorded to it by various writers, over against—as will be
shown—the most express promises to the contrary.

Obs. 4. The mournful comments and sad rebukes of the Prophets over
the unfaithfulness of the nation, its lack of appreciating Theocratic priv-
ileges, and the resultant withdrawal of the Ruler, are sorrowful evidences
of the truth of our Proposition. Nearly every one, in this connection,
Prop. 26.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 225

points out two things: (1) that a return to God with full allegiance to Him
in the Theocratic order, would secure a return of God’s blessing (thus
showing God’s purpose to be a continuous one), and (2) that upon such a
return at some period, indefinitely stated, in the future, this Theocratic
rule—a special, distinguishing privilege—is invariably connected with the
nation, where God chose to place it. (Thus e.g. comp. Mal., chs. 3 and 4;
Levit. 26, noticing v. 42 ;Deut. chs. 30, 31, 32, and 33.)
The Jews themselves, in e.g. ‘‘ The Liturgy of the Jews’’ (Art. on, Litllell’s Liv. Age,
Oct. 7th, 1876), acknowledge their sinfulness : ‘‘ Weacknowledge that we have sinned ;
that we have acted wickedly. O Lord, according to all Thy righteousness, we beseech
Thee, let Thy anger and Thy wrath be turned away from Jerusalem, Thy City and Thy
Holy Mountain ; for it is on account of our sins and the iniquities of our ancestors that
Jerusalem and Thy people are become objects of reproach to all around us,” etc.
226 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PROPS or

Proposition 27. Zhe demand of the nation for an earthly hing

was a virtual abandonment of this Theocratic Kingdom by the
matron.
This is explicitly stated ; for when (1 Sam. 8: 4-9) the elders of
Israel desired a king, God told Samuel, ‘‘ they have rejected Me,
that I should not reign over them,’’ and entered against it a ‘‘ sol-
emn protest.” On the day of presentation (1 Sam. 10: 17-19),
Samuel protested: ‘‘ Ye have this day rejected your God,’’ in this
matter of asking for a king. To show the nation ‘‘the great
wickedness’ it was guilty of ‘‘in the sight of the Lord in asking
you a king,’’? to Samuel’s word was added (18am. 12: 16-19), by
way of attestation,a severe thunder-storm in harvest time. The
sinfulness consisted (ch. 12: 12)in saying that ‘‘a king shall reign
over us, when the Lord your God was your King.’’
This desire for a King, like other earthly kings, was expressed before, but regarded as
sinful. Gideon’ (Judg. 8: 22, 23) was offered the Kingship a hereditary monarchy, but
he, appreciating the honor of the instituted Theocratic ordering, refused it, saying :
“* the Lord shall rule over you.’’ Kitto’s Bible His., M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclop., make
Abimelech the first King of Israel. The question was proposed to the Ch. Union, and it
correctly replied (Aug. 22, 1877) that Abimelech exercised authority during the anarchic
days described by Judges, but that in no proper sense could he be called King of Israel,
being a mere chieftain, a Judge, and that Saul was the first of the Kings who exercised
royal authority.

Obs. 1. No deeper insult could scarcely be offered to God than such a

request indicated. This is seen by considering the Being who conde-
scended to be their Ruler, the blessings that He promised, and the design
He had in view in thus becoming, in a direct manner, King over the
nation. The only extenuation for such ‘‘ wickedness,’’ as Samuel in-
timates, is found in their distressed circumstances, also brought upon
them by unbelief.
Schlegel (Philos. of His., Lec. 6), speaking of the Jewish Theocracy, says: “ This con-
stitution has been called a Theocracy, and so it was in the right and old signification of
that word, by which was meant a government under the special and immediate Provi-
dence of God.’’ This, excellent as it is, is only a half-truth, for the Providence of God
is thus exerted in behalf of the nation because it is a government of which He Himself is
the acknowledged Ruler. This is proven by our Propositions. This, too, seems to be
Schlegel’s idea in the phrase quoted, for he correctly rejects the interpretation (now even
used by many respectable writers) which gives such a latitude to the word as to make it
a priestly dominion, or which confines it too much, or even exclusively, to the priest-
hood (saying that Moses was no priest, etc.). Then, justly, he regards the desire of the
Hebrews to have a king like other nations, “a wish which, in the higher views of Holy
Writ, was regarded as the culpable illusion of a carnal sense.’’ The student, therefore,
will keep in view the fact that a Theocracy is far more than the exercise of a special and
immediate providence ; it is an earthly relationship of Kingship over a nation in which
the honor and glory of the King is deeply concerned.
Prop. 27.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 227

Obs. 2. Some writers when adverting to this point are not sufficiently
precise in their language. Burt (Jedemp. Dawn, p. 242) says: ‘‘ The idea
of an earthly monarchy does not seem to have entered the Mosaic constitu-
tion,’”’ and *‘ the idea of a monarchy did not enter the Mosaic system, and
cannot be regarded as a natural development of that system.’’ Jahn and
others declare that an “ earthly monarchy was out of harmony with the
Mosaic economy.’’? Such views are the result of stopping short at Samuel’s
protest and not carefully noticing what followed. On the other hand,
Hengstenberg and others maintain that the monarchy was a necessary
development of that constitution or system. Such plainly ignore the
protest of God, which, if it means anything, certainly denotes that God did
not deem it necessary. Hence neither party are correct, although both have
a portion of the truth. Notice: 1. The Theocracy wasa monarchy, but God
was the monarch. ‘This is so clearly evidenced by the facts that it is now
acknowledged by talented writers, as e.g. Wines (Com. on the Laws of the
Anc. Heb.), who says that God was accepted by the nation as their “ Civil
Ruler, Monarch, and Political Head ;”’ ‘‘ the Sovereignty of the nation
was vested in Him.’’ 2. It was a monarchy over a nation here on earth—
the kingdom was here and not elsewhere, as the rule, decisions, etc., were
administered here, so that while divinely constituted it also sustained an
earthly relationship. 3. While the idea of a monarchy was bound up with
the Theocracy (*‘ the Lord your God was your King’’), it was not requisite,
nor was it a natural development of the Theocratic idea, that this style of
monarchy should be yielded up for another merely human, or for one
acting in conjunction with the other; this the express language and
rebukes of Samuel forbid. 4. But.while the yielding of God to the desire
of the Jews does not evince a natural or legitimate outgrowth (His protest
being sufficient to indicate this), yet we shall show, step by step, how, by
not conceding His authority to another, etc., He could, in mercy and
forgiveness, engraft even such a kingship into the Theocracy itself. 5.
God, foreseeing this very sin of the nation, made provision for it already
through Moses (thus evidencing doth His foreknowledge and a Divine
Purpose to be accomplished). To avert the evil, and overrule it for good,
Ile gave express directions (Dent.17 : 14-20) that the choosing of such a
King should be under His exclusive control, and that such a King must
acknowledge the Theocracy as existing—i.e. God’s supremacy in the King-
dom—making his rule subordinate in all respects to that of the Chief
Ruler. 6. God could do this the more consistently and engraft this King-
ship into the Theocracy, because the Theocracy contemplated its latest and
most glorious manifestations to be a Rulership of God in the man Jesus.
Thus, at some future time, in the line of the kingly race selected, the
Theocratic idea would be openly exhibited, and the two elements be
perfectly blended in one, enhancing the glory and majesty of the King.
The contemplation of such a Plan ought to produce the most profoundly
reverent and grateful feelings.
Newman, in his His. of the Hebrew Monarchy, passes by the Theocracy, and begins, as
the starting-point of connected history, at the election of Saul. He entirely overlooks
the essential part of a Theocracy, viz,: God ruling over the nation as an earthly king, and
that, as we shall show, this Theocratic idea was enforced over the kings. Hence his
work is vitiated by a fundamental error, nullifying his destructive criticism. The same
is true of numerous works, otherwise able, that have a moulding influence over many.
228 THE THEOORATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 28.

Proposition 28. God makes the Jewish King subordinate to

[lis own Theocracy.
According to Samuel’s statement, God pardons the nation on the
conditions that it still, with the king included, acknowledges him
as the continuous Supreme Monarch, and that the king chosen
shall enforce the laws given by his superior in authority. In this
entire transaction God’s theocratic rule 7s preserved intact. The
earthly king was under certain imposed restrictions, and was
threatened, in case of disobedience, with the displeasure of, and
punishment from, the still recognized Civil Head of the nation.
This was felt and freely confessed by Saul (1 Sam. 13:12, and
28:15), David (1 Sam. 6: 20, and 7 : 23-26, etc.), Solomon (1 Kings
3:8, 9, and 6: 12-14, also ch. 8, etc.), and others.
This submission is indicated, e.g. by building ‘‘a house unto the Lord,’’ in and
through which the Will of the great Ruler might be obtained and confirmed. When the
kings forgot their position and trust, or directly rebelled against their Head or Chief, the
result was that the prosperity of the king and nation was checked, the original blessings
were withdrawn, intended good was withheld, and the curses given through Moses were
experienced. Solomon (2 Chron. 9 : 8) acknowledges this subordinate position, when
he accepted of the Queen of Sheba’s expression (the knowledge of which had evidently
been previously imparted), that he was, ‘‘ set to be king for the Lord his God.’’ The reader
will not fail to observe that the nation receiving Saul as king, then concurring in his
rejection, and then accepting of David, clearly indicates that it realized its Theocratic
position as a nation. The prompt acquiescence in Samuel's appointments shows that it
believed him to act under the divine direction of the Chief Ruler, and this was evi-
denced to them by the miraculous thunder-storm (a storm ridiculed by unbelief, but
highly proper and Theocratic in the grave crisis). In addition to the references given
under the previous Props., we add the following. M'Clintock and Strong’s Cyclop., Art.
“ Monarchy,’’ speaking of the change introduced, says: ‘‘ The King, however, was only
empowered to administer the Theocralic government as a Viceroy of Jehovah, the heavenly
Sovereign, and was bound to this law as the highest authority, so as to exclude the idea
of an independent and absolute monarch.’’ Wines (Com. on the Laws, p. 548, etc.) remarks
on the foreseen provision of Deut. 17: 14-20, that ‘‘ Monarchy was permitted to the
Israelites ;” that the choice of a king was limited, so that the nation ‘‘ was not to ap-
point any one as king who was not chosen of God ;” and that ‘ the law, and not the
king’s own will and pleasure, was to be the rule of his administration.’’ The student will
find in Deut. 17 : 14-20 express provision made by fundamental law, defining and limit-
ing the power of future kings, obligating them to keep the law of God, thus, in the same
vindicating both the supremacy of the Head of the nation as Chief Ruler, and His fore-
knowledge of the result when the nation was “ come unto the land ’’ which their Ruler
gave it.

Obs. 1. It follows, therefore, that Josephus (Ant. 6:3 §§ 2, 3), and

those who receive his view, are mistaken when they end the Theocracy
with the Judges. The concession, made by the nation and earthly king,
was such that God could, in equity, pardon the people and continue His
august, special rule.
Prop. 28.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 229
Fulton, in Government: Human and Divine, p. 20, makes this mistake, saying : ‘‘ The
very Kingdom of Israel was a professed Theocracy, with God as King and the man who
filled the throne on earth only vice-king or deputy ; we say professed Theocracy, be-
cause the real Theocracy of the Jews ceased when they chose a human king.’’ Now the
reverse of this is the truth, as abundantly seen in God’s own words. This will be more
clearly seen as we proceed. For the present, over against Fulton we quote Oosterzee
(Ch. Dog., vol. 1, p. 467), who well observes that the rise of royalty (i.e. the reign of the
earthly kings) was not ‘‘ the end of the Theocracy,’’ but ‘‘ rather its modification, and at
the same time its development ;” and ‘‘ that the King over this people must not be an
autocrat, but rather @ theocrat, par excellence, a viceroy and minister of God.’’ We may
add, as a hint, that this very Theocratic feeling and submission, so characteristic of
David, is what pre-eminently constituted him a man after God’s heart, notwithstanding
his lapses.

Obs. 2. In addition to the priesthood, the given law, and the access to
God on particular occasions, a safeguard was thrown around this subor-
dinate kingship to prevent it, either in its hereditary character (in case of
wicked successors), or in its State and Religious officials (in designing,
ambitious men), from interfering with the rights, laws, truths, etc., of the
Supreme Ruler. This was done by what Augustine (City of God, 17 : 1)
and Stanley (His. Jew. Ch., 1 Ser. 8. 18) have called a *‘ prophetical dis-
pensation, which ran parallel with the monarchy from the first to the
last King.’ King and priest were to yield to the authority of the
Prophet, simply because the latter directly revealed the will of the Supreme
King.
This has been noticed by numerous writers, as e.g. Kurtz (in Sac. His. and His. of
Old Gov.), Delitzsch, Auberlen, Hengstenberg, etc. Hence, too, Stanley (Lec. 18, His,
Jew. Ch.) calls it a ‘‘ vulgar error” to represent ‘‘ the conflict of Samuel with Saul as a
conflict between the regal and sacerdotal power,’ for, as he observes, Samuel was no
priest, and it was doubtful whether he was of Levitical descent. It was as a prophet that
Samuel spoke, as one directly commissioned by God. The priesthood, indeed, served
asa check and as directors, but as they, too, were liable to forget their allegiance and
duty, the prophet was the purest revealer of the King’s will and pleasure. J. Stuart
Mill (Rep. Government, p. 41) curiously observes the practical effect of this safeguard in
these words : ‘‘ Under the protection, generally though not always effectual, of their
sacred character, the Prophets were a power in the nation, often more than a match for
kings and priests, and kept up, in that little corner of the earth, the antagonism of in-
fluences which is the only real security for continued progress.’’
Dean Graves (On the Pentateuch, Pt. 1. Lec. 1) has framed a strong argument (repro-
duced by Wines in Com., p. 180, etc.) on the ancient existence of the Pentateuch, derived
from the fact that the regal form was subsequently introduced, and that it placed such
restraints upon the kings, abridging prerogatives, curbing their power, so that the im-
probability of any king (as e.g. Josiah, etc.) forging it, or accepting it from others, with
its imposed conditions, is self-evident. We may add that a form of government, such
as delineated in the Pentateuch, with its peculiar code of laws, punishments, etc., is so
patent a matter for a whole nation to consider, that a fabrication of the same, and its
imposition upon a nation as something that had previously existed, when it is false, is
simply an utter impossibility. Men are never willing to place themselves under such
restraints (or to trace their disasters to a violation of them) unless they are authorita-
tive, and they know the source and legitimacy of the same—thus confirming the testi-
mony of Jewish quotations, commemorative rites, festivals, etc.
230 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 29.

Proposition 29. Zhis Theocracy or Kingdom is exclusively

given to the natural descendants of Abraham, in their corporate
capacity.
This follows from the preceding Propositions, and cannot be
denied by any one without doing violence to the Scriptures. For
the entire tenor of the Word shows that the nation was selected
and favored in this respect beyond all other nations. No others
could enjoy the privileges and blessings which it conferred, and
contemplated to confer, without being adopted into the nation, and
provision for such a contingency was early (Ex. 12:48, Numb.
9:14) made.
Obs. 1. The Proposition simply repeats, in another form, an idea to
which it is desirable to give some prominence, since it has an important
bearing in tracing the proper conception of the Kingdom. It teaches that
the Kingdom is solely given to the seed of Abraham, which embraced the
Jews. For God condescended only to act as earthly Ruler in behalf of
that one nation, the election being thus practically demonstrated in their
nationality. If this Kingdom is to be given to any other than a believing
Jew, we certainly, in view of the plain language confining it to such
(Comp. Prop. 24), ought to have the matter stated in the most express
manner. If Gentiles, as Gentiles, without adoption or engrafting, so that
they shall be legally regarded as Abraham’s seed, can receive this kingdom,
then, in view of the numerous counter statements to the contrary, the
most precise and determinate instructions should be presented, affirming
the same. Now the lack of these—our opponents relying on pure in-
ference—is evidence of the correctness of our position, that the Kingdom
belongs to the faithful Jews and to those who are received as such because
of faith in the Messiah. Abraham’s seed, however produced, natural or
engrafted, receive the Kingdom.
Obs. 2. So sure is this Kingdom to the seed of Abraham, by virtue of
covenant and oath, that when the Lord was displeased with the nation at
the establishment of the Theocracy and threatened its extermination, yet,
to insure the fulfilment of His pledged word, He proposed that of Moses He
would raise up such a nation. The same is intimated by John the Baptist
(Matt. 3: 9) when, the Jews refusing to repent, he told them that God
could, if it was requisite, raise up children to Abraham by supernatural
power. Such instances teach that, rather than fail, God can work to any
extent demanded, but always in the Jewish line—i.e. all who are ever to
enjoy His special Theocratic favor must, in some way, be regarded as the
descendants, the children of Abraham.
PROP. 29.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 231

Obs. 3. 'This gives us one of the reasons why intermarriages with heathen
were forbidden, why Ezra and Nehemiah manifested such zeal in purging
the Jewish nation, why the amalgamation of the Jewish with other nations
was prohibited. The introduction of others into the nation could only be
lawfully preferred in accord with a proper confession of faith, and then
could they participate in the Theocratic privileges and blessings.

Obs. 4. No reader of the Old Test. can fail to see that the Theocratic
idea is the nation’s foundation principle, permeating all that pertains to it.
Why is it that in the Scriptures God passes by (excepting in a few hostile predic-
tions) the mighty monarchies and kingdoms of the earth, which are the boast and pride of
profane history, and centres His interest alone in the small Jewish nation? Unbelievers
consider this a great defect, and ridicule its occurrance. But the answer is a consistent
and logical one : God, in virtue of covenant and relationship, could not consistently take
any other position in honor to Himself, and the nation which forms the basis of His
Theocratic rule and manifestation.

Obs. 5. This feature, the Theocracy alone pertaining to the Jews, was
their proud boast, as seen e.g. Deut. 4 : 32-40, Ps. 147 : 20.

Obs. 6. This is the Key to the significant superscription of the cross:

“* This is the King of the Jews.”’ But whilst we must not forestall coming
phases in our argument, leaving them to arrive in their regular historical
and logical order, yet it may bein place to urge the reader to consider why
Jesus should be specifically designated on the cross only as ‘‘ the King of the
Jews,’’ and not of Jews and Gentiles or of nations generally. There must
be some valid reason why, as the King of the Jews, He becomes the King
over all nations.
232 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 30.

Proposition 80. Zhe Prophets, however, without specifying the

manner of introduction, predict that the Gentiles shall parteci-
pate in the blessings of this Theocracy or Kingdom.
This needs no special proof, for the fact is satisfactorily evi-
denced that, although the prophets announced it and Jesus de-
clared it, the apostles even did not understand how it could consis-
tently (in view of our preceding Propositions) be done, until the
principle and order under which it could be accomplished were
revealed to Peter (Acts 10 and 11), and acknowledged in a council
(Acts 15). Hence it is called a mystery revealed (Eph. 3).
Obs. 1. If these predictions were not given, a strong proof of God’s fore-
knowledge and determination to carry on His Divine Purpose would be
lacking. Even already by Moses (Deut. 32 : 21, 43) it is foretold, and as
the anticipated unbelief and perversion of the nation arises and its rejec-
tion for a time is insured, the announcement becomes more bold and
frequent.

Obs. 2. If such prophecies were wanting, then the objection would

arise that God had not revealed a definite Plan, or made provision in that
Plan for the temporary failure of the Jewish nation. Therefore, aside from
their relationship to us believing Gentiles, they are exceeding precious
predictions, indicating completeness in the Divine Purpose.
Obs. 3. The very manner in which the predictions are given manifest
the wisdom of God. One feature is carefully kept in the background
until the time has arrived for fulfilment, viz. : how the Gentiles are to
have part in the blessings of Abraham, seeing that the promises pertain to
Abraham’s seed. While the kingdom belongs to the Jews, and the nation
renders itself unworthy of it, and God’s Purpose is to turn to the
Gentiles, yet the mode of incorporating these Gentiles is left for
future revelation. The call of the Gentiles is given in a way that
implies that certain events connected with it must first be fulfilled and
additional revelation be given before it can be properly comprehended. In
the very nature of the case, it could not be otherwise, for if every event,
link after link in the chain of Providence, had been revealed systematic-
ally and minutely, it would have interfered with the moral freedom of
man, or it would have placed him in a position from which to consider
himself the victim of unalterable predestinated circumstances. Thus e.g.
had the Word predicted all the events respecting the First Advent and its
result, the conduct of the Jews, Romans, etc., in such a form, as necessary
preliminaries to the call, it would have been terribly depressing, and it
would materially (2 Cor. 2:8) have interfered with the fulfilment of
Prop. 30.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 233
events. There is, consequently, a deep wisdom, such as man could not
evince, in those isolated, broken predictions. A blessed sufficiency is given
to vindicate God’s knowledge, to impress His mercy, and to invite trust
in His Power, that the Messiah will be (as the Jews also held, Mac. 2: 7,
14) ‘‘ the King of the world.”’

Obs. 4. The reader will notice, too, that this calling of the Gentiles,
while in a few places spoken of as a result of Jewish unbelief and punish-
ment (as e.g. Deut. 32 : 21), is more generally, almost universally, pre-
dicted by the prophets to occur in connection with the Jewish nationality.
It is a matter either taken for granted or directly mentioned in immediate
combination with the Jewish nation. ‘The reason for this is, that while the
Gentiles enjoy special favor during the period of the nation’s dispersion,
yet, as Paul (Rom. 11 : 12, 15) asserts, they shall realize immeasurably
greater blessings when God’s kindness and faithfulness shall restore the
nation to its former Theocratic position. The privileges and rich results of
the Theocracy restored are to be enjoyed by the Gentiles (thus e.g. Isa.
11 : 10-16, chs. 60, 55, 62, etc.).

Obs. 5. The Kingdom being given to the nation, and this being based
on covenants and promises confirmed by oath, (1) no other nation can
obtain it without a recall of the covenant relationship ; (2) such a recall is
nowhere asserted, but the perpetuity of the same is most explicitly and
repeatedly affirmed ; (3) the nation, for a time suffering the withdrawal
of God’s special Theocratic ordering, does not vitiate the covenant relation-
ship ; (4) hence, the participation of the Gentiles in the covenanted re-
lationship (and through this, to an inheriting of the blessings of the
Kingdom), must depend (as has been stated) upon their being, in some
way, adopted as the seed of Abraham. Precisely here was the mystery,
which baffled even the apostles until specially enlightened.

Obs. 6. The original bestowment of the Theocracy being in a most

solemn, public manner, if ever the Jewish nation is to forfeit its relation-
ship to that Theocracy, this must be done in as public manner, or, at least,
the most explicit statement must come from God to this effect. This has
not, cannot be done—although multitudes, misled by the temporary punish-
ment of the nation, infer it—without violating God’s pledged word.
Hence, the importance of closely tracing the call of the Gentiles, and
noticing its connection with the Jewish nation.

Obs. 7. Infidelity has never yet attempted to explain by what mental

process the prophets could predict this call of the Gentiles when so directly
opposed to Jewish election and covenanted relationship. Unbelief cares
not to study the delicate and most admirable traits of Divine Wisdom in
the predictions, given in general terms, and leaving, for the best of
reasons, the filling up of the web of events to the time of fulfilment.
Unbelief cares not to contemplate prophecies given thousands of years ago,
and most wonderfully fulfilling, without interfering with moral freedom,
for this would lead to the supernatural.
234 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 31.

Proposrrion 31. Lhis Theocracy or Kingdom was identified

with the Davidie Kingdom.
Passing by the Davidic covenant (to be adduced hereafter), which
distinctly exhibits this, it is sufficient, for the present, to remark
that after the Theocratic Ruler deposed Saul, owing to disobedience,
he chose David, and having made for wise reasons (e.g., in view of
the prospective seed of David, Jesus, ‘‘ the Christ’’) the Kingdom
hereditary in David’s family, he received that throne and Kingdom
and adopted the same as fis own throne and Kingdom. The
Theocracy and Davidic kingdom, in virtue of a special and peculiar
covenant relationship between the two, were regarded as one, and
in the future so zdentical in destiny that they are inseparably
linked together. ‘
Comp. Props. 27 and 28. This union, and the subordination of the kings, as well as
the divine right running only in the line of God’s own choosing, shows how we are to
estimate the unfounded assertions of those who make this Kingship a despotic or unlim-
ited monarchy, with the notion of thereby enforcing ‘‘ the divine right of kings” and
“the passive obedience of subjects.”’ What terrible outrages on humanity have been
committed, under the false claim that they were sanctioned by the governmental] institu-
tions of God! How tyrants have ruled and crushed their subjects, under the pretence of
being a legitimate outgrowth of Theocratic ordering ; and how crimes of the deepest dye
have been condoned under the plea that ‘‘ the anointing oil” of priestcraft made them
per se ‘‘ the Anointed of tlie Lord!’ (Comp. Props. 164 and 163.)

Obs. 1. This is also evidenced by three things—(1) The Davidie throne

und Kingdom is called the Lord’s, Thus, e.g. in 1 Chron. 28 : 5, it is
‘* the throne of the Kingdom of the Lord over Israel”’ ; in 2 Chron. 13 : 8,
‘the Kingdom of the Lord”? ; and in 2Chron. 9 : 8, the King is placed by
God ‘‘on His throne to be King for the Lord thy God.’’ (2) The King was
expressly designated ‘“‘the Lord’s Anointed’? (1 Sam. 24:6, 2 Sam.
19: 21, ete.). (3) The Prophets, after the establishment of the Davidic
throne and kingdom, invariably identify the glorious Kingdom of God, the
blessed Theocratic rule, as manifested through the same, as e.g. Jer., chs.
33 and 36, Amos 9, etc. The reason for this lies in the firm and per-
petual union.
Wines (Com. on the Laws, p. 506-7), to carry out his theory of an election by the peo-
ple, in order to make out a parallel with American Republicanism, makes David to have
been “ elected by the voice of the people to that high dignity’’ (2 Sam., chs. 3, 4, 5, and
12), and that the anointing of Samuel was a sort of “ prophetic anointing,” which did
not inaugurate him as king, or confer any authority upon him.” ‘ It was rather a pro-
phecy in action, foreshadowing his future elevation to the throne.’’ We contend from the
historical account given, and the particular narrative of the choosing of David, that it was
more than this : the anointing gave him a right, from the Chief Ruler, to the Kingdom
and over the Kingdom, although the realization of the same was delayed for a time.
God had thus designated Ilis choice, and it was, in the nature of the case, infallible. The
consent of the tribes, one after the other, was not merely a matter of prudence and
PRop. 31.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 235
policy to bind them cordially to David, but resulted, as the history shows, in view of
God having given him this right, evidenced by his anointing. The anointing constituted
him the King, however delayed, and this kingship, in the divine line, continued the
recognized one, although afterward the majority of the tribes revolted from the Davidic
house. The majority did not change God's plan, etc.

Obs. 2, The King was under God’s special care, and treason against the
King was treason against God ; it was only when engaged in sin that God’s
care was removed and the people were exhorted to resist wickedness even in
the chief. The diminishing of the Kingdom (as in the days of Jeroboam,
which was not to be forever, seeing that no promises of perpetuity were
given as to David), and the final overthrow of the Kingdom—indeed all
the great, leading, vital affairs pertaining to it, are always represented as
occurring under the direction and control of the mighty Theocratic Ruler,
—He being fully and legitimately ¢dentified with its successes and reverses,
exaltation and debasement, union and divisions, ete.
One reason why greater favor was shown to the tribes adhering to the kingly line
chosen by God than to those tribes that revolted and sought out their own line, springs
from the fact that the one party, with all their faults, kept closer to the Theocratic order-
ing than the other. Some works (as Baldwin's Armageddon), in their opposition to all
monarchy, and desire to make out the Theocracy a Republic (which it is not, excepting
in a few details), speak of the Davidic monarchy as if it were ‘‘ sinful,’’ and God hated
it, etc. This is simply to ignore the historical statements, the covenant, the thousand
promises, connected with it. God was only displeased with it, and punished it, when-
ever it forgot its Theocratical position and subordination. Any other view is a perver-
sion of fact.

Obs. 3. This Theocratic union is shown also in the fact that not only
all the Theocratic laws and arrangements, previously made, remained in
full force, and the King obligated himself to see them enforced, but in
important matters pertaining to the nation the King was to consult with,
and obey the imparted instructions of, the Chief Ruler. The numbering
of the people (2 Sam. 24 and 1 Chron. 21) by David without divine per-
mission, being an infringement of Theocratic order, an act of insubordina-
tion to his Superior, was correspondingly severely punished.
Celsus, Voltaire, and a host of unbelievers, with assumed righteous indignation, in-
sist that David having alone sinned in numbering the people, it was unjust that the in-
nocent people should have suffered the punishment due to him. So also it is said, that
taking Uriah’s wife, the innocent husband perished, and David enjoyed his spoil. But
let it be noticed : 1. The end is not yet: the future destiny of those innocent ones will,
in the coming Kingdom, make ample amends for their misfortune. 2%. How largely the
future station, rank, kingship, and priesthood of David may be affected by it, we know
not—a just balance will be struck. 3. David’s sins are specifically denounced, and he
heartily repented of them. 4. He suffered severely in person because of them. 5.
One of the sins—the former—was an insult to his Sovereign Ruler, and the punishment
was designed to exhibit its magnitude. 6. David was preserved, notwithstanding his
sins, because of his relation as Theocratic King and the destined forerunner of a future
glorious Theocratic King in his line. 7. That the reasons for Theocratic clemency and
severity are not given in detail, and that it ill becomes us to sit in judgment upon them.
8. The non-concealment of David’s guilt (so different from human biography) and its
result, stamps the record with truthfulness, and gives hope and comfort to repenting
sinners.

Obs. 4. The identity of the Theocratic Kingdom with the Davidic is

taken for granted in the New Test. as an indisputable fact. This will
appear, as our argument progresses ; for some preliminaries must first be
236 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 81.

considered in thefr historical connection. The announcing angel states

the fact (Luke 1 : 32, 33), and Zacharias intimates it (v. 68-74).
The reader will observe two features connected with this subject. The Theocracy
did not remain in Saul’s line, and it was not in the line of the kings over the revolted
tribes, for the special union and the promises connected with it are found only in the
Davidic line. ‘his is a sufficient reply to Newman (fis. of Heb. Monarchy, p. 50), who
accuses Samuel of treason in deposing Saul and choosing David, totally overlooking the
Theocratic form of government, and that Samuel was acting under the special orders of
the Supreme Ruler of the nation. The question is sometimes asked, why was Saul thus
chosen, when God foreknew his speedy fall and the selection of David in his place? The
question is not answered by saying that ‘‘ Saul’s self-will caused him to forget his Theo-
cratic position’? when he presumed to sacrifice himself and disobey divine commands,
the significance of which (The Anc. His. of the Hast, vol. 1, p. 132) was that ‘* it aimed at
establishing the monarchy of Israel on the same basis as heathen kingdoms,” making the
Theocratic ordering subservient to the caprice of the subordinate ruler. All this is
true, but God foreknew all this, and still selected Saul. Kurtz (Sac. His., p. 177) says :
‘* Since they demand a king without a divine intimation, God gives them a king, even as
they wish, not ufter His own heart (1 Sam. 13 : 14), but after the heart of the people, not
one that belonged to the tribe of Judah, but one who was higher than any of the people
from his shoulders and upward (10 : 23).’’ But God did directly choose him, and not
the people, and the proof is foundin 1 Sam. 9 : 15-27 and 10: 1-26 ; for Samuel expressly
says : ‘‘See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen.” Newman (iis, Heb. Monarchy) says :
*‘ It is highly doubtful whether Saul was chosen either by God or by Samuel,’’ for he
thinks the Israelites chose him for his stature and beauty, and then Samuel reconciled
himself toa necessity, and declared—a pious fraud—that God also chose him ; thus
perverting the history, and that Saul was not seen by the people until after the lot.
Historical statements, however, must always bend before destructive criticism, which
has the happy talent of knowing precisely how things ought to have been done. The
reason, as given by various writers (e.g. Farbairn’s Typology, p. 96), seems to be this:
the Kingship was of a derived and vicegerent nature to be perpetuated, ‘‘ and to render
the Divine Purpose in this respect manifest to all who had eyes to see and ears to hear,
the Lord allowed the choice first to fall on one who—as the representative of the people’s
earthly wisdom and prowess—was little disposed to rule in humble subordination to the
will and authority of heaven, and was therefore supplanted by another, who should act
as God’s representative, and bear distinctively the name of ‘ His servant.’’’ In other
words, God designed to show in this first king, and impress it by a signal experience
that He alone was the Supreme King, and the government, under the kings, should
continue a Theocracy. The lesson was purposely chosen before the Davidic line was
introduced, but practically it was too soon forgotten. It was illustrated, too, in the case
of one whom men admired (owing to stature and beauty).
Prop. 82.] THE THEOORATIC KINGDOM. 237

Proposition 32. This Theocratic Kingdom, thus incorporated

with the Davidic, is removed when the Davidic Kingdom is
overthrown.
The spirit of prophecy, which expresses the opinion of God in
this matter, is emphatic and clear. Thus e.g. take Ps. 89, and the
Davidic throne, which it is asserted the Messiah, ‘‘ the Holy One
of Israel,’’ shall occupy, is represented as completely removed, the
throne and crown cast down, God himself having withdrawn in his
wrath at the nation’s sinfulness. Numerous predictions, to avoid
repetition, will be given hereafter.

Obs. 1. The Proposition is evidenced, (1) by the continued overthrow

of what God called His throne and Kingdom (Ezek. 21 : 25-27, Hos.
3:4, 5, ete.); (2) by the Prophets not recognizing any other Theocratic
Kingdom than the one thus connected ; (3) by the restoration from
Babylon, building of the temple, etc., being never likened to this King-
dom, for although blessings were vouchsafed to the nation from God
through His general divine Sovereignty, yet God did not act as their King,
which is seen, e.g. in the Jews being still ‘‘ servants’? and others had
‘dominion over them’’ (Neh. 9 : 36, 37), being placed under tribute,
(Ezra 4:13 and 7 : 24) ; (4) by the simple fact that neither in the temple
rebuilt nor in any subsequent political position of the Jews, was God
directly accessible as Ruler, to be consulted, etc. ; (5) by the Jews them-
selves, in their future political and religious status, never supposing, after
the overthrow of the Davidic Kingdom, that it or the Theocracy connected
with it was restored, but constantly and ardently looked for its re-establish-
ment ; (6) by the withdrawal of God, more and more decided, so that even
for centuries the voice of prophecy was silent. In brief, all the circum-
stances indicated, that the distinctive features which manifested a The-
ocracy, were withdrawn, and the religious, the ceremonial, indispensably
necessary for the moral preparation and culture of man, was alone
continued. The nation was undergoing divine punishment for its non-
appreciation of Theocratic privileges.
Some writers, evidently through inadvertency, misuse the word “ Theocracy,’’ when
they speak of the ‘‘ re-establishment of the Theocracy’’ at the return of Ezra to Jerusa-
lem B. co. 457, distinguishing it from ‘‘ a free and independent Theocracy’”’ by designat-
ing it ‘a dependent” one. This is to make a partial restoration of the nation and re-
ligious rites a Theocracy, when Ezra and the nation were subjects to the sway of Baby-
lon, etc. The least reflection shows the misuse of the term, and especially to make it
“« dependent,” without restoration (as we shall show) of David’s throne, etc.

Obs. 2. The highest position, politically, occupied by the nation after-

ward under the brilliant reign of the Maccabean Princes, was never
 238 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 32.

regarded as a return to the Davidic or Theocratic rule. The Asmoneans

were not in the Davidic line, and God was not the Theocratic King as once
before.
The Theocracy, the Kingdom of God, being withdrawn is the reason why (comp. Obs.
4 below) Daniel’s prophecies, which give an epitome of the world’s history down to the
re-establishment of this Theocracy under the Messiah, make no mention (as they con-
sistently could not) of a Kingdom of God on earth running contemporaneously (as many
would have us to believe against fact) with the Gentile empires delineated by the Proph-
et. God’s Spirit does not contradict itself.

Obs. 3. The highest religious position afterward arrived at, when the
Temple was restored with magnificence, did not meet the Theocratic
features. The second Temple, among other deficiencies, possessed not the
manifestation of the Divine Presence of the great King in the Holy of
Holies, and gave not forth, as the first Temple, the responses of an earthly
Ruler. With all the veneration attached to it by the Jews, they never
regarded its erection and their worship there, as the enjoyment of a restored
Theocratic government. They still lamented the loss of the once enjoyed
precious boon. .
Warburton (Div. Leg., B. 5, S. 5) labors to show that the Theocracy existed down to
the Coming of the Christ. A more recent writer (Wines, Vom. on the Laws, p. 495, etc.) in-
dorses this unhistorical view, and says: ‘‘ It (Theocracy) was democratical till the time of
Saul, monarchical from his accession to the throne till the captivity, and aristocratically
after the restoration of the Jews to their own country ; but through all these revolutions
it retained the Theocratic feature.’’ This is a serious mistake, utterly opposed to his own
definitions (which we have freely given, Props. 25, 26. etc.) of a Theocracy, which he
leaves for a lower one of his own framing. It utterly ignores the Scripture testimony ;
it vitiates the predictions of a restoration; it makes it impossible to understand the
covenant and prophecies ; and it presents us a Theocracy with its life taken out, its
essential meaning removed, its throne and Kingdom overthrown. Alas! that men ‘of
ability are so misleading.

Obs. 4. The reader, although perhaps premature in our line of argu-

ment, will notice that this feature has its decided influence in shaping the
peculiar and striking manner in which the Bible is written and placed
together. Unbelief has made itself merry at the early historical narrative
of the Jewish nation when contrasted with the mighty empires of the
world, at the‘sudden breaking off of the same, its non-resumption (in the
Bible) to present the splendid achievements of the Maccabees, etc. But
under all this lies a profound reason. The mighty empires of the world
are as nothing to God when compared to His initiatory Theocratic ordering.
Small as the latter is when contrasted with Kingdoms that embraced
immense territories and a multitude of nations ; weak as the subordinate
Theocratic kings were when compared with an Alexander or Cyrus or
Cesar, yet in the estimation of Deity, there was in this nucleus, this
earnest of government, something that outweighed the grandeur of all
earthly Kingdoms. This was the Theocracy. God shows due respect to His
own ordering, and hence confines Himself almost exclusively to the history
of the Jewish nation. Other Kingdoms are, indeed, mentioned, but only
to show their relationship to the Jewish nation and to pronounce their
doom, or the final result when the Theocracy shall be triumphantly re-
established. This gives the Bible its remarkable cast of expression and its
historical connection. Thus e.g. there is a regular tracing of the rise of
the nation, the establishment of the Theocracy, and then comes the regular
PRop. 32.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 239

history of the Theocracy to its downfall or rather withdrawal. Everything

which led to it, that was connected with it, that led to its abandonment, is
given as a matter of interest. Bricfly, but boldly, the outlines, the essen-
tials, for a correct apprehension, are presented down to the last King.
Then follows the account of the Captivity ; of a partial restoration ; of the
return not meeting the requirements of a restored Theocracy ; of God’s
fulfilling His Word in punishing ; of prophets who predict the re-establish-
ment of the Theocracy ; of a long silence of centuries, a sufficiency of
prediction having been given and the history of the nation being unworthy
of record ; of what occurred at the coming of the Messiah, and the mention
of continued punishment, of a few predictions confirmatory of the Old
Test., but no attempt to verify them, for in the unbroken silence, the
dignity of prophecy is exhanced by the fulfilment being taken for granted
as something needing no proof, being ever present in history.
 240 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 33.

Proposition 33. The Prophets, some even before the Captivity,

Joreseeing the overthrow of the Kingdom, both foretell its down-
fall and its final restoration.
Thus, e.g., Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, Amos, and Micah deliberately pre-
dict the withdrawal of God’s protection as Ruler on account of the
rebellious spirit of the nation, the abolishment of the Kingdom, and
the destruction of the very place of the Ruler’s special manifesta-
tion. But they also announce, just as distinctly, that at some
period in the future there shall be a@ complete restoration of the
same Kingdom under David’s son, and a restoration, too, pre-emi-
nently glorious.
Obs. 1. This, from what preceded and will follow, needs no special
proof. Such passages as Amos 9:11, Luke 1 : 32, 33, Ezek. 37 : 21, 22,
Jer. 33 : 14, etc., it is admitted by all men, do im their plain grammatical
sense distinctively teach such downfall and restoration. This is denied by
no one; but we are informed by eminent and pious men, that this is not
the sense (excepting only as it pertains to downfall) intended by God.
Aside from the inconsistency of charging God with employing a sense—
the one, too, in common usage between men—that fairly expresses this
idea and fosters corresponding hopes, we hold with the Primitive Church,
and shall prove as we proceed, that it is the only sense which consistently
maintains God’s covenant, oath, promises, and election of the nation.

Obs. 2. Let the reader but pause and consider : God has had a veritable
Kingdom here on earth ; He was the earthly Ruler of the nation exhibited
in and through this Kingdom ; now is it conceivable that He, owing to
unbelief and sin of the nation, will give up this Kingdom /orever—that
He will permit Himself ¢o be defeated in the establishment of such an open,
outward, manifested Theocracy? Men, the multitude, say such is the fact,
but we do not read the Bible as asserting the same, for this would be
dishonoring to God, making Him to undertake a work that He 1s unable
to accomplish, and this would make the Prophets predict falsely, making
them plainly to prophecy what shall never come to pass. (Comp. Prop.
201.)

Obs. 3. It has been generally acknowledged (no matter how afterward

explained or spiritualized) that the basis of prophetical teaching is -
this Kingdom constantly and uniformly connected with the National and
Religio-Political constitution of the people of Israel. Why, then, dare to
reverse this, without the most explicit and direct command from God?
The change that is made by the many in these prophetical utterances, as
will be shown, is based purely on inference. Solemnly, sadly is the
Prop. 33.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 241

protest given: Should we not, in so weighty a matter, have far more than
merely inferential proof? If the grammatical
4 meaning of the Word is to
be changed, should not God Himself plainly tell us of the change, and not
leave it to uninspired men, centuries after the canon is completed, to
inform us of it?
Obs. 4. When the elements of disunion, disruption, etc., appeared in
the Davidic Kingdom, then also a change took place in the Prophetic
voice. This has been noticed by Kurtz (Sac. His., p. 228, etc.) and
others ; it is only necessary to add, that in view of the now foreseen and
determined withdrawal of the Kingdom, much more is said, by way of
encouragement under coming trial, respecting the period, when, under the
promised Messiah, the Kingdom should be restored never more to end.
This was a token of mercy to stimulate the faith and hope of the repentant,
pious portion of the nation; for while God withdrew the Kingdom and
attendant blessings, He did ‘not, as He promised even by Moses, witterly
forsake the nation.
242 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 34.

Proposrrion 34. The Prophets describe this restored Kingdom,

its extension, glory, etc, without distinguishing between the
Lirst and Second Advents.
This peculiar feature has often been noticed by writers; and
attention is called to it in this connection, because it is ef great
moment to understand this distinctive, significant method of
prophecy.
Obs. 1. Learned men, feeling the force of this uniformity, have sup-
posed, correctly, that some good reason produced it, and to assign one, tell
us how prophetic vision glances from the lower to the higher hills, passing
over the intermediate valleys, etc., thus presenting a beautiful and glowing
picture of ecstatic vision. While there is truth in this description, it
utterly fails to assign any reason for it, only presenting the manner in which
it is done. The leading motive for such a non-discrimination of First
and Second Advent will be found in ¢he offer of this same Kingdom to the
Jewish nation at the First Advent (comp. Props. 55-57, etc.), and, upon
its rejection by the nation, in its postponement to the Sec. Advent. The
proof for this will be abundantly forthcoming ; at the present it is desir-
able that this characteristic of the prophets be constantly kept in mind,
because it evinces a predetermined offer of the Kingdom, in view of the
election of the nation, at the First Advent ; and the issue also being fore-
known (amazing knowledge! a postponing to the Sec. Advent), it con-
ditioned the necessity of only speaking of the Advent, without directly
specifying a First or a Second. This intermingling and blending of
Advents, or rather, this non-discrimination of Advents, is purposely done,
(1) to allow full latitude to the freedom of the nation ; (2) to evince the
foreknowledge, truthfulness, and faithfulness of God; (3) to test the
faith of His people ; (4) to throw the responsibility of Christ’s rejection
upon the nation ; (5) to prepare the way for the engrafting of the Gen-
tiles ; (6) to avoid the despondency, etc., that must arise, if the long
intervening period of time were presented.
It was extremely difficult for a Jew to reconcile the glorious predictions relating to
the Messianic Kingdom with those pertaining to a suffering Messiah. This was so greatly
felt that we read of the idea of two Messiahs being broached—a suffering one, followed
by a triumphant one ; others united both in the same person, but without attempting a
reconciliation. The question might well be asked of unbelief, whether it is credible that
the Prophets, so devoted to their alleged ‘‘ Jewish prejudices” and ‘‘ Jewish forms,’’ could
by their own wisdom have concocted such a humiliated, suffering Redeemer of the.
nation to bring it to glory by restoring its Theocratic relationship, when it seemed, to
all human appearances, antagonistic and fatal to all such expectations?

Obs. 2. This peculiarity of the prophecies impresses the injunction

given by numerous writers, viz.: to be careful in discriminating the
Prop. 34.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 243

Scriptures that belong to different dispensations, e.g. that which pertains

to the First Advent and the time following, and that which relates to the
Sec. Advent and the age following it.

Obs. 3. Living at this period, so long after the First Advent, we are the
better prepared, owing to fulfilments, to discriminate between the Script-
ures, and make acorrect application of them. God’s sincerity in tendering
the Kingdom to the Jewish nation is evidenced by the very manner in
which the nation’s rejection of the Messiah at the First Advent is de-
lineated ; it is rather implied than directly taught, and in sucha way,
that while now we see the guilt of the nation unmistakably presented, yet
before the fullilment it was—to avoid interfering with freedom of choice—
more or less a mystery. ‘To us, it is a mystery fully revealed.
It will be observed that, owing to the terrible period of punishment for the rejection
of ‘‘ the Christ,” etc., no distinction of First and Second Advent is made, and a little re-
flection will show the great wisdom and mercy of God in not making it. Had it been
made, its revelation would have had crushing force, and would have interfered with
moral freedom. We regard this very feature, so delicately handled, as a decisive proof
of divine inspiration.

Obs. 4. The manner in which the prophecies were fulfilled at the First.
Advent teaches us how we may expect the prophecies pertaining to the
Second to be realized, viz. : in the strict grammatical sense contained in
them.

Obs. 5. Another reason why the Prophets simply announce the Advent
without discriminating is, that both Advents are really necessary for per-
fected Redemption—the one, we can now see, is preparatory for the other.
Hence Bh. Horsley (Works, vol. 1, p. 88) and others have pointed out the
fact that we can not properly interpret the ancient prophecies without
referring to the two Advents ; they stand related to each other, and in
several places are spoken of without any intimation of the long centuries
that shall intervene between them. Fairbairn (On Proph., p. 183) justly
observes: ‘‘ It is only by the facts and revelations of the New Test.,
that ancient prophecy has been found conclusively to require for its com-
plete verification two disparate manifestations of the Godhead ; the one in
humiliation, the other in glory.”’ But we must never forget that the
Prophets unite the two as essential to the Salvation of man, and the ex-
perience of that Salvation, in the Kingdom of God restored in splendor.
The two Advents are the two main instrumentalities for accomplishing
Redemption ; each one has i¢s appropriate sphere of action, and ‘* the
glory’’ of the Second is the reward subsequent to obedience and suffering
at the First.

Obs. 6. The Kingdom being rejected by the Jews at the First Advent, an
intercalary period intervenes, and ‘‘the times of the Gentiles’ are con-
tinued on to the Sec. Advent. This is the reason why in some of the
prophecies ,
when direct reference is made to the First Advent, the interven-
ing period to the Second is passed by, and attention is directed to the
Second with its results, as e.g. Ps. 69, Isa. 53 connected with ch. 54, ete.
The Divine Plan thus wnites the two as incorporated with it, and teaches
how, in the light of God’s Word, this intercalary period ought to be
244 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 34.

regarded, so far as God’s Purpose is concerned—i.e. while exceeding

precious to us who believe and who are adopted as the seed of Abraham,
yet it is still a time of ‘‘ waiting,’’ and that it is, by no means, to be
exalted into that disproportioned and exaggerated position that it holds in
so many systems of Theology.

Obs. %. The Kingdom is nowhere (although it is currently believed)

directly asserted to be a resultant of the First Advent, but in the declara-
tions of Christ and the apostles it is distinctly linked with the Sec. Advent,
as e.g. Matt. 25 : 34, 2'Tim. 4 : I, ete.

Obs. 8. This characteristic of not distinguishing between the two

Advents, excepting as the events connected with one or the other now (in
view of fulfilment) enables us to discriminate between them, has been often
ridiculed by Unbelief as an evidence of weakness. We, on the other hand,
find in it a profound meaning and an indication of the highest wisdom and
the greatest strength. Indeed, when properly comprehended in its true
relationship to the Jewish nation and the Theocracy, it forms a@ strong
proof of inspiration, being a phase beyond hwnan conception and con-
tinuance. Foreknowing the facts, it carefully avoids contradiction in the
least particular ;aware of the result, it gives due latitude to moral free-
dom ; and conscious of a postponement resulting from the conduct of the
Jewish nation, it still proclaims that God’s Plan shall be ultimately
accomplished. Divine Wisdom alone could devise such a wonderful way
of predicting the future.

Obs. 9. Unbelief has not yet been able to explain the anomaly presented
in these two Advents. The last (Second), which is spoken of in the most
eulogistic terms, it may ascribe to human desire and consequent Oriental
imagination, but it is completely at fault with the First Advent. For it
cannot show how it is possible for Jews, with Jewish expectations and hopes
(based on covenant promise), to describe a Messiah coming in humiliation,
rejection, suffering, and death.
Prop. 35.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 245

Proposition 35. Lhe Prophets describe but one Kingdom.

The language and whole tenor of the Word is so explicit that
both Jews and Gentiles thus understand it. Whatever views may
be entertained respecting the interpretation of the prophecies them-
selves, there is no writer, within our knowledge, who has ventured
to suggest that two Kingdoms are denoted.
Obs. 1. There is one Kingdom under the Messiah, David’s Son and
Lord, in some way linked with the election of the Jewish nationality,
which is the great burden of prophecy.

Obs. 2. This Kingdom, too, according to the grammatical sense, is

one here on the earth, not somewhere else, as e.g. in the third heaven or
the Universe. Take the most vivid descriptions, such as are contained in
Isa. 60, or Dan. 7, etc., and they refer this Kingdom exclusively to this
earth, which, of course, follows naturally from the relation that this
Kingdom sustains to the Jewish nation and Davidic throne. Any other
portraiture of it would be incongruous, and hostile to covenant and fact.
Obs. 3. If it is one Kingdom, and thus related, it must, of necessity,
embrace the following features : (1) Notwithstanding the removal of the
Kingdom and the severe tribulation of the nation, the preservation of the
race must be announced, for otherwise the election would fail and the
Kingdom, as predicted, could not be restored. This is done in the most
positive manner, as e.g. Jer. 31 : 35-37, and 33 : 19-26, Isa. 54 : 9-10, ete.
(comp. Prop. 122). (2) The restoration of the Jews, notwithstanding
their sinfulness and punishment, ought to be distinctively presented, because
David’s Kingdom is based on it. This also is predicted, as e.g. Ezek.
36 : 22, 24, and ch. 37, Jer., chs. 31, 32, and 33, etc. (comp. Props. 111,
112, 113, and 114). (3) And as David’s throne was in Jerusalem, and was
adopted as God’s throne, when His Son shall reign, the city ought to be
specially honored in such a revelation of the Kingdom, seeing that: it
stands intimately related to it. The Prophets thus distinguish it in the
future, as e.g. Jer. 3:17, Isa. 24: 23, Joel 3 : 17, ete. (comp. Prop. 168,
etc.). Indeed, all the particulars needed for a full identification of the
identical Kingdom, once established but now overthrown, are thus given
in the most simple language. Why, following the Origenistic method,
change this language, and make David’s throne and kingdom, Jewish
restoration, Jerusalem, etc., mean something else than the words plainly
convey, without a direct revelation from God that such a change is in-
tended ?

at
Obs. 4. The Prophets describing one Kingdom, here on the earth,
some time in the future under the Messiah, and associated with the Jewish
246 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 35.

nation and the Davidic throne, it is a gross violation of all propriety to

take these prophetic descriptions and arbitrarily apply them, as many do,
by dividing them—one part to the earth, another to the third heaven ; one
portion to the present time, and another to the distant future. This
separation and disintegration of things that belong together, and relate to
the sume period of time and to the same locality, being even exhibited in the
same sentence, as e.g. Isa. 25 : 8, where the abolishing of death is put in
the future, and the rest is applied, without warrant, to the church as now
constituted.
The only ingenious defence that we have found for this impropriety is in Dr. Alex-
ander’s Com. on Isaiah (p. 38, Pref. to vol. 2), which hides this defect, of dividing and
locating in diverse places and times the Millennial descriptions, undera generalizing rule,
by which such prophecies are to be applied to the condition of the church, and which
condition is * considered not in its elements, but as a whole ; notin the way of chrono-
logical succession, but at one view ; not so much in itself as in contrast with the tempo-
rary system that preceded it.” In some respects true, it is unsound to apply this indis-
eriminately and obtain a correct interpretation ; for (1) particulars and elements are
also predicted, and are to be considered in order to form a proper estimate of the whole
—they cannot be safely omitted. (2) The predictions, with few exceptions, do refer to a
chronological period and succession, and it is only in so far as we can locate these that
the prophecies themselves can be properly appreciated. Thus e.g. to discriminate what
belongs to the period preceding the First Advent, what to that Advent, what to the Sec.
Advent, what to intervening time, etc., these are all important chronological data,
and without some (at least approximative) knowledge of the position in time occupied
by the prophecy in fulfilment, we are at once involved in confusion. There is no proph-
ecy given, but it stands chronologically related. So that while in Prophecy there is
only a general, indefinite appeal to chronology (excepting Daniel and the Apoc.), as e.g.
‘‘in that day,” ‘‘in that time,” etc., yet this phraseology has a decided reference to
time, a set time, to which we must give heed if desirous to understand. (3) The last
clause of Alexander’s canon overlooks some permanent things in the preceding system,
held in abeyance until the time of restoration ; and if true, lessens the force of the pre-
dictions themselves by directing attention to ‘‘ the contrast ’’ and not to the reality of
the things portrayed. Some writers (as e.g. Alexander On Isaiah) have denounced as an
“‘ erroneous hypothesis’ the rule laid down by Vitringa, ‘‘ that every prophecy must be
specific, and must have its fulfilment in a certain period of history.’’ Now without adopt-
ing some of Vitringa’s interpretations based on this rule, and without asserting that all
prophecies are delivered in chronological order (which cannot be sustained), we still
hold that such a canon has the strongest possible reasons for itssupport. The denial of
the rule materially aids the spiritualizing of prophecy. But if we allow that the proph-
ecies are to be generalized, and that they have no particular reference to certain eras in
the history of the church and the world (as e.g. those pertaining to the First or Sec. Ad-
vent, etc.), then we are at once sent adrift in an ocean of vague, unsatisfactory interpre-
tation. From the decided and specific fulfilment of prophecy in the past, it is proper to
hold that the remainder will also thus be verified, and this in itself, aside from other and
weighty reasons (such as making the Divine Plan indefinite, weakening the proof of
God’s foreknowledge, frittering away the precise language of the prophets, etc.), is amply
sufficient to cause us to reject so arbitrary a conclusion as the above.

Obs. 5. In the doctrine of the Kingdom we make much of the proper

comparison and union of Prophecy, and especially lay stress on the same-
ness of language, ideas, etc., existing between Isaiah and the Apocalypse
(as e.g. comp. Isa. 60 with Rev., chs. 21 and 22.). Our opponents, feeling
the force of this, endeavor to rid themselves of the identity of these predic-’
tions based upon their similarity—which strongly prove the one Kingdom
to which we hold—by asserting that they are prophecies referring to dis-
similar things and times. Let it be candidly said, that any system of inter-
pretation which will drive good men to ignore one of the plainest and most
valuable guides in the interpretation of prophecy, is most certainly defective.
PRopP. 35.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 247
Some commentators (e.g. Alexander On Isa., vol. 1, Pref., p. 56), object to the efforts
of others in attempting to illustrate and interpret some of the predictions of the Proph-
ets by the aid of the Apocalypse, and ground their objection on the alleged fact of the
latter being ‘‘ an independent prophecy.” But how it becomes “‘ independent” they
fail to tell us. The truth is, that it is not such, for it is given by the same Spirit of
Truth that gave the rest, and it has reference to the same Redemption, same ultimate end
and glory, described in numerous other prophecies. It isa continuation and amplification of
some of the predictions of Isaiah and others, and hence it is eminently proper foran exposi-
tor to avail himself of later Revelations, if, on any points, they may throw light on pre-
ceding ones. Prophecy is designed to reveal the Divine Purpose, to indicate and vindi-
cate its unity of design, and therefore, instead of being “ independent,” one of another,
all the predictions of God’s Word relating to the Redemptive process, and the history of
His people, are mutually dependent upon each other. If an Interpreter neglects this con-
nection, confining himself to one prophet or book without considering what others have
to say, he at once makes himself unreliable and an unsafe guide, The excellence of Dr.
Alexander consists in his having often violated his own theory.

Obs. 6. Even in David’s and Solomon’s time this Kingdom was, in

view of the foreseen rebellion of the nation, predicted as a future restored
one under one of David’s descendants ; and this was based on the peculiar
covenanted relationship of the nation and then existing Davidic dynasty,
as e.g. Ps. 89 : 20-52, Ps. 182 : 11-18, etc. This, as previously intimated,
was done intentionally, and, among other reasons, to show us convincingly
that God foreknew the defection of the nation, and in His Plan provided
for it. If these predictions had all been given after the overthrow of the
Kingdom, we would not have as strong a proof of their inspiration as we
now possess. Thus, e.g. would it be in accordance with human nature for
David, when receiving a Theocratic favored Kingdom, to predict, during
his lifetime, such an one as was destined to an overthrow, to a lengthy
forsaking of God, etc.? No! men are disposed to land and magnify their
possessions, and predict perpetuity in their behalf. The predictions are in
opposition to the prejudices and desires of human nature.
248 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 36.

Proposition 36. The Prophets, with one voice, describe this

one Kingdom, thus restored, in terms expressive of the most
glorious additions.
They predict, from the Psalmist down to Malachi, a restoration
of the identical overthrown Kingdom, linked with the most
astounding events, which shall produce a blessedness and glory
unexampled in the history of the world. Thus, e.g., the resurrec-
tion is united with this restoration, as in Dan. 12: 2, Isa. 25: 8 (the
latter located by Paul, 1 Cor. 15: ‘‘ then shall be fulfilled the say-
ing written,’’ etc.), and the new creation is allied with it, as in Isa.
65:17, and 66: 22.
Obs. 1. It is, therefore, reasonable to suppose that such remarkable
events (as, e.g., the resurrection of the saints, the restitution or re-
creation) must accompany and be identified with the re-establishment of
this Kingdom. The Prophets wnite them, and we are not at liberty to
separate them; any theory that does this, is certainly unworthy of
credence.
Some feel the force of this sufficiently to try and evade it. Thus e.g. Pres. Edwards
(His. of Redemp.) endeavors to make out a kind of ‘‘ new heavens and new earth’’ now
created, but fails in locating it properly, because the descriptions of the prophets are not
now realized in the church or earth. The same is true of Swedenborgianism and others,
which make the same kind of application to the present. So also with making outa
present spiritual resurrection, etc. The only way in which such applications can pos-
sibly be made is to forsake the grammatical sense and impose a spiritual or mystical to
suit the line of interpretation.

Obs. 2. Since the overthrow of the Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom, these

predicted events have not taken place as delineated, and, therefore, the
predicted, covenanted Kingdom has no¢ yet appeared (although the multi-
tude, by forsaking the grammatical, and cleaving to the mystical sense,
hold to the contrary).

Obs. 3. It is the same Kingdom overthrown that receives those ad-

ditions, and not another Kingdom that obtains them ; hence, no professed
Kingdom, however loudly proclaimed and learnedly presented, should,
lacking these, be accepted by us.

Obs. 4. Those additions are so great in their nature, so striking in their

characteristics, so manifesting the interference of the Supernatural, that
no one can possibly mistake when this Kingdom is restored.

Obs. 5. After the downfall of the Davidic Kingdom, the Prophets

predict this Kingdom as future. They employ general terms with an
Prop. 36.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 249

allusion to some definite, fixed time, as ‘‘12 that day,’ etc. The onl
direct allusions to its nearness are contained in the statements that
certain events must intervene, and that certain periods of time, then
enshrouded in mystery, must elapse previous to its restoration. The
prophetical periods themselves were at first necessarily obscure, because
many of the events from which they were to be dated were also in the
future. But while thus careful in reference to time to conceal it for wise
reasons, the same motives did not exist in reference to events, so that the
latter are given in lengthy and detailed accounts.
Some may think that the definitive seventy weeks of Daniel form an exception. But
this prophecy says nothing (except by implication) of the setting up of the Kingdom ; it
therefore falls in with the rest, seeing that it only refers to the First Advent, the de-
struction of the city, and to the desolation which is to follow, even down to the consum-
mation. From other prophecies, however, like Zech. 14, etc., we learn that at the fear-
ful consummation of the end, the Sec. Advent and Kingdom will come. A mystery is
thrown around the exact period of desolation, even if (like Baxter, etc.) we divide the
last week from the remainder and insert the Times of the Gentiles as intervening, we
must, to ascertain explicit knowledge of the Kingdom, refer to other predictions and
attach them.

Obs. 6. The Prophets, too, describe this Kingdom as erected, and these
additions as made, not by aSaviour coming in humiliation and suffering,
but by a Redeemer coming in glory with all His saints, as e.g. Zech. 14 : 5,
Rev. 19 : 11-16, ete.
Obs. 7%. This causes then the singular prophetical procedure, viz. : only
a few of the Prophets refer to the First Advent and its mournful partic-
ulars, as if conscious (which is strongly intimated) of the rejection of the
Messiah and the long-continued downfall of the Kingdom; and, hence,
enlarged and vivid descriptions of this restored Kingdom are confined to
another and distinctive Advent (which from the New Test. account is
designated the Second), which portraiture of the Kingdom has, to this
time, not yet been realized. The Sec. Advent, with its glorious additions,
its happiness and blessedness, was a more eminently desirable theme of the
Spirit than the First, with its mournful consequences. Exceedingly
precious as the First is, the Second exceeds it in glory, and, therefore,
the latter is pre-eminently ‘‘ the blessed hope.’’

Obs. 8. The results of the First Advent, the accurate fulfilment down to
the present day, the personal appropriation of the truths relating to it,
impress us with a deep and abiding sense of the reality of that fore-
knowledge of the future which promises so much connected with a Second
coming of the same Jesus.
250 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 87.

Proposition 87. The Kingdom, thus predicted and -promised,

was not in existence when the Lorerunner of Jesus appeared.
Many books positively assert that the covenanted Kingdom of
God continuously existed, subject only to some changes. Eminent
men (whom we shall largely quote) declare the same, and make the
church (after the overthrow of the Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom) its
continuation. They, however, have not adduced a single direct
passage of Scripture in support of their theory ; and the facts, as
already stated, all clearly prove the contrary. They have mistaken
the original Divine Sovereignty lodged in the Creator for the King-
dom of promise, i.e., for the special reign of God over a nation,
which a/one is the covenanted Kingdom ; or else, led by a precon-
ceived development theory, they are forced to seek out and engraft
such a Kingdom, and elevate the church into the same.
Obs. 1. The Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom 7s the Kingdom of God ; this
has been proven. Now this Kingdom was fallen, and it continwed thus
down to John the Baptist.

Obs. 2. The church, which was continued after the fall of the Davidic
Kingdom, is nowhere directly designated the Kingdom of God. While
under the care of the Divine Sovereignty, 7 7s not, and, according to
covenant, it cannot be, this Kingdom.

Obs. 3. The Prophets, 7 this church, instead of pointing out an

existing Kingdom, invariably represent it as fallen, and its restoration as
future.

Obs. 4. This same Kingdom was promised in its restored form to a

certain descendant of David. He was to be its Restorer. Now it is folly
to hold, that the Kingdom existed just defore His appearance. His
Advent and the Kingdom are inseparably linked together, so that the
offspring of David, the long promised Son, must first appear, and then the
Kingdom. ‘This is the order laid down by all the Prophets. The King-
dom is promised to the Son of Man, and He must first come as man.

Obs. 5. The greatest looseness and latitude of opinion exist among able
writers. In Prop. 20, Obs. 4, notice was taken how Thompson assumes
the existence of a Kingdom, and that the Jews (against all historical fact)
believed themselves to bein it. The Jews hadno knowledge of a then existing
Kingdom, for they looked, longed and prayed for the Davidic restored un-
der the Messiah. Many writers imitate Thompson, and even exceed him, for
they have a continuous Kingdom of God from Paradise down to the present
Prop. 37.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 251

day, making no distinction whatever. Others are a little more moderate,

as e.g. Prof. Hengstenberg (The Jews and the Ch. Church), who locate
‘‘ the very beginning of the Kingdom of God” in the times of Abraham,
le. long before the ‘Theocracy was established. Of course, such a writer
continues it on regardless of the Kingdom’s distinctive features and the
utterances of prophecy.
The writer has often been pained at the recklessness of statement on this subject.
Many excellent authors, not distinguishing what really constitutes a Theocracy (viz. :
God’s condescending to act in the capacity of an earthly Ruler, etc.), make the Theocracy
or Kingdom existing down to the fall of Jerusalem, and then coolly transfer it over to
the Christian Church. No solid advancement can be made in Theology until such utterly
unfounded positions are relinquished.

Obs. 6. Auberlen (The Proph. of Daniel) has presented no profounder

thought for the proper conception of the prophecies of Daniel, than that
which carefully discriminates in this matter, saying : ‘‘ According to what
the book (Dan.) says of itself, it intends to represent something infinitely
deeper and more sublime, namely, the relation of the two fundamental
powers of universal history, the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of the
world, from the time when the Kingdom of God ceases to exist as a
separate state, till the time when it shail be re-established as such in glory.”’
Daniel gives us an epitome of the time, chronologically, during which the
Kingdom does not exist down to the period of its re-establishment, thus
supplying important links in the prophetical delineation of the Divine
Purpose. It is scarcely necessary to add that it includes, at least, the
period down to John the Baptist.
Even if we were to take the usual interpretation given, by our opponents, to Daniel
(e.g. chs. 2 and 7) respecting the setting up of Messiah’s Kingdom, viz. : at the First Ad-
vent, it would sustain the position of our Proposition. The prediction of establishing
the Kingdom at a particular, specified era is sufficient evidence that for some time, at
least, previously it must not have been in existence. The prophecies indicate the Divine
Sovereignty controlling all things, even while the Kingdom of God did not exist on
earth as promised.

Obs. 7. Let the reader consider, what is too much overlooked, that this
Kingdom is one of promise and here on the earth, and hence does not refer
to the divine nature of the Father or of Christ considered in itself, separate
and apart from the expressed covenanted relationship (comp. Props. 80 and
81). For, as Dr. Storrs (Diss. on A'ingdom) has well remarked, that govern-
ment solely arising from, or inherent in, the Divine Nature ‘‘ coula not be
the subject of promise or expectation.’’ God’s Sovereignty, necessarily
and eternally inherent in Him and pervading all things, is never promised,
only as connected and abiding with David’s seed in this Kingdom. This
is confirmed by what is said in Hebrews respecting the human nature of
Christ (comp. Props. 82-84).

Obs. 8. The only Kingdom of God, distinctively announced as such, is

that one in which, as we have shown, God Himself condescends to act in
the capacity of an earthly King, exhibiting directly the functions of such
a King in legislative, executive, and judicial action. After the overthrow
of the Theocratic-Davidie Kingdom, none such existed on earth, but a
sad, mournful vacancy transpired.
252 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [Prop. 37.

Obs. 9. This Kingdom was not preached to the people immediately

before John the Baptist came. Luke (16 : 16) says that Jesus declared:
‘¢ The law and the prophets were until John ; since that time the Kingdom
of God is preached.’’ In whatever way this is explained (see Judge Jones’s
Notes, p. 110, etc., and Com. on Matt. 11 : 12, 13), it certainly implies a
period of time preceding when the Kingdom was not directly offered for
acceptance. The legitimate inference follows, that it was mot in existence.
It was, indeed, predicted, promised, believed in, and expected, but it was
not authoritatively offered for present acceptance and realization, as was
done by John and those following him.
Obs. 10. That the Kingdom did not thus exist, is very apparent from
the language of John himself (Matt. 3:2): ‘* Repent ye, for the King-
dom of heaven is at hand,’’ implying, forcibly, that for some time it had
not been near, seeing that it now drew nigh.

Obs. 11. This teaches us in what light to consider the notion entertained
by numerous eminent writers (as e.g. Hengstenberg in The Jews and the
Ch. Church), viz. : that the Christian Church, as the Kingdom of God, is
simply a continuance of an existing Kingdom of God in the Jewish nation.
It is fundamentally erroneous, and most seriously affects the interpretation
of Scripture. (Comp. Props. on the Church.)

Obs. 12. Many able theologians folly indorse our Proposition as a self-
evident fact. Thus e.g. Van Oosterzee (Theol. N. Test.) makes the King-
dom of God something ‘‘ xew,’’ not a mere uninterrupted continuation,
‘* for it has first come nigh in the fulness of time (Matt. 4 : 17) ; it did not
before exist on earth.”? While guarding against one extreme (i.e. to make
out the Ch. Church a continuation of the Kingdom), he falls, however,
into another when he asserts that ‘‘ it did not defore exist on earth,’’ which
is pointedly contradicted by the previous establishment of the Theocracy,
that was, par excellence, the Kingdom of God, by its withdrawal and
promised restoration.
Prop. 38.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 253

Proposition 38. John the Baptist preached that this Kingdom,

predicted by the Prophets, was “nigh at hand.”
This Kingdom was to be offered to the Jewish nation, and John’s
mission was to prepare the nation for its acceptance. However men
may explain the Kingdom itself, the fact stated is not disputed.
Obs. 1. But right here, at the very beginning of the New Test. narrative,
pious and good men, under a mistaken view of the Kingdom to which
John’s preaching does not correspond, endeavor ¢o lessen the knowledge and
the importance of John. This is done by misapplying a passage of
Scripture, so that the idea is boldly advanced that John’s teaching, in
comparison with what is now taught, is of comparative little value. One
commentator even informs us that the lowest teacher in the church—a
Sunday-school teacher is mentioned—stands higher than John. So long
as men can degrade a heaven-appointed preacher of the Kingdom to so low
a scale in knowledge and standing, it 7s vain to expect them to give us a
consistent and scriptural view of the Kingdom of God.
Before proceeding, it is necessary to vindicate the standing of the first N. Test.
preacher from the disparaging views announced by Barnes (the commentat or alluded to),
Scott, Clarke, Nast, and others, and found in almost every Life of Christ. It is a gross
mistake to make (as Farrar, Life of Christ, vol. 1, p. 294) ‘‘ the humblest child of the
New Covenant more richly endowed than the greatest prophet of the Old.’’ Lange,
Matt. 11 : 7-15, gives several interpretations, all more or less defective. Dr. Schaff,
foot-note to Lange’s Vom., Matt. 3 :1, unable to follow the wild interpretations usually
presented, justly makes the comparison one of ‘‘standpoint and official station,’’ but
hampered by the idea of its being still in some way related to the present church weak-
ens its force. Jones, Notes on Scripture (p. 65), gives the best comment and interpreta-
tion that we have seen consistent with fact and the analogy of Scripture. Hengstenberg
(Christol., B. 3, S. 460) defends the higher character, etc., of John. The passage referred
to, supposed to teach the low standard of John in comparison with believers of this dis-
pensation, is found in Matt. 11:11 and Luke 7 : 28: ‘ Verily, I say unto you, among
them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist;
notwithstanding he that is least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater than he.’’ Our Saviour,
undoubtedly, refers to the Kingdom of heaven as it will be established at His Second Ad-
vent, as our Propositions tend to show, for the church is only preparative to that still
future, coming Kingdom, in which the least that inherits is greater in official standing,
more highly honored, than John was in his official position. Leaving what follows to
indicate the truthfulness of this application of a perverted passage, it may be only
added : it certainly requires great assurance for any one, teacher or not, to assert, from
the language of Jesus, that he is, or that his fellows are, superior to John, in view of
John’s character, inspiration, and mission. Admitting fully the blessings, privileges,
and increased knowledge of some things that we now enjoy, yet a little reflection over
the constant attendance of the Holy Spirit, the sublimity of that authoritative preaching
by which he commanded all to repent, the consciousness of His being a Forerunner of
the Messiah, the spotless character maintained, the faithfulness unto death, should
cause persons to suspect, at once, that reference is made to those who actually inherit the
Kingdom ; who have actually become, and realize their honor and glory as kings and
priests ; who will then be greater than John in every respect, while John, also, in that
254 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [Prop. 38.

Kingdom will occupy a still higher position than the one sustained at the First Advent.
(Comp. following Propositions.) Fairbairn (Typology, p. 48) accords with the present
general view that ‘‘the most eminent in spiritual light and privilege before were still
decidedly inferior even to the less distinguished members of the Messiah’s Kingdom”’
(i.e. according to his view of the Kingdom, the present Church). But feeling a certain
incongruity in such an application (which so unjustly contrasts, an inspired man with
uninspired), he gives us the following note which speaks for itself: ‘‘ Matt. 11 : 11,
where it is said respecting John the Baptist ‘notwithstanding he that is least in the
Kingdom of heaven, is greater than he.’ The older English versions retain the com-
parative, and rendered ‘ he that is less in the Kingdom of heaven’ (Wycliffe, Tyndale,
Cranmer, the Geneva) ; and so also Winer, Greek Gr., § 36, 3, ‘he who occupies some
lower place in the Kingdom of heaven,’ Lightfoot, Hengstenberg, and many others ap-
prove of this milder sense, as it may be called ; but Alford in his recent Com. adheres still
to the stronger ‘ the least ;’ and so does Steir in his ‘Reden Jesu,’ who in illustrating
the thought, goes so far as to say, ‘a mere child that knows the catechism, and can say
the Lord’s prayer, both knows and possesses more than the Old Test. can give, and so
far stands higher and nearer to God than John the Baptist.’ One cannot but feel that
this is putting something like a strain on our Lord’s declaration.” Fairbairn indeed re-
laxes “ the strain” somewhat, but continues it.

Obs. 2. Others, again, in the way of eulogizing John as a preacher of

the coming Kingdom, exalt him beyond what the language and facts will
bear. Thus e.g. Judge Jones (Votes) correctly rejecting the interpretation
of Barnes, etc., adds: ‘‘ None greater than he will ever appear till all
things shall be restored, and the Kingdom of God shall come.’’ The
language of Jesus, however, only says that none greater had arisen to that
time, and we have no authority to continue the comparison down to the
Sec. Advent. The apostles were also preachers of this Kingdom, also
specially called, specially inspired, etc., and are specially honored as the
founders of the Ch. Church. So also Oosterzee (Theol. N. Test., p. 37)
informs us that in John ‘“‘ prophetism attains its point of culmination.”’
But this is opposed to fact : others prophesied after John, as e.g. Paul in
Thess., Jesus in lengthy and remarkable predictions, and John the Rev-
elator giving us the words of Jesus in the Apocalypse. John predicted
but little in comparison with those who followed him.

Obs. 3. John preached ‘‘ the gospel of the Kingdom,”’ just as Jesus, the
twelve, and the seventy afterward preached it. Attention is simply directed
to this, because some assert that there is no preaching of the Gospel
unless a crucified Redeemer is proclaimed. But we have here and previous
to the death of Jesus the gospel of the Kingdom proclaimed to the nation.

Obs. 4. Some able writers (as e.g. Bernard, Bampton Lectures, ‘‘ The
Progress of Doctrine,’’ Lec. 2) take the position that ‘‘ The Gospel, con-
sidered as fact, was begun at the Incarnation and completed at the Resur-
rection ; but the Gospel, considered as Doctrine, began from the first
preaching of Jesus, and was completed in the dispensation of the Spirit.”’
This is, however, too circumscriptive ; for the Gospel was announced pre-
viously to the preaching of Jesus by John, and was contained in the Old
Test. The facts pertaining to the Gospel extend beyond the resurrection,
even to Christ’s present exaltation, through this intermediate period down
to the Second Advent. To make the Gospel perfect, faith must accept as
facts (owing to certainty and assurance of fulfilment) things that are
future. The Gospel could be no Gospel to the Gentiles until their calling
PROP. 38.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 255

and adoption was divinely assumed and demonstrated, i.e. in an official

manner. The Gospel, when employed as a general term to embrace all
that relates to Salvation, cannot be thus circumscribed ; in particulars (as
e.g. relating to call of Gentiles, to the Person or Life of Jesus, etc.) it
may be limited.
 256 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 39.

Proposition 39. John the Baptist was not ignorant of the

Kingdom that he preached.
The prevailing view, indorsed by a multitude of eminent theolo-
gians, is that John was ignorant df, i.e., did not understand the
nature of, the Kingdom he proclaimed. Numerous works proceed
to tell us how ‘‘ low” and ‘‘ carnal’ John’s ideas were, without
perceiving the fatal flaw introduced ; without realizing that they
are actually sapping the very foundations of inspiration, and giving
to infidelity its strongest weapons against the divine origin of
Christianity.
The ablest writers, under the preconceived view that a subsequent change was sub-
stituted in the idea of the Kingdom, do gross injustice to John the Baptist. Thus e.g.
Ebrard (Gospel History, p. 283) makes John totally ignorant of the Kingdom and of ‘‘ the
formation of a compact ‘ Kingdom of Christ’ ’’—and ‘‘ he received no revelation from
God on this matter, but was left to his own conclusions,”"—also making John less “ in in-
sight” than any member of the present church. A multitude of quotations, expressing
the same idea, could readily be gathered.

Obs. 1. Any theory of the Kingdom which makes the first great
preacher of the Kingdom—a preacher specially prepared, sent, and
inspired—ignorant of the leading subject that he was delegated, specifi-
cally commissioned to announce, is not only open to the gravest suspicion,
but ought to be rejected as unworthy of God.

Obs. 2. What was John’s conception of the Messiah’s Kingdom? Let

those who consider John to be mistaken inform us, and let the reader
judge for himself whether it is not the very idea of the Kingdom embraced
in the grammatical sense of the prophets (Prop. 21), and in a restored
Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom. Thuse.g. Neander (Life of Christ, ch. 2,
s. 40) truthfully admits that ‘‘ he expects this Kingdom to be visible,”’
‘existing in communion with the divine life, with the Messiah as its
visible King ; so that, what had not been the case before, the idea of the
Theocracy and its manifestation should precisely correspond to each other,”’
and ‘‘ his expectations of @ visible realization of the Theocracy shows him
as yet upon Old Test. grownd.’’ That is, John expected the restoration of
the Theocracy in an exalted manner under the Messiah, just as the
prophets plainly predicted. Was he mistaken in this conception? Many
say that he was, simply because such a conception was not realized at the
First Advent, and down to the present day no such Kingdom has existed,
and, therefore, take it for granted, that he misapprehended the nature of |
the Kingdom ; that the church must be the Kingdom intended ; that the
prophecies pertaining to the restored Theocracy must be spiritualized to
suit the present church, etc., thus overlooking the fact, clearly given,
that for certain reasons (which will hereafter be given in detail) the very
PRop. 39.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 257

Kingdom preached and anticipated by John was postponed. Instead of

allowing God’s Word to speak, and having faith in it that it will.yet be
fulfilled as written, this lack of faith, based on a supposed never to be
realized fulfilment, is made the measure of John’s preaching and of God’s
Divine Purpose. Js it wise or prudent?
So weak and insignificant is John’s preaching, so Jewish in its nature and intent, in
the estimation of many, that it is passed by without comment, or even notice, in books
where we naturally, from the subject discussed, seek to find it, as illustrated, e.g. in
Pres. Edwards’s His. of Redemption. Books giving a history of Christ, and including that
of John the Baptist, are very careful not to touch the preaching of the Kingdom, or to
inform us what Kingdom he proclaimed, but waive the whole matter by telling us, in
general phrases, that John endeavored to prepare the people for the coming Messiah, as
exemplified, e.g. in Fleetwood's Life of Christ. Commentators, with lack of fairness and
candor, pass by the real facts (as they will be shown in following Propositions) of John’s
preaching of the Kingdom, and present such a modernized version of the language, as if
that accurately represented John’s belief, that they impose upon the ignorant and un-
wary reader, as shown, e.g. in Barnes’s Notes on Matt. 3 : 2. Thus the Baptist suffers from
neglect, from the slights of believers, and from the inserting a meaning into his language
that he never for a moment entertained.

Obs. 3. If John is specially called to preach this Kingdom, and yet

labors under delusion, gross error respecting its nature, we ask, Whom, then,
can we trust? Let the reader ponder these facts: that this John was
consecrated to the ministerial office from the womb (Luke 1 : 15) ; that for
this purpose he was brought forth beyond the ordinary course of nature
(Luke 1:18) ; that he was under such Divine guidance as (Luke 1 : 15,
etc.) tobe ‘‘ filled with the Holy Ghost’’ ; constituted ‘‘ the prophet of the
Highest’; ‘‘to give knowledge of salvation’’; and (John. 1: 7) to be “a
witness of the light’? ;—and then is it credible, even supposable, that such
a Prophet and Witness, thus filled with the Spirit, should grossly blunder
in declaring the leading subject of his preaching, the Kingdom of heaven ?
Yet such is the opinion of multitudes, learned and unlearned, while in-
fidels laugh and sneer at this practically acknowledged lowering of a
divinely commissioned preacher of the Kingdom. Surely, if this 18 80, V1Z.,
that he misapprehended the Kingdom, then upon what does hiscredibility
as a prophet depend? If mistaken in the most vital part of his mission,
why was he not in error concerning the rest? Now, against all such dis-
honoring theories, we take the ground, sustained both by Scripture and
the Primitive Church view, that he was not mistaken in his preaching;
that he knew full well what Kingdom he was to tender to the Jewish
nation, far better than the multitude which denies its correctness ; and
that if such a Kingdom, as he believed in and proclaimed, was not realized,
we must allow the Scriptures themselves to assign the reasons for such a
delay. This, indeed, requires faith, but it is a faith abundantly sustained
by facts.

Obs. 4. There is something inconsistent in Neander and others opposing

the idea of the Kingdom embraced in the preaching of John and the
disciples, as being an imperfect conception of its nature, etc., and yet in
their development theory, when the worid is renewed, they have, to all
intents and purposes, virtually the same notion expressed. Thus e.g.
Neander : ‘‘ In fine, the end of this development appears to be (though not,
indeed, simply as its natural result) a complete realization of the Divine
Kingdom which Christ established in its outward manifestation, fully
258 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 39.

answering to its idea; a perfect world dominion of Christ and of His

organs, a world purified and transformed, to become the seat of His
universal Empire.’’ Why, then, so strenuously reject and oppose John’s
idea of the Kingdom, an outward visible Kingdom, resulting in a world
dominion, etc., if their own attached notion, in place of it, is ultimately
at its consummation to bring this to pass?
Obs. 5, The reader will find, in looking over authors, interpreters, etc.,
that many of them, whilst having much to say about John’s preaching
repentance, omit, as a tender subject beset with difficulties, al/ allusions to
his preaching the Kingdom, although repentance is only described as a
means for attaining to the Kingdom. The greater is sacrificed to the
lesser, or else, with their church-kingdom theory prejudging the case, and
not knowing how to reconcile John’s preaching with his special call, ete.,
they simply let it alone. But other expositors and writers approach the
subject frankly, and candidly tell us what were the views of John, con-
firming Neander’s opinion (Obs. 2). Thus e.g. Meyer (Com. Matt. 3 : 2)
acknowledges that he did, in his idea of the Messianic Kingdom, embrace
“the political element.’? The author of cece Homo admits that he
‘“meant that the Theocracy was to be restored.’’ Reuss (His. Ch. Theol.,
p. 124) says, ‘‘ After all, John the Baptist was still a Jew ; he looked for
the brilliant and august inauguration of the Kingdom which he had pro-
claimed with so much fervor and devotedness,”’ etc., i.e. a Jewish King-
dom, such as the grammatical sense of the prophecies conveyed. Such
testimonies conld be multiplied, but these are sufficient. Others refer to
this matter in a half-apologetic tone, a lamely explanatory manner, that
only makes the defect the more glaring. Thus e.g. Olshausen (Com. Matt.
2:38) says: ‘‘ If now we ask in what sense John the Baptist may have
understood the Kingdom, it is most probable that in his relation to the
law, he conceived of it with the generality and indeterminateness of the
Old Test., but without incorporating with the idea anything false. We
may concede a certain affinity between John’s notions of the Messiah’s
Kingdom and those that prevailed among the people.’’ This extract
speaks for itself and needs no comment, seeing that the “‘ indeterminate-
ness’’ is with Olshausen and not with John or the Old Test. Van Oosterzee,
(Theol. N. Test., s. 7), while apparently avoiding the main point (i.e. the
Kingdom preached by John), refers to his preaching in this way : ‘* Never-
theless, compared with the teaching of the Lord and His apostles, is the
testimony of John the Baptist relatively poor, and not essentially raised
above the standpoint of the Old Test.’”’ We gratefully and heartily accept
of the standpoint assigned to John, and will prove from Scripture (not
assertion or assumption) that John’s testimony and conception was the
truth, confirmed by covenant and the oath of the Almighty, and therefore
relatively and inexpressibly rich.

Obs. 6. Those, of course, who assume that the weakest believer who now
attempts to preach the Kingdom of God is far greater than John (Prop.
38, Obs. 1) have no hesitancy in rejecting John’s views of the Kingdom.
John, being less than the least in this dispensation (e.g, Fairbairn, On
Proph., p. 163), it follows that every believer can tell us far better what
the Kingdom is than John was able, although specially called to preach it.
If this is so, how comes it that the great and learned theologians of this
Prop: 39.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 259

dispensation present us so many definitions and meanings, several kinds of

kingdoms, etc., and that there is such a lack of uniformity of belief among
them? If all are greater preachers than John, if they have more knowledge
and clearer conceptions, why, then, do we not find them expressed? (comp.
Prop. 3). Fairness to John requires that we should accept of his preaching
until it is proven to be erroneous ; simple assertion, however repeated by
the learned, does not condemn him,
As an illustration how recent Roman Catholic writers treat the subject, ignoring its
difficulties pertaining to their Church-Kingdom view, we present the two following : Dr.
Alzog (Univ. Ch. His., vol. 1, p. 147), speaking of John, says: ‘‘He, unlike them (i.e.
other prophets), did not put off to an indefinite future the amelioration which he prom-
ised, but proclaimed that the Kingdom of God was already among men, and that the
least in the Kingdom of heaven (i.e. the Church) was greater than he.” Dr. Rutter (Life
of Jesus, p. 99), after telling us that John said, ‘‘ Do penance, for the Kingdom of heaven
is at hand,’’ pronounces the Kingdom to be ‘‘ that inward and spiritual reign which be-
gins here on earth by faith showing its charity and good works, and which will attain its
utmost completion in heaven by the perfection of charity ; a reign which consists in
this, that Almighty God, having, through Jesus Christ, destroyed the empire of the devil
over the hearts of men, sovereignly reigns there in this life by knowledge and love, and
in the next life by the sights and enjoyment of the divine essence, which constitutes
our external happiness.” Comp. Props. 19, 20, 21, 22, 37, 41, etc., and also 90 to 109.
The same view is held by a multitude of Protestants, although such a Kingdom has no
resemblance whatever to the covenanted and oath-bound one.
260 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 40.

Proposition 40. Zhe hearers of John believed that he preached to

them the Kingdom predicted by the Prophets, and wm the sense
held by themselves. ,
This follows from the preceding Propositions, and is also admit-
ted by many eminent writers.
Obs. 1. The Jewish belief in a restored 'Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom
has been noticed (Prop. 20), assupported by the grammatical sense of the
prophecies (Prop. 21), and the election of the nation (Prop. 24), etc. The
preaching of John, giving no explanation of the Kingdom, indicative that
the Kingdom is something well known (Prop. 19), and the employment of
current phraseology without change of meaning (Props. 22 and 23), etc.—
all proves the correctness of our position.

Obs. 2. The grammatical sense was the only one then used in relation to
the Kingdom, producing unity of belief in a restored Davidic Kingdom.
Even the Rabbins, who had already largely perverted Scripture by allegorical and
mystical interpretations, still clung with unswerving faith to the plain grammatical
sense when it related to the Kingdom. The testimony on this point is overwhelming ;
as much of it is presented under various Propositions, it need not be repeated.

Obs. 3. The unity of belief in the same restored Kingdom is evidenced

by John’s preaching of the Kingdom raising up no disputation concerning
it. Had he preached the modern view, it would inevitably have excited
disputes and appeals to the prophets.

Obs. 4. The exclusiveness (Prop. 29) of the Jewish nation, the prophecies
describing but one Kingdom (Prop. 35), etc., forbid the idea that there
was an antagonism of belief between the preacher and the hearer. There
might be a difference of opinion respecting the imposed condition of
repentance, but there could be none concerning the Kingdom so far as
related to its essential nature.

Obs. 5. This fact of a unison of view respecting the Kingdom alone

satisfactorily accounts for the exceeding brevity with which it is men-
tioned. Itis taken for granted that no difference of opinion existed.

Obs. 6. The unity of agreement also accounts for so little descriptive of

the Kingdom being given in detail in the New Test. It was fully known
and described in the prophets ; now to have entered into a detailed state-
ment and particularized the restored Davidic Kingdom, would unnecessarily
ide excited the open hostility of the jealous and persecuting Roman
mpire.
Prop. 40.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 261
Cimarus and others have made this feature an objection to John the Baptist and
Jesus, viz. : that devoted to the Jewish ideal of a Kingdom, the restored Davidic, they
virtually became conspirators against the authority of the Cesars. This is nothing new,
for it was this accusation that influenced Pilate to give up Jesus to crucifixion, and led
to the just superscription of the cross. The whole matter rests upon the priority of
claims, the justness of conquest, the authority of God, the manner of introducing the
Kingdom, etc. Foreseeing, as we shall show, the result, the greatest prudence was exercised
in this matter to avoid unnecessary persecution, and when it was finally known that the
Kingdom was postponed to the Second Advent, to be introduced by the power of Jesus
Christ, then, in view of the prophecies which foretold their continued existence down to
the Advent, believers were taught that the existing governments were ordained or ap-
pointed of God—not that they were sacred (as claimed), but allowed as a necessary re-
quirement, etc. ;

Obs. 7. This unity of agreement is also seen in John doing his preaching
in the wilderness—that is, east from Jerusalem in the open country, away
from the large cities. He and his hearers, both believing in a restored
Davidic Kingdom, and he endeavoring by repentance to prepare the nation
for its coming, those large gatherings of Jews and the preaching of such a
Kingdom would necessarily have excited inquiry and the pressure of
Roman power. Hence (especially in view of the foreseen rejection) the
utmost caution, consistent with John’s mission, is observed.
If the modern prevailing view of the Kingdom is the correct one, no reason can be
assigned for John’s avoidance of the centres of influence, as e.g. Jerusalem.

Obs. 8. The agreement of opinion is seen in the disciples of John, who,

as far as known, held to the coming of the restored Davidic Kingdom
under the Messiah.
Obs. 9. John and his hearers certainly had no other views than those
entertained by following preachers of the Kingdom, as e.g. the apostles ;
see Acts 1: 6.
Obs. 10. The agreement of opinion is frankly admitted by many of our:
opponents, whom we have quoted, and whom we shall hereafter quote, as
e.g. Knapp (Ch. Theol.), Neander (Life of Christ, etc.), and others.

Obs. 11. It is in view of such agreement of opinion that Hcece Homo

declares (p. 13, etc.) that John tried to renew the old Covenant by promis-
ing ‘‘ the restoration of the ancient Theocracy,”’ adding, “‘ he had renewed
the old Theocratic Covenant with the nation. But not all the nation was
fit to remain in such a covenant,”’ etc.
 262 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 41.

Proposition 41. The Kingdom was not established under John’s

ministry.
It could not be, because no restored Theocracy, such as the
prophets predicted, the covenant demanded, and he preached, fol-
lowed. This is seen by the failure of John’s mission, which was
designed to prepare, if possible, consistently with moral freedom,
the nation for the Kingdom.
Obs. 1. John was not conscious of a Kingdom being established, as is
noticeable in the message that he sent, shortly before his death, from
prison to Jesus.
Consider the position of John in prison, and imagine the thoughts that must have
arisen in his mind while confined for several months in the fortress. He had preached
the coming of the Kingdom conditioned on repentance ; he had seen and announced the
Messiah, through whom, as he fondly anticipated, the Kingdom was to be established.
Just before his imprisonment he had expressed the hope that the Messiah would be
received, and hence looked for a speedy visible Messianic Kingdom. Now it is supposed
(e.g. Neander’s Life of Christ, S. 135) that doubts arose in John’s mind respecting the
Messiah on account of the delay. But this could not possibly be, owing to John’s specific
mission, his testimony to Jesus, his having seen the attesting divine manifestation, and
his having heard the confirming voice from heaven. John had no doubts concerning the
Messiahship of Jesus. How, then, interpret the action of sending his disciples to Jesus ?
The explanation follows naturally from the hopes entertained by him, and the condition
in which he was placed. Being imprisoned, the hope of a speedy establishment of the
Kingdom (for had he not seen the Messiah ?) implanted the hope of a speedy release
from his prison ; for then, under the reign of the Messiah as predicted by the prophets,
he would necessarily experience deliverance from his enemies (as Zacharias believed,
Luke 1:74). Such thoughts must, from the very nature of his belief, hope, and situa-
tion, have passed through his mind. To satisfy his mind respecting release, whether
the Kingdom would be soon established, he sends two of his disciples (Matt. 11 : 2, 3),
with, in his estimation, a test question :“‘ art Thou He that should come, or do we look
for another?’ Now if we but reflect that (As Olshausen, Vom. loci has well remarked,
comp. Whitby loci.) ‘‘ the. Coming One” or ‘‘‘ He that Cometh,’ has a fixed doctrinal
signification, viz. : the Messiah” (denoting the One who should restore the Davidic King-
dom)—this was a most delicate way of asking why the Kingdom was not established, why
there was a delay in its restoration. John proclaimed Him as ‘‘ the Coming One,’’ and
thus reminds Jesus of the fact by the question ; but, in view of the non-appearance of
the Kingdom and of his confinement in consequence, also in the latter clause indirectly
urges Jesus to make no delay, invites Him to hasten and manifest His Messianic mission.
There is no necessity to draw from the narrative the idea of John’s wavering in his Mes-
sianic faith (as unbelief has it), or of his being momentarily grievously tempted (as
Olshausen), or that he misapprehended the nature of the Kingdom (as Ebrard, note to
Olshausen), (comp. Whitby and Scott loci.) etc., but rather as Kendrick (note to Olshau-
sen, loci) ‘‘ that John stumbled rather at our Saviour's slowness in assuming to Himself
that temporal dominion which doubtless formed a part of his view of the function of the
Messiah,’’ or as Lange (Com. loci), that he desired “‘ himself to witness the manifestation
of that Kingdom of heaven which he had announced,” and which, as a resultant, would
bring deliverance. John thus expresses his hope in the Kingdom, virtually saying : If,
as I believe, Thou art the Messiah, why not establish the Kingdom and impart freedom ;
it was an appeal. Now notice Chirst’s admirable reply : Well knowing that the King-
Prop. 41.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 263

dom would be postponed on account of the nation’s unworthiness, He does not reject John’s
Messianic. hopes, but simply confirms His Messianic character by an appeal to His
works —thus confirming John’s faith in Himself-as the Messiah without intimating when
the Messianic expectations would be realized. Renan (Life of Christ, p. 189) says, that
when John’s disciples returned to him from Jesus, ‘‘ we are led to believe that, in spite
of his consideration for Jesus, John did not consider that he was to realize the divine
promises.” This is an utterly unfair and unjust influence. We have seen why Jesus
could not be more specific in answering John—the postponement of the Kingdom is the
reason—but this did not forbid Him from confirming John’s faith in Himself as the
Messiah, and, by consequence, that John should himself realize (at some time) the Mes-
sianic promises. The language indicates it.

Obs. 2. That no Kingdom was established is evident from the continued

style of preaching the Kingdom after John’s imprisonment and death, for
Jesus, the disciples, and the seventy announced it, not as actwally present,
but as still future.

Obs. 3. The imprisonment and death of John itself is indicative of our

position, for it shows that, instead of a Kingdom, suffering is allotted ; the
Forerunner is rejected, and the Kingdom cannot be obtained without blood
shed in its behalf. A martyred Forerunner is an appropriate foreground
to a crucified King, and reminds us how dearly this very Kingdom is
purchased.
Leathes (The Religion of Christ, Bampton Lectures for 1874), while misapprehending
and spiritualizing the Kingdom that John preached, yet fully admits: ‘‘ He certainly
died without seeing the Advent of that Kingdom which he had proclaimed as near.”
We cannot see how any one who holds the Ch. Church that was established on the day
of Pentecost to be this Kingdom, can logically hold any other view. Hence many
writers occupy Leathes’ position, and concede our Proposition. Our opponents involve
themselves in the most glaring inconsistencies and contradictions by not adhering in
strictness to their own Church-Kingdom theory. Thus e.g. Barnes and others (even in-
eluding such as Nast, etc.) make the Ch. Church to be the Kingdom established on the
day of Pentecost after the death of Jesus, but then again and again they tell us that the
Gospel with its resultant spiritual reign is this Kingdom, and that this Gospel was
preached and result gained in John’s time (thus making this Kingdom not to exist and
then again to exist); and then, without seeing the absurdity of the proceeding, when
commenting on Matt. 11 : 11, they make out that John is not in the Kingdom of heaven,
but that the least one in it (i.e. the Church) is superior to John, owing to privilege, etc.,
after having declared in other places that John was in it and caused his hearers to press
into it. Alas! what confusion arises, when men forsake the plain sense of covenant and
prophecy.

Obs. 4. This satisfactorily answers the question, why John continued

his ministry after thé public appearance of Christ. The solution is found
in John baptizing not only in view of a Messiah to come, but of a Kingdom
to come. The Kingdom, and meetness for it, was the burden of his
preaching, and the foundation motive for urging repentance. Now if the
Kingdom had appeared, as some writers contend, as soon as Jesus was
baptized by John or even earlier, then John’s mission would have ended ;
but as the Kingdom was not manifested, John could continue his own
ministry without change. Jesus only commenced (Matt. 4:17) His
preaching when John was imprisoned.
The testimony of Killen (The Ancient Church, p. 11), that the Jews ‘‘ anxiously awaited
the appearance of a Messiah,”’ is that of every historian. But with this and as a result-
ant, inseparably united, was the idea of the Messianic Kingdom, Hence the preaching
was continued as preparatory to the Kingdom. This, also, throws light on the baptism
of Jesus, a difficult subject, because Jesus needed not repentance. Some (Farrar) make
264 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 41.

it to ‘‘ prefigure the laver of regeneration ;’ others (Shenkel), a vicarious or representa-

tive act ; others (Bernard), an act of humility, or (Barnes) an example sanctioning divine
institutions, or (Lange) to remove ceremonial uncleanness, etc. This baptism was de-
signed to indicate that the person receiving it was prepared or qualified for the King-
dom, yielding himself to the supreme will of God, hence David’s Son could properly re-
ceive it.

Obs. 5. The non-establishment of the Kingdom is shown in the fact

that the disciples of John, instructed by himself, and their adherents after
John’s death, even after the death of Jesus, formed a sect who still waited
for the coming of the Messiah (Gieseler, Ch. His. 1: 69, Lange’s Com., p.
69, ete.). This can only be accounted for on the ground that, not seeing
the Kingdom established as preached by John, and unacquainted with
or failing to appreciate its postponement to the Sec. Advent of the crucified
Jesus, they still looked for the manifestation of the Kingdom, and, of
course, then for the Messiah to restore it.

Obs. 6. The brevity of John’s ministry is readily accounted for; brief

as it was, it was sufficiently long to indicate the unfitness of the nation for
the Kingdom (comp. Lange, Com., Matt. 3 : 1-12, p. 68, 2d col.). Differ-
ent writers inform us that it was very successful and give us glowing
accounts how the multitude ‘‘ pressed into’’ the Kingdom ; but we have the
decided testimony of the Lord Himself that, whatever degree of success
attended John’s efforts in the beginning, his mission to the nation was
acceptable only to the few ; the representative men of the nation were not
gained, they did not repent (Matt. 11 : 18).
As this is an important point, and misconception here will lead to misinterpretation,
a few words may be added. The passage adduced to prove the success of John’s minis-
try is Matt. 11:12, and Luke 16:16. We refer, by way of illustration, to Barnes’ Com.
loci, to show how comments are made. On this verse, he tells us of the multitudes who
‘‘rush” and “ press’ for the Kingdom, and this state of things ‘‘ has continued,”’ etc.,
and yet, when commenting on verse 18 of the same chapter, forgetting what he had just
penned, he then informs us that ‘‘ this generation” ‘‘ were not pleased with him,’’ etc.
The reader is referred to the admirable comment of Judge Jones (Notes on the Scriptures,
loci) on this passage, in which he consistently proves (take Luke 16 : 16 in connection
as interpreter) that it teaches that men pressed against, resisted the Kingdom, treated it
with violent opposition, although urged upon them. His criticism of the text corresponds
with the context, and makes it to harmonize with the facts as they truly existed (so also
Lightfoot, Schneckenburger, and others). Those, however, who retain a different render-
ing, to make it consistent with fact, interpret it (as H. Dana Ward, Proph. Times, Ap.
1874, p. 36), ‘‘ every (wise) man presseth toward it,” or (as J.G. W., Proph. Times, vol. 11,
No. 5, p. 72), ‘*‘ From the days of John the Baptizer until now, the Kingdom of heaven
suffereth violence” (permits a violation of ritualism), ‘‘and the violent” (the earnest pen-
itents) ‘‘ take it by force” (striving to enter into the strait gate, etc.). These, and
others (comp. Lange’s Com. loci, Scott, etc.) are more or less forced, while Jones’s inter-
pretation is natural and accordant with fact. That no national or wide extended re-
pentance was produced is evident from the deputation (John 1 : 19-27) and subsequent
events. The extravagant eulogies of ‘‘a holy violence,’’ and the making by some
(Lange, etc.),John and Jesus to be “‘ the violent,” are simply glosses ; the violent—by
conspiring to put the Messiah to death—took, as we shall show in detail, the Kingdom
away from the nation.

Obs. 7. Some writers, in their eagerness to make out a preparation for

the First Advent (which existed, and is temperately (e.g. Schaff, His. Apos.
Church) described by others), tell us much of the preparation of the Jewish
nation for the same. 'But this is shown to be utterly unworthy of credence,
in view of ¢he failure of John’s mission, the rejection and death of the
Prop. 41.] THE THEOOCRATIC KINGDOM. 265

Messiah, and the resultant judgments of God. (Comp. character of Jews as

given by Jesus, Josephus, Harwood, Mosheim, Horne, etc.).
Often have we been pained and surprised to find careful and able writers fall into
extravagances in this direction. Thus e.g. Dr. Luthardt (Bremen Lectures, Lec. 8, p. 128)
says : ‘‘ John the Baptist’s mission was to be bridesman. He led the bride to the bride-
groom, to be united with Him in marriage, to be made one with Him. This is the end
of the history of Israel,’’ ete. All that we have to say of this perversion of the marriage
figure, as used in Scripture, is this: John found avery unwilling bride, and in his
efforts came to his death, and Jesus also died ; instead of a marriage there was gloom and
death ; the marriage was postponed. Men may-—this is their apology— think to honor
Christ by showing a successful mission in John, but they do it at the expense of truth; and
Jesus needs no fictitious praise. Many illustrations of this could be given, but this
will suffice. However, in this connection it may be well to mention another mistake that
is prevalent. Farrar (Life of Uhrist, vol. 1, p. 115) speaks of John’s baptism “as an initi-
ation into the Kingdom.’’ This is nowhere asserted ; and it is opposed by all the facts
that we have already presented, and by others that will follow. It was a baptism of re-
pentance to qualify for the Kingdom, and not to admit, or initiate into the Kingdom, as
is seen e.g. by the force of Acts 1 : 6, (the apostles even not being cognizant of such a
Kingdom).
266 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 42.

Proposrrion 42. Jesus Christ, in His early ministry, preached

that the Kingdom of God was nigh at hand.
When John’s ministry ended by his imprisonment, it is said
(Matt. 4:17): ‘‘Hrom that time Jesus began to preach, and to
say, Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Comp.
Mark 1:14, 15, Luke 4: 23, and 8: 1.)
The design of this Proposition is simplyto direct the attention of the reader to the fact
that Jesus preached the Kingdom of God in the same manner that John the Baptist did,
for there would be an inconsistency in the Forerunner preaching one Kingdom and the
Principal quite another. Therefore, the meaning and intent of the nighness—also pro-
claimed by John, Jesus, the twelve, and the seventy—will be left for full consideration
under Propositions 55 to 68 inclusive, when we shall be better prepared, by the prelim-
inaries passed over, to appreciate its deep and intensely interesting signification.

Obs. 1. Jesus adopts the same style that John did, urges the same
condition of repentance, uses the phraseology common with the Jews, and
introduces the subject of the Kingdom, without any explanation, as one
well known and understood. The efforts made by well-intentioned men to
give this preaching of Jesus a “‘ modern’? aspect and coloring is not only
a failure, being opposed by stubborn facts and the immediate results in His
hearers, but it actually places the Messiah in a position irreconcilable with
that of a perfect Divine Teacher. We therefore hold, with the Primitive
Church, until decided scriptural proof is offered to the contrary, that
Jesus offered to the Jews the Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom in its Civil and
Religious combination, just as predicted by the prophets.

Obs. 2. How Jesus was understood by His hearers, we leave one of our
opponents—to whose interest it would be to conceal or cover it—to describe.
Thus Knapp (Ch. Theol., p. 323): ‘‘ At the time of Christ, and previously,
the current opinion of the people in Palestine, and indeed of most of the
Pharisees and lawyers, was, that He (the Messiah) would be a temporal
Deliverer and a King of the Jews, and, indeed, a Universal Monarch, who
would réign over all nations. Thus they interpreted the passages, Ps.
2:2, 6, 8, Jer. 23 : 5, 6, Zech. 9 : 4, seq. Hence those who, during the
life-time of Jesus, acknowledged Him to be the Messiah, wished to pro-
claim.Him King, John 6:15, coll. ; Matt. 21:8,9. The apostles themselves
held this opinion until after the resurrection of Christ, Matt. 20 : 20, 21,
Luke 24 : 21, Acts1:6. And Jesus Himself, during His life upon earth,
proceeded very guardedly, in order to lead them gradually from this
deep-rooted prejudice, and not ¢o take it away at once.’? Who can justly
be regarded as the author of this ‘‘ deep-rooted prejudice’? ? Certainly He
who placed it in the plain grammatical sense of the Old Test., who left the
Jewish nation with it for many long centuries as their faith and their hope,
and who, while having twelve men in training to be preachers of this
Prop. 42.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 267

Kingdom for over three years, did not remove it, as Knapp confesses.
The question is, Was it a ‘‘ prejudice’’ or the truth ?
Knapp himself falls into the accommodation theory, which (Sec. 90, 2) he justly con-
demns, and thus violates the very principle of interpretation (literal) adopted by Christ
and the apostles in quoting from the Old Test., and which (S. 90, 3) he approves ; illus-
trating, that it is much more easy to lay down canons for interpretation than to follow
them. We have merely the assertion of Knapp and others, that the hope of a Theocratic
restoration—which they frankly acknowledge (not seeing how necessarily fatal it is to
their own theory) was not removed by the public preaching and private instructions of
Jesus—is a “‘ deep-rooted prejudice.’’ It seems passing strange that without positive
proof, eminent theologians, following the lead of the Alexandrian and monkish opinion
afterward developed, should hastily, rashly rush to such a conclusion— a conclusion that
violates covenant, oath, plain promises, the purity of John’s and Christ’s teaching. True,
such lack of faith is predicted, but still it is strange that it should be found even in men
who, in many other respects, are able defenders of God’s Word. Alas! that there
should be an unwillingness to candidly examine whether, after all, such a ‘‘ prejudice’
is not clearly taught in the Old Test., and as distinctively perpetuated under the preach-
ing of the Messiah Himself, and whether there may not be valid reasons, found in the
conduct of the nation itself, why this ‘* prejudice” remained unrealized. When Fuller
(Strictures on Robinson's Sentiments, Let. 2) says of the disciples, ‘‘ Their foolish minds
were so dazzled with the false ideas of a temporal Kingdom that they were blinded to the
true end of Christ’s coming and to all that the prophets declared concerning it,’’ we, on
the other hand, think that it is Fuller’s mind that is ‘‘so dazzled with the false ideas of
a’’ spiritual ‘‘ kingdom’’ that it is ‘‘blinded,”’ etc.

Obs. 3. Pressense has (in The Redeemer) a chapter entitled ‘‘ The Plan
of Jesus Christ,’’ which contains an tzconsistent and misleading Plan,
telling us, e.g, that it was part of the plan of Jesus to abolish the Theocracy
(just as if it then existed, comp. Props. 382, 33), because a Theocracy is
useless (!?), etc., and the proof alleged for such fundamentally sweeping
assertions 1s the phrase ‘‘ my Kingdom is not of this world ’’ (just as if the
Theocracy was not a Divine but a world appointment, comp. Prop. 25,
Obs. 6). As we shall examine this proof (comp. Props. 109 and 110) in
another connection, it is sufficient to ask now, Why were the preachers of
the Kingdom down to the ascension (Acts 1 : 6) entirely unacquainted with
Pressense’s plan? Why does Jesus then express regret at leaving “‘ the
house (Davidic) desolate,’? and point to His future coming, when the
desolation should be removed? Why does the entire tenor of His preaching
evince that Ile never, for a moment, hesitated in identifying His Kingdom
that He proclaimed with that of the Prophets, understood by the Jews in
the Theocratic sense, as e.g. Matt. 16 : 27 and 25: 34, comp with Dan.
7:18, 27; Luke 18 : 28, 29, Matt. 8: 11, comp. with Mic. 7 : 20; Luke
22 : 29, 30, Matt. 19 : 28, comp. with Mic. 4 : 6-8, Ezek. 37 : 21, 22, ete.?
When such talented writers misapprehend the precious nature of the
Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom, and disparage its Divine appointment, what
idea can the multitude form of the same?

Obs. 4. Dr. Auberlen (Div. Rev.) has boldly and truthfully declared that
Jesus, the Prophets, and the apostles were express Chiliasts. They all,
receiving the grammatical sense and expressing themselves in it, taught
and looked for a restoration of the fallen down Davidic Kingdom under the
Messiah. (The proof on this point is cumulative and irresistible, as will be
shown in the course of our argument—the design at present being merely
to introduce some preparatory matter before considering the covenants
upon which all rests.) Hence Renan (Life of Christ) frequently refers (so
 268 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 42.

Strauss, Baur, etc.) to this Chiliastic feature, saying, e.g. (p. 140) that
‘¢ Millenarianism gave the impulsion.”’
Renan, too, like many of the orthodox, overlooking the postponement of the Kiny-
dom so plainly taught, ignoring the existence of the Scriptures that refer to it, and conse-
quently not realizing the close relationship existing between the rejection of Jesus by
the representative men of the Jewish nation and His corresponding change in addressing
the Jews, makes sad work with the Kingdom preached. He makes it just as varied as
the belief does which he is attacking, telling us that Jesus understood it ‘‘ in different
senses.” At one time it is ‘‘ simply the reign of the poor and disinterested ;’”’ at an-
other it is ‘‘ the literal accomplishment of the apocalyptic visions of Daniel and
Enoch ;” sometimes it is ‘“‘ the Kingdom of souls,’ etc. After saying, ‘‘ the fundamen-
tal idea of Jesus was, from the first day, the establishment of the Kingdom of God,’’ we
have from Renan’s pen about as many definitions of ‘‘ the Kingdom of God” as, on the
other side, Barnes gives (Prop. 3) in his Notes. This is derogatory to Christ, and will be
found, by a candid comparison of Scripture, to be utterly unfounded.

Obs. 5. Because the Kingdom (Vheocratic) has not yet appeared as

preached, we are not authorized to conclude (as Renan, etc.) that Christ
changed His plan ; because the Jews rejected Him, we are not at liberty to
infer that their Davidic house will remain forever desolate. In this matter
we must confine ourselves (Prop. 9) to the Record, and see why the King-
dom did not come, what influence this rejection had upon the Kingdom,
and what Jesus Himself declared concerning it, and then, only then, frame
our conclusions accordingly. ‘The simple, unvarnished narrative, as firmly
held by the Primitive churches, tells us that the Kingdom preached as
nigh was postponed to the Sec. Advent.
But this excites the scorn of Unbelievers, who, in virtue of this allusion to his Sec.
Advent, charge Jesus with preaching ‘‘dreams.’’ Those extravagant upholders of
Christ as a preacher of ‘‘ the Religion of Humanity” still make (as Renan) Him proclaim
(Life of Jesus, p. 248) ‘‘ the expectation of an empty apocalypse,’’ ‘‘ a false, cold, impos-
sible idea of a pompous advent,’’ etc. The case is prejudged ; the impossible steps in,
and nothing is left to faith. This is precisely in the line of Bible prediction, that such
‘* scoffers’’ shall be educated to such a standard of unbelief and irreverence for Christ’s
preaching and Christ’s claims to the one Kingdom linked with, and postponed to, his
Sec. Appearing (2 Tim. 4:1, etc.), and that they shall, by the spread of their unbeliev-
_ ing sentiments, influence the multitude, so that at the Second Advent, kings, nobles,
great and mighty men, a vast concourse of people shall be arrayed against Him (Apoc.
19, Zech. 14, Joel 3, etc.). But itis not merely the infidel who speaks disparagingly of
Christ’s preaching ;many a believer, who loves Christ and would shrink from being
classed with unbelievers, so far coincides with infidelity in the fundamental part of
preaching the Kingdom, that he lamely apologizes in behalf of Christ (when He needs
none), and endeavors to conceal the alleged defects under a weak accommodation theory,
saying that Christ accommodated Himself to the ignorance and prejudices of the Jews.
A system that must resort to such an abject line of reasoning, making Jesus to say one
thing while really meaning another, keeping others (as e.g. apostles down to the ascen-
sion, Acts 1: 6) in “ error and prejudice,’’ while all the time intending the reverse, is
certainly—no matter who advocates it—sorely defective and entirely untrustworthy. It lacks
the truth, or it would not place the blessed Messiah in such an unenviable attitude. How
much more logical and consistent the Primitive Church.

Obs. 6. Neander and others misapprehend the intent of the Sermon

on the Mount, when they make it designed to contradict the Messianic
expectations of the Jews in a restored Davidic throne and Kingdom. For
(1) it contains not a word or thought against such a hope ; (2) it confirms
the Jews in such expectations by using their phraseology without intimat-
ing the least change of meaning ; (3) those very persons admit that it did
not change the opinions of the disciples and apostles ; (4) they mistake the
Prop. 42.] THE TIEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 269

preparatives of the Kingdom for the Kingdom itself ; (5) the exact reverse
is the truth, as seen in the allusions concerning the promise of inheriting
the earth, of securing the Kingdom, of fulfilling the prophets, of Jerusalem
being “* the city of the great King,” of praying for the Kingdom to come,
etc., all of which had the decided tendency—as shown by the result—of
confirming the hearers in Jewish expectations. The foundation thought of
the Kingdom is the keynote to its interpretation, and if this is miscon-
ceived the entire discourse suffers.

Obs. 7. Jesus preached ‘‘ the gospel of the Kingdom’’ (Matt. 4 : 23 and

9 : 35, etc.), and for this, He tells us, He was sent (Luke 4:43). There-
fore we cannot receive as well grounded a principle enunciated by
Hagenbach (His. of Doc., vol. 1, p. 45), that ‘‘ The office of the Saviour
was not to propound doctrines, or to set forth doctrinal formulas, but to
manifest Himself, and to reveal His unity with the Father. His person
was a fact, and not an idea,” etc. Cheerfully admitting that Jesus was
thus to manifest Himself as an essential part of His mission, He at the
same time was commissioned to propound doctrine, and, above all, the
doctrine of the Kingdom. Without such doctrine it would have been
impossible to exhibit Himself as the Messiah, for doctrine and the Messiah-
ship are t2scparably connected.
It is painful to notice how many works, which ought to contain it, omit this distinctive
preaching, as e.g. Luther’s Smaller Catechism (Pub. for Gen. Synod, 1840) asks (p. 54) the
question, ‘‘ What were the chief subjects of Christ’s preaching to the people?’ and answers
by giving six things, but fails to mention the principal subject of all, the preaching of
the Kingdom. ‘The reader can readily find hundreds of similar illustrations.

Obs. 8. Even some who fully admit the re-establishment of the Theo-
cratic-Davidic throne and Kingdom in the future under the Messiah, have
Christ to preach, for the time being, another, viz. : a spiritual Kingdom,
Thus e.g. J. L. Lord (Usrael’s Judicial Blindness) informs us, ‘‘ That
Christ first offered to the Jewish nation, not the Davidic and temporal
Kingdom which they had expected, but His spiritual Kingdom only, upon
conditions which were as repugnant to their ceremonial self-righteousness as
it was to their infatuated worldly hopes and expectations.’’ Strange that
men cannot, at once, see the illogical and inconsistent position in which
this places Jesus. As our argument will meet this view in detail under
various following Propositions, it will only be necessary to say, Why does
Jesus then employ the Jewish phraseology, and confirm the Jews and even
His own discipies in their Jewish expectations? Why are the Jews con-
demned for not seeing and acknowledging a Kingdom, which is not, in any
shape or form, contained in the Davidic Covenant? Why, if such a
spiritual Kingdom was ‘“‘ first offered,’’ did not John the Baptist, the
disciples, and the seventy, tender it to the people? Why, if this spiritual
Kingdom is the superior and more exalted idea, make the consummation
bring forth the realization of Jewish hopes in the final glorious restora-
tion of the Davidic throne and Kingdom? Why, if the spiritual Kingdom
is ‘‘the professing church,”’ preach that it was something to come, when
the church has always existed? These, and similar questions that must
be answered, indicate the untenableness of such a position.
Leathes (The Relig. of the Christ, Bampton Lec, for 1874) spiritualizes the title Christ (comp.
Prop, 205), and, therefore, also the Kingdom (thus vitiating much that is most admirable
 270 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 42.

in his work), and (p, 192) says: ‘‘John hadnot ventured to define what he meant by
the Kingdom of heaven” (simply because it needed no definition, Props. 19-22) ; ** but
no sooner does Jesus open His mouth than He says, ‘ Blessed are the poor in spirit, for
theirs is the Kingdom of heaven.’” And this, he claims, is a defining of the Kingdom
different from what was previously understood, i.e. it spiritualizes and renders invisible
what before was deemed temporal and visible here on the earth. But ponder the lan-
guage of Jesus, and you will find no definition of the Kingdom in ib, but simply a decla-
ration and encouragement of worthiness—how attained—-for the Kingdom. It only tells
us who are fit for it, and whowill ultimately receive it. The disciples, who were of
these ‘‘ poor in spirit,” had not the faintest idea (Acts 1 : 6) that such a definition was in-
tended ; and we certainly deem them, in view of special instruction and privileges,
better qualified to know this than moderns are who interpret all Scripture by a Church-
Kingdom theory,

Obs. 9. The indulgence of the reader is desired while, in this con-

nection, a few points are forestalled. Three things must evidently have
weiched upon the mind of Jesus, and thus shaped His style of preaching the
Kingdom.
1. The fact of the existence of the Roman Government over the Jewish
nation, and its jealousy of power. His mission was to the Jews, and He
was commissioned to tender the Kingdom to the nation (e.g. Props. 55, 57,
etc.), and the Kingdom, according to the Davidic covenant required a Son
of David ¢o restore the throne and Kingdom of David. 'This was taught by
the Prophets, and believed by the Jews. It was the general, universal
belief that when the Messiah came to establish the Kingdom, He would
overthrow Gentile domination (as He will do at the Sec. Advent, Props.
163 and 164), and thus deliver the Jewish nation from its enemies. In
addressing the Jews, it was wnnecessary to proclaim this Kingdom bold]
and freely in the emphatic words of the Prophets, because (1) the King-
dom denoted was already well known, as the subject-matter of covenant
and promise, to every Jew; and (2) because, foreseeing His rejection by
the Jews, advantage would inevitably be taken (comp. Prop. 40, Obs. 6,
note 1) of it to accuse Him as @ conspirator against the Roman Power.
With all the wisdom and prudence exercised by Him, this, nevertheless,
was done, and He was crucified under the charge of being ‘‘ the Hing of the
Jews,’’ thus implying opposition to Cesar.'
2. Knowing, as Jesus did, that the offer of the Kingdom must be made
(Prop. 55, ete.), that the tender would be rejected (Prop. 57, etc.), and
that the Kingdom itself would be postponed (Props. 58-68), it would, in
view of these foreknown circumstances, have been wnwise and impolitic to
have presented the subject of the Kingdom in any other way than that in
which it was done. Sufficiently clear to test the repentance and faith of
the nation, sufficiently distinct for those who receive the Word of God
without human additions, and sufficiently precise to encourage the hope
of His people in His Messiahship—more would have been inexpedient. What
was needed in addition He gave to us through John (in Apoc.), and this
also in a form that it might not wnnecessarily excite opposition, Christ’s
preaching is influenced by foreknown results,
3. Foreknowing how the Kingdom would eventually, at His Sec. Advent
(Props. 66, 74, 83, 87, etc.), be established, He could accordingly shape
and adapt His language, introducing other matter that necessarily pre-
ceded the same. While a restoration of the Davidic throne and Kingdom
(and as a result the restoration of the Jewish nation to eminence and
power) is contemplated, yet, because of the defection of the nation and its
 Prop. 42.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 271

long continued punishment, purposes of mercy toward the Gentiles were

entertained and mentioned, promises to be realized ultimately in the King-
dom were given, encouragements and cautions were presented, etc. This
introduced new details, which can only be properly apprehended when
taken in their connection with the whole.
1 This is a sufficient reply to those who ask why the New Test. is not more specific in
mentioning the Davidic throne and Kingdom (although in several places pointedly re-
ferred to), for all knew the Kingdom intended. This, too, may be a reason why Jesus
wrote nothing, lest His writings should be employed, as His reported words were, against
Him. The peculiar surroundings required, in the nature of the case, great caution in
proclaiming the Kingdom ; and hence language was adopted toward the Jewish nation
sufficiently precise and determinate for it, having the prophets to understand. And this
prudence was continued by the apostles afterward (as e.g. in linking the Kingdom with
the Second Advent, with Supernatural power, etc.), to prevent the Romans from taking
unnecessary alarm and persecuting believers. For history informs us how readily the
Roman emperors could thus be aroused. Eusebius (Eccl. His., B. 3, ch. 19, 20; comp.
Gibbon’s Rome, ch. 16, vol: 2, p. 21) states that the descendants of David were ordered
to be slain, and the alleged relatives of the Lord were apprehended and brought before
Domitian, who was alarmed or suspicious, but as they professed not to believe in a pres-
ent temporal kingdom, but in a divine one to come at “ the end of the world,” i.e. at
the Sec. Advent, they were dismissed. (In this account, several things are noticeable,
making allowance for additions : (1) Why should Domitian desire the death of the rela-
tives of Jesus or fear Christ (as we are told), if it was not for the Primitive belief that
Christ would come and re-establish the Davidic throne and kingdom? (2) that the only
Kingdom these relatives were conscious of was not the church as one, but the Kingdom
at the end of the age, raised up by the coming Son of David ; (3) that, truthfully they
made it Divine, not such a temporal kingdom as the Roman, but one established by
Supernatural power and under its control. Eusebius may have colored it a little, but
as it does not favor his Church-Kingdom theory, and has much of the Primitive cast in
it, we may in the main receive it.) The Primitive Church writers (as we shall show
hereafter) constantly appealed to the prophecies of a restored Davidic throne and King-
dom, and expressed their faith inthe same, but as they carefully showed that this was to
be affected by Jesus, who had been crucified and buried, it seemed to be foolishness in
the sight of worldly rulers—something that should cause them no uneasiness, especially
as all believers disclaimed the least idea of raising up such a Kingdom, but waited for
Christ’s appearing. How advantage was taken of this very belief in a few cases, history
also records. Another feature, too, which is not generally noticed, crops out in this
direction, viz. : that this very belief is a cause of the brevity of ancient remarks on the
subject. The Jews were not desirous to give it great prominence and publicity, because
it would naturally excite the suspicions of the emperors. The believers, for the same
reason, are guarded. The Gentiles, opponents to both, were not inclined to publish
and dilate upon it, because, by so doing, they might be called on by the government to
substantiate the charge, and in view of its being based as it was, expose themselves. to
harm. Intimations, indeed, exist, which show that sneers and ridicule were cast upon
the idea of a crucified Son of David coming back to establish a Kingdom. Boyle, Whate-
ly, Rogers, and others have noticed the peculiarity of the Bible in presenting an unsys-
tematic distribution of its contents, thus calling for comparison, study, etc. In the
reasons assigned for this, they altogether overlook the fact that if a strictly logical
arrangement had been made, so distinctively would this idea of the Kingdom have be-
come that the Roman Power and other nations would have been extremely hostile to it.
Another feature may be briefly adverted to: the meanest part taken by the represen-
tative men of the Jewish nation in the condemnation of Jesus was the taking advantage
of Jesus having proclaimed Himself the Messiah, i.e. the Jewish King, and basing upon
it the charge of conspiring against Cesar. The meanness consists in this: that their
own views of the prophecies, if they were fulfilled as writlen, demanded of the Messiah
to oppose the then existing Gentile power in order to restore the Kingdom, so that to
compass the death of Jesus they override their own deliberate convictious of the Mes-
sianic display of power, and stamp their conduct as outrageously hypocritical. On the
other hand, our faith and hope is confirmed in the Kingdom preached by Jesus, in the
assumption of Messianic Royalty, which, not discarding, was the ground of His execu-
tion. Faith and hope rejoices over the inscription : “ Jesus, the King of the Jews.” If
there was nothing substantial in this Royalty, the very Royalty to which He was entitled
272 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 42.

as David’s Son and Lord, why retain it down to the very last, and leave it still speaking,
silently but impressively, over His dead body on the cross?

Obs. 10. This preaching of the Kingdom by Jesus was, then, an appeal
to faith ; it is the same to-day. It then called for an acquaintance with
the covenants and prophets ; it demands ¢he same at present. But in the
preaching of Jesus and of His apostles some things pertaining to the
Kingdom are brought out more distinctively and with stronger appeals to
faith. The necessity of moral purity is impressed ; the superiority of the
coming Kingdom over all earthly Kingdoms is declared; its restoration,
not by human but divine power, is carefully asserted ; its postponement
to the Sec. Advent is taught ; its exaltation and extension, its power and
blessings are portrayed ; the wonderful things related to it, such as the
resurrection of the saints, Kingship and priesthood, glorification, renewal
of the earth and Theocratic glory, are presented—and all this, a reitera-
tion and extension of Old Test. predictions, calls for continued faith. The
whole matter is purposely so arranged and ordered that faith alone—
sustained by the fulfilments and a comparison of the Record—can discern
the surpassingly strange but pre-eminently wise Purpose of God.
Another reason why Jesus Himself did not write (as the founders of other religious
systems) is found in the preaching of this Kingdom.The subject-matter of His preach-
ing is found in the Old Test., its foundation is in the covenant, and His mission is not
to found a new Kingdom, but to offer that which is already proposed, and of which He is
the rightful Heir, Heis not come to write, but to fulfil that which is vritlen; hence a
systematic arrangement of Divinity, a Theological system or summary of Doctrine, would
have been out of place. While He necessarily taught doctrine as pertaining to Himself
and the Kingdom, His specific mission has its dignity enhanced by the position that He
occupied. It is true that, after the postponement was fully decided by His death, etc.,
then special provision had to be made for this period, but this we find in the instruc-
tions afterward imparted through the apostles in the establishment of the Christian
Church. Christ honors the prophetic record, honors the oath-confirmed covenant, and,
by the fulfilment of His own birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension, words respecting
the Jewish nation, Gentiles, Church etc., reconfirms in the most powerful manner—infi-
nitely superior to mere writing—the testimony concerning Himself and the Kingdom.

Obs. 11. The fundamental idea, forming a bond of union between Jesus
and the preceding Revealers of the Purpose of God, is the Kingdom of
heaven, This He preached first ; this He revealed /as¢ through John the
Revelator ; this was the special subject (Acts 1: 3) between Him and the
apostles after His resurrection ; and hence by it He places Himself in
contact with the Prophets, in unison with John the Baptist, in sympathy
with His disciples, and stamps Himself as the great Preacher of the King-
dom. 'This suggests that perfect wnity of Teaching must exist between
all these ; that no accommodation theory can interpose between His teach-
ing and that of John’s or the Prophets ; and that the subject of the
Kingdom, being so prominently set forth, must be (Props. 1 and 2) a most
interesting topic to every intelligent believer and student.
Obs. 12. What Kingdom Jesus preached can readily be ascertained by
noticing what Kingdom His disciples preached. For, as an honest
Teacher, He would not, He could not, send out men to preach a Kingdom
different from the one proclaimed by Himself.
Obs. 13. Men profess to be amazed that the Jews and disciples should
be so ignorant as to expect in the Messiah ‘‘a temporal deliverer,’’ and
Prop. 42.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 273

regard those who retain this Jewish idea as ‘‘ fanatical,’’ “‘ unspiritual,’’

etc. But how, if we receive God’s express promises, the plain grammatical
sense, can we believe otherwise? ‘Temporal deliverance, in addition to
great spiritual blessings, are linked together (e.g. Zech. 14) in numerous
prophecies, and it would indicate lack of faith in God’s honor and faith-
fulness to reject or ignore the same. We know that by the spiritualizing
process Zechariah’s declarations (Luke1 : 71, 74), ‘‘ saved from our en-
emies, and from the hand of all that hate us,’’ ‘‘ delivered out of the hand
of our enemies,’’ are made to denote exclusively spiritual enemies.* But
this is not sustained by the predictions of the Word, seeing (as will be
consecutively shown hereafter, e.g. Props. 111-115) that temporal deliver-
ance is assigned to the restoration of the Jewish nation, and is to be ina
special manner the work of the Messiah at His Second Coming. The
prophets all uniformly predict the temporal depressed condition of the
nation, and in ¢he same connection a glorious temporal deliverance. Leaving
the proof to come in its proper place, it is sufficient now to say that if the
Theocracy is to be restored at all as covenanted and predicted, such a
restoration must ecessarily include temporal deliverance (how else can the
throne and Kingdom be re-established), and hence the Messiah, in addition
to other perfections, is also a temporal Deliverer. The sinfulness of the
nation, the postponement of the Kingdom, etc., only throws the time of
its manifestation to the period of the Second Advent.

* Able writers, however, preserve this temporal aspect, as e.g. Van Oosterzee (Lange’s
Com. on Luke, p. 28) declares that the songs of Elizabeth, Mary, and Zechariah make the
Messiah ‘‘ the source of temporal as well as spiritual prosperity to Israel,” their senti-
ments being ‘‘ purely theocratic.”’
274 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 43.

Proposition 43. The disciples sent forth by Jesus to preach this

Kingdom were not ignorant of the meaning to be attached to
the Kingdom. :
To say that they were ignorant of that which they were specially
to preach is an evident absurdity ; and if true (which it is not)
would severely reflect upon the Divine Teacher and Commissioner.
Their mission necessarily implying a correct knowledge of the
Kingdom, is confirmatory of Christ’s own preaching, for the
preaching, of the Master and of those who are sent to preach
must correspond.
Obs. 1. What Kingdom they all preached is so evident (e.g. from Acts
1 : 6, etc.), that our opponents save us the trouble of stating it by frankly
admitting it (e.g. Prop. 42, Obs. 2). Jesus instructed them, Jesus sent
them, Jesus never contradicted their views of the Kingdom,’ Jesus approved
of their preaching and rejoiced over it. This is amply sufficient, seeing
that the Kingdom accurately corresponded with the one contained in the
grammatical sense of the covenant and prophecies.
1 It is only necessary to say that our opponents themselves produce Matt. 20 : 20, 21,
Luke 24 : 21, and Acts 1:6 as evidence of the Jewish views of the apostles. Take these
three illustrations, and, over against the unwarranted deductions of numerous writers,
Jesus says not a word against their conception of the Kingdom ; in fact, He fully admits
the correctness of the same by alleging nothing against it. The request of the sons of
Zebedee, based on the Jewish conception (Art. “ Kingdom of God,’’ Ency. Relig. Knovel.)
of the Kingdom (Matt. 20 : 20, 21), is refused, not on the ground of their misconceiving
the nature of the Kingdom or even that such stations are to be allotted in it, but because
such positions as they asked for are to be given to those by the Father, who have evi-
denced their fitness by humility and service. So simple is this that a child cannot mis-
take it. Hence, how gratuitous and unjust are the disparaging remarks heaped by some
commentators and writers upon these disciples. Some (Olshausen loci) express sur-
prise that Jesus did not correct their view of the Kingdom, but actually employs the
very language to confirm them in it. Precisely so; He could.not do so, because they
entertained a more Scriptural idea of the Kingdom than those who exhibit such amaze-
ment. Luke 24 : 21 teaches how these preachers understood their own message ; so
also Acts 1 : 6 ; and Jesus, instead of telling them that they were mistaken, merely, leav-
ing the notion of the Kingdom untouched, points to the future, the times of fulfilment
being in the Father’s hands.

Obs. 2. If Jesus did not tell the Jews and His disciples that they were in
error respecting the Kingdom, and this already is presumptive evidence
that they were correct in anticipating the Kingdom to be a restoration of.
the Davidic Kingdom, much more is this true, when He sends men,
whom He knows to hold such a view, to preach it. The ablest writers (we
have given some, others will be quoted as the argument advances), of all
shades of opinion, fully admit that the disciples preached the Jewish
Kingdom, and candidly inform us that, such was their belief down to the
 Prop. 43.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 275

period of the Ascension, Acts1:6. (Those few, therefore, who try to

ignore it, and pretend that a spiritual conception of the Kingdom, some-
thing like their own modernized notions of it, are dishonest to the Record,
and the general testimony on the subject). We therefore contend that,
after Jesus Himself preached this Kingdom, taught His disciples pudlicly
and privately, considered them qualified to proclaim the Kingdom, and sent
them forth also to preach it—after all this, it is sheer presumption to
question their knowledge of it. It is folly to suppose that we know the
nature of that Kingdom Jetter than they did, who were expressly com-
missioned to hold it forth as an inducement to repentance. If they were in
error on so important and fundamental a point, it is unreasonable to
suppose that Jesus would J/eave them in error, send them forth to dis-
seminate error, and thus allow them, commissioned by Himself, to deceive
the people. It is imeredible, and yet if we are to believe eminent and
good men, Jesus actually sent forth His disciples to preach erroneous
doctrine! No gloss, however artful, no apology however skilful, can cover
up this ugly feature in this supposed case ; there it stands, boldly and
defiantly presented by infidels, and prominently held forth even by many
believers, Any theory, however plausible, esteemed, fortified by great:
names, which makes the first preachers of the Kingdom proclaim what
they did not understand, preach what was an untruth—such a theory is
radically wrong, and virtually, with all its profuse apologies, makes Jesus
Himself the sender forth of false preachers. If the Kingdom is not that
which they taught, what must we think of the instruction of Him who
commissioned them ? ‘hank God, the Word itself is consistent, and it repels
a charge which human wisdom has foisted upon it in its blindness, in order
to make out of the church the predicted Kingdom of God. Here is the
difficulty :men judge these preachers under a misconceived theory, and
consequently with prejudice.
Some keenly feel this difficulty in their Church-Kingdom theory, and thus—over
against overwhelming proof—try to remove it. Gregory (Four Gospels, p. 120) declares
that Jesus ‘‘ corrected their (the twelve) false Jewish views of His priestly character, and
of His Kingdom,” and appeals for evidence to Matt. 16 : 13-20, and 20 : 28! The pas-
sages being largely incorporated by us, need no comment. Ebrard (Gospel lis.) con-
stantly takes it for granted that the covenanted and predicted Kingdom is spiritual, and
that the disciples comprehended it. Thus e.g. p. 267, referring to the Ser. on the Mount
(comp. Prop. 42, Obs. 6 and 8, note), he says: ‘‘ Jesus availed Himself of this oppor-
tunity, after the selection of His disciples, to explain, fully and distinctly, to them and to
the people, what was the nature of the Kingdom.” He calls it ‘‘ the inaugural discourse of the
new Kingdom”’ (p. 273), in which Jesus says: “Such and such is the nature of my
Kingdom ; such its form ; such the proper state of mind ; and such are my demands,”’ in
order ‘‘ to afford the means of certainly” to the hearers. This is solely Ebrard’s imagin-
ing, for he utterly fails to show where the nature of the Kingdom is defined, and mistakes
the means and accessories for obtaining the Kingdom for the Kingdom itself. It is painful
and saddening when such men so seriously miss ‘‘ the means of certainty.’’ The pre-
conceived Church-Kingdom theory explains it all. Some writers even make the ap-
pointment of the twelve to be equivalent to the founding of a new Kingdom, although
they preached itasfuture. Onthe other hand, that the disciples knew the nature of the
Kingdom and located its future, is well stated by Dr. Imbrie in ‘‘ The Regeneration”
(Pre-Mill. Essays, p. 153, etc.).

Obs. 3. It is freely admitted that there were many things that these
disciples, when preaching the Kingdom, did not then know, but it was nof
requisite to know them for the simple reason that, before the decided
postponement of the Kingdom, it was no part of their mission to preach
276 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 48.

them. Thus e.g. they did not know that the Jewish nation would refuse to
repent, that the representative men would conspire to put Jesus to death,
that the Messiah would be crucified, that the Kingdom would be postponed
to the Sec. Advent, that the Gentiles would be called, etc., and, more, all
these things had nothing to do with their commission. ‘They were not to
preach the death of Jesus, or things then unknown to them; they were
commissioned to preach the Kingdom conditioned by repentance—to offer
it to the Jewish nation—and thus far they were instructed and had knowl-
edge of the truth. This preaching of the Kingdom was (Props. 54 and 55)
necessary at that time, while a knowledge of the other things was not only
unnecessary, but would have, if imparted, actwally disqualified them for their
important mission. This exquisite arrangement of truth in the mission of
the first preachers is, to our mind, most forcible evidence of inspiration.
Obs. 4. Miracles (Matt. 10 : 1, 8, Luke 10 : 17, etc.) attend their preach-
ing of the Kingdom, which is a most convincing attestation of both the
truthfulness of their proclamation, freed from error, and the intimate
relationship that the Kingdom sustained to the Supernatural. Would
Christ give the power of working miracles to persons who confirmed them-
selves and others in erroneous doctrine? Even Judas, at that time, how-
ever much he fell afterward, must have, in virtue of the mission bestowed
upon him, known and proclaimed the truth concerning the Kingdom.
Designed as the miracles (wrought by some, perhaps all) were to fore-
shadow (Prop. 7) the power to be experienced in the Kingdom itself, they
were also, at the same time, a witness to ¢he veracity of the preachers them-
selves. Such an attestation, Origen, Jerome, and all others, who desire
us to believe that they were in error, have never yet been able to give us.

Obs. 5. What little satisfaction many commentaries give us when com-

menting on the preaching of John and the disciples. Work after work
will not make the slightest mention of difficulty in the matter, and art-
fully speak of it as a@ gradual developing from darkness into light, just as
if the style of their preaching was but a little removed from that of ‘‘ the
moderns.’’ A host literally jump at the conclusion—proven to be false
by the continued belief of these preachers to the ascension of Jesus—that
they preached (without knowing it) the establishment of the church-
kingdom. The large majority, without perceiving how fatally they sap
the very foundations of confidence in the Truth, and invite unbelief to
hold itself in merriment over the defect, pass the whole thing by with the
comment—as if it amounted to nothing, or was scarcely worth noticing,
or the most reasonable thing to expect—that these men were yet filled
with ‘‘ Jewish prejudices’ and ‘‘ Jewish forms,’’ and the time had not
yet arrived for the notion of a pure, spiritual Kingdom. Indeed, if this
1s so, as learned men tell us, ¢hen the first preachers of the Kingdom were
very unreliable guides, being ‘‘ the blind leading the blind,’’ and, what is
worse, divinely commissioned to do this! Infidelity exults in such teach-
ing, which effectually cripples the first preaching of the Kingdom and .
introduces a discordance and antagonism fatal to the unity and integrity
of the Word.

_ Obs. 6. How unfairly this subject is treated may be found illustrated

in various Lives of Christ. Some of these (e.g. Fleetwood’s) make the
Prop. 43.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 277

preaching of the twelve and the seventy exactly correspondent with

their own modern ideas of the Kingdom, The same unfairness is true of
Histories of the Bible. Thus e.g. Gleig (His. of the Bible, vol. 2, p. 223),
after stating the views of the Jews in a restored Davidic Kingdom under
the personal reign of the Messiah, tells us that it should not surprise us
that the disciples continued in such a belief because ‘‘ prejudices are
usually deeply seated in proportion to the absence of culture,’’ thus actually
degrading the disciples to ignorance and uncouthness to make outa case, for-
getting that by so doing he degrades the mission and instruction imparted by
Jesus. If they were lacking ‘‘ culture,’’ if they were under ‘‘ deeply seated
prejudices,’’ if they were under a ‘‘delasion’’ (as Gleig well-meaningly
says), how was it possible for Jesus, honestly and consistently, to send them
forth to proclaim their want of ‘‘ culture,’’ their “‘ prejudices,’’ and their
“‘delusion’’ to others, and confirm the same by miraculous signs! The
same lack of candor is found in Theologies. Thus e.g. Knapp (Ch. Theol.,
s. 89, 99, 154, etc.) frankly tells us the Jewish view, and that the disciples
entertained it, but then endeavors to break its force by insinuating,
without adducing the slightest historical or scriptural proof, that the
Kingdom was also understood in a spiritual sense, and that a purer and
higher meaning was gradually placed upon the phraseology pertaining to
the Kingdom. But this does not clear the preachers of the Kingdom ; it
does not vindicate their official position, for, according to his statement,
others—who were not specially appointed as preachers of the Kingdom—
had better, purer ideas, which, we are to infer, came down to us.
This mode of reasoning only makes the matter worse, for in one place all
the concessions needed are made; and in another, they are virtually
recalled under the unproved statement that in connection with this idea of
the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom they also must have held (implied)
the notion of a moral or spiritual Kingdom. Such an important point as
this, must have more than mere inference and unsupported supposition ;
and Knapp forgets, that the very men who, above all others, should have
this pure, spiritual conception of the Kingdom (if it is the one intended)
are the disciples, the preachers, whom he confesses to be in ignorance of it
down to the ascension. These illustrations will suffice ; the reader can
readily find a multitude.
Neander (Ch. His., vol. 1, p. 37) makes Zechariah’s faith to express itself in a
‘worldly sense, or worldly turn, or shape,’’ because he expected deliverance from
enemies, etc. But let the reader notice that Zechariah was under the direct influence of
the Spirit, and it follows that his utterances are to be received in preference to Nean-
der’s, especially seeing that they correspond with that of the prophets (who link with
the Messianic Kingdom a deliverance of the Jewish nation from its enemies, as shown
Props. 111-114). He delineates the disciples’ ignorance, etc., very much as Knapp, and
seeks refuge in his germ or development theory.

Obs. %. Misled by some favorite theory, the plain facts of the disciples’
preaching are unintentionally misstated, and, of course, others are 1m-
properly influenced. Thus e.g. Neander (Life of Christ, sec. 174) has taken
the unwarranted liberty of saying, when referring to the mission of the
disciples into Galilee, that they were to spread ‘‘ the announcement that
the Kingdom had appeared,’’ that ‘‘ they were only to proclaim everywhere
that the Kingdom of God, the object of all men’s desire, had come.’? Now
if we turn to the Record, 7¢ is impossible to find any such commission given
to the disciples ;for instead of preaching that the Kingdom “‘had ap-
278 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 48.

peared, and ‘‘ had come,’’ they were expressly charged to say (Matt. 10 : 7):
‘‘the Kingdom of heaven 7s at hand,’’ and (Luke 10 : 9): ‘‘ the Kingdom
of God is come nigh to you.’’ If language has any force, this phraseology
cannot, by any means, be made to be the equivalent of Dr. Neander’s. So
Olshausen even (Com. Matt. 3:2), hampered by his Church-Kingdom
theory, makes the announcement ‘‘ 7s at hand’’ to be an equivalent of “‘ 7s
already present.’’ Others, influenced in the same way, interpret the
language in like manner. The difference to some may appear trivial, but
as we proceed will be found exceedingly weighty and essential (Props.
55-61). How, in the nature of the case, could the first preachers of the
Kingdom proclaim that a Kingdom ‘‘ had come,”’ was ‘‘ already present,”’
when they themselves (as both Neander and Olshausen admit in other
places) were not conscious of it down to the ascension (Acts 1 : 6)?
Forsaking the primitive view, the ablest men involve themselves in
difficulties, and excite antagonism where none exists.

Oés. 8. It is a fact to be lamented, that while infidelity has made itself

merry over the preaching of the disciples, calling it ‘‘ mistaken,’’
“* deceived,’’ ‘‘ delusion,”’ etc., the Apologists, unable themselves to receive
this preaching, or to satisfactorily account for it, have done nothing to
remove this stumbling-block out of the way. Some unbelievers in a kind
of ironical manner (Dean Mansell On Freethinking) suggest, as the result,
that as the whole proof of Christianity rests on the Prophecies, it is neces-
sary in order to make out such a proof to avoid the literal and proper
meaning, and introduce a mystical or allegorical interpretation ; for the
past has proven that the apostles themselves misinterpreted the prophecies
too literally or in a Jewish manner. This, of course, opens the flood gates
to every conceivable fancy, and strikes a deep blow at the vital part of
Christianity. Hence it is, that an oily class, smooth-tongued and eloquent
over the virtues of Jesus and His devoted band, profess, all the time
stabbing the reputation and character of these teachers, that they only
desire to remove that blundering literal interpretation and plant religion
more securely on a spiritual one, which will not recognize ‘‘ the fables’’ of
the early preaching. ‘The grossest attacks and the most artful, centring
on the early preaching, come from all sides, and a careful reader will sadl.
notice that in the replies of the defenders of Christianity, with but rare
exceptions, there is found a willingness to receive these suggestions of
unbelief, viz. : to discard the literal, grammatical sense of the prophecies,
which it is wrongfully supposed led these disciples into their errors, and,
therefore, to receive as an offset a spiritual one, which can transmute
David’s throne into the Father’s throne, and change every other phrase to
suit the situation. Alas! the influence of such a method upon the minds
of men without sufficient independence to think for themselves !
Obs. 9. Those, too, who so candidly concede ‘‘ the Jewish cast’’ of the
disciples’ preaching are undecided as to the time when an entire change
in their views of the Kingdom (as alleged) was wrought. While some place
it even later (others asserting no change, but leaving it to development in
the church) than the day of Pentecost, the majority of our opponents
seem inclined to date it from the outpouring of the Spirit. For the credit
of the Church-Kingdom theory, an effort must be made, in some way, to
trace it back ¢o inspired men. Now at this stage of the argument we only
Prop. 43.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 279

say this: if the change in the doctrine of the Kingdom took place, as
multitudes hold, and as e.g. Bernard (Bampton Lectures, ‘‘ The Progress
of Doctrine’’) infers, how comes it then that the early ‘‘ consciousness’’ of
the church does not portray this change in the writings of that period ?
Why does the church, founded by these disciples, assume the position that
Jesus, the crucified one, is the Messiah (with a full understanding of the
Jewish meaning of the name), so declared by His resurrection and exalta-
tion, who remains in heaven during this intermediate period until the elect
are gathered out and the time arrives, at the Sec. Advent, for the re-
establishment of the 'Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom? Why is it that none
of the Primitive churches indicate such a change of doctrine, and directly
trace it to the apostles? Surely if the current notion on the subject is the
correct one, this feature ought to be observed. Bernard and others do
not meet the real objections against their view, for fully admitting that a
change was introduced, this change was not one in the belief of the King-
dom, but only in the manner and time of its introduction, in the reception
of preliminary measures, made now necessary by the postponement of the
Kingdom and the organization of the Christian Church. This change
does not affect covenant promise, confirmed by oath, while Bernard’s violates
covenant and explicit promise.
The student is reminded that persons cannot be too cautious in such wholesale deduc-
tions, made because of the introduction of certain changes which do not affect the
nature of the Kingdom. Thus e.g. many stumble at the resurrection of Jesus, and can-
not see how this is to be reconciled with the expectations of the restoration of the Theo-
cratic-Davidic Kingdom ; but they overlook the predicted fact (God foreseeing all, and
thus ordering) that this is implied in an immortal Son of David thus restoring and reign-
ing, and that this resurrection was expressly foretold as a requisite to fulfil the promises
pertaining to the Kingdom. This disregard to the Kingdom preached, ete., leads to
many strange and unscriptural statements. Thus e.g. Bernard (in the excellent Lectures
referred to) says : ‘‘ Peter presents the Gospel as the fulfilment of prophecy, and com-
pletion of the covenant made with the fathers.” The truth is, that Peter only presents
the Gospel to show how prophecy will be fulfilled (saving in the call of the Gentiles), and
how the covenant was confirmed in Christ and shall yet be amply realized in the future.
Again : “The Gospel has fought itself free, and severed itself from Judaism, not merely
in its form but in its essence, proclaiming Salvation by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,
and not by the works of the law.” Admitting freely the grace brought through Jesus,
through whom alone we expect to inherit, the sentence as it stands is misleading. The
Gospel did not cut itself free, etc., until the influence of the Alexandrian school prevailed,
as seen in the first and’second centuries. True Judaism looked forward, having the cov-
enants and promises, even to the sacrificial death of the Messiah, and the death of Jesus
is no separation from but a confirmation of the Judaic essence, for the Salvation prom-
ised through this Messiah is identical with that proclaimed by Judaism. This will be
shown hereafter.
280 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRor. 44.

Proposition 44. Zhe preaching of the Kingdom, being in ac-

cordance with that of the predicted Kingdom, raised no
controversy between the Jews and Jesus, or between the Jews
and Eis disciples and apostles.
We find no hint, not the slightest, that there was the least dis-
agreement between the preachers of the kingdom and their hearers
on the subject of the kingdom itself. We know what the views of
the Jews were, and if there had been any essential difference in
the presentation of a subject so dear and vital to Jewish faith—
JSundamental to Messianic faith—most certainly there would be
proof to show it. The absence of it, in the nature of the case, sub-
stantiates our position.
Obs. 1. Let the reader place himself in that period of early preaching.
The converts were nearly all Jews, embracing hundreds, and finally
thousands, including even a large number of priests, Acts 6:7. Consider
how ¢enaciously all these held to the predicted restoration of the Davidic
Kingdom, and that during the entire period of preaching, from John down
to apostolic days, no question, no difficulty arose concerning the great
subject of the Kingdom, i.e. concerning its nature, its lack of identity
with the anticipated one. Why this? Simply because both parties under-
stood the Kingdom as covenanted and prophesied ; because the Kingdom
preached corresponded with the views entertained by these Jews; other-
wise it would have awakened discussion, led to explanations and opposition.
There being agreement, discussion and controversy could not follow, and
hence we do not find them.

Obs. 2. A mutual understanding existed between the parties, and this

was not interrupted so long as these preachers lived, for after the ascension
of Jesus, instead of a retractation of previous. preaching and opinions,
instead of telling the Jews that they had misapprehended the nature of the
Kingdom, and that only a spiritual one was the one intended by the
Messiah (which, if our opponents are correct, honesty ought to have done),
there continued a perfect agreement between preachers and converts, the
basis of which was, looking for this same Kingdom to be revealed at the
Sec. Advent of the Messiah (comp. Props. 70-76).

Obs. 3. Therefore, it is an unjust reflection upon these Jews and Jewish.

preachers to accuse them of ignorance, carnality, etc. To assert as Storrs’
(Diss. on the kingd. of Heaven), that these Jews “‘ were shamefully
ignorant’’ of the Messiah’s reign, recoils upon the preachers who made and
left them thus “‘ignorant.’’ Yet this is the belief of many eminent men,
forgetting that perhaps the ‘‘ ignorance’? may be in the gradually sub-
Prop. 44.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 281
stituted change introduced after the death of these preachers. Even as
late as Tertullian, when the proposed change had not as yet overwhelmed
the Apostolic Theology, he pointedly says in his Apology (Sec. 21), in
reference to this point : ‘‘ Even now His Advent is expected by them (the
Jews generally) ; nor is there any other contention between them and us,
than that they believe the Advent has not yet occurred.”’ The Kingdom
was not disputed, but the manner and time of occurrence under Jesus as
the Messiah.

Obs. 4. The Jews did not find fault with the Kingdom, butin the King
as believed in by believing Jews and Gentiles. In their blindness, they
refused to acknowledge the purity and holiness essential to entrance into
the Kingdom; they rejected the repentance requisite for its establish-
ment ; they were angered at the well-merited rebukes aimed at their
‘hypocrisy and sinfulness ; they were fearful of losing their own authority
and power, and therefore they rejected the King, and urged his crucifixion.
After His death, it was too humbling to their pride to confess a crucified
Jesus as their Messiah ; it was too mortifying and condemnatory to their*
past action to acknowledge a once dead and buried Jesus to be their
King ; the difficulty was not in the Kingdom, éut in the King, and in
the confession and obedience that was required. This influenced the
nation, the great mass of the people, but nevertheless many Jews, seeing
the Scriptures fulfilled in this Messiah, and the Messianic evidences in His
birth, life, miracles, words, death, etc., still clung to Him as the promised
Messiah, the Restorer of the Davidic Kingdom as predicted ; and this was
done under the assurance (as we shall show in its place) that He would
come the Second Time for this very purpose. Such is the plain teaching
of the Record, and its testimony on this point is decided and overwhelming,
as the reader will see for himself as we proceed.
It will not answer to cover this over under the plea of accommodation ; for it only
amounts to making numbers of persons preaching, in the most serious manner, to induce
others to repentance and faith, a Kingdom of God in accordance with their own preju-
dices and that of their hearers, because Jesus saw that they were not prepared for the
truth. And this farce (for it can be called nothing less) was designed and fostered by
the pure Son of God! The statement needs:no refutation ; it contradicts itself. There-
fore to plead that such an accommodation prevented a controversy arising, is simply to
say that Christ sacrificed truth and kept men in error for the sake of a slight temporary
gain, or that He sacrificed His own honor and dignity for the sake of conciliating erring
men. No wonder that the Baur school and others are jubilant over the fatal concessions
contained in the works of pious men, hailing and parading them as the self-evident in-
dications of a shaky foundation. But, viewing the matter in its totality, the relation of
this preaching to covenant, prophecy, the Jewish nation, God’s Purpose of Salvation,
etc., we cordially accept of this preaching and agreement—these alleged evidences of
weakness—as necessary and indispensable features in the structure. The reasons will
appear more fully.

Obs. 5. It may be well to say here, that as long as this happy correspond-
ence continued numerous Jews were converted to Christianity (as history
attests), but just so soon as this disagreement arose respecting the King-
dom, and the Jewish faith in their Kingdom was derided and scorned,
conversions became less and less until they almost ceased.*

* And as a return was made to the Primitive Church doctrine, conversions increased
until they form now again a very fair number.
282 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 44.

Obs, 6. This agreement indicates, what has already been intimated, that
no necessity existed to hold up the hope of a restored Davidic throne and
Kingdom more prominently, because, as it all depended upon the coming
again of Jesus the Christ, it was sufficient to direct attention to that
Advent, linking the fulfilment of the prophecies with them, thus avoiding
the jealousy, etc., of the Roman Power.

Obs. 7. This agreement has been noticed by numerous writers, and has
called forth corresponding remarks, nearly always in disparaging expres-
sions, so intended, but more or less connected with the truth. This will
be seen by taking at random two writers. Thus e.g. Reuss (His. Ch.
Theol., p. 246) tells us that the early churches formed under this preach-
ing ‘‘ might be regarded as, and virtually were, a Jewish party.’’ Morgan
(in Moral Philosophy) charges early Christianity with a leaning toward
Judaism, that the disciples corrupted the New Test. to effect this, that we
have a Jewish Gospel, and the first Christians were ‘‘ nothing else but a
political faction among the Jews, some of them receiving Jesus as the
Messiah or the Restorer of the Kingdom, and others rejecting him under
that character.’’ Now, aside from the effort made to use this connection
with Jewish views against Christianity, to make out a case of corruption,
ignorance, etc., it is true that, while the ceremonial law of Judaism was
rejected by many as non-essential, etc., there was a strong point of contact
and continued agreement between Judaism and Christians in Messianic
expectations respecting the Kingdom—the difference being that the former
located the fulfilment of their hopes at the First Advent of the Messiah
(thus rejecting Jesus as the Messiah), and the latter, theirsat the Second
Advent of this Jesus who had been crucified. To deny this, or to conceal
it, is simply exhibiting gross ignorance of facts, or dishonesty in suppressing
truth (comp. Prop. 69).
Prop. 45.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 283

Proposition 45. The phrases “ Kingdom of heaven,” “ Kingdom

of God,” “ Kingdom of Christ,” étc., denote the same Kingdom.
It has already been shown (Props. 20-23, etc.) how the Jews
understood and employed these phrases, and how the first preach-
ers adopted them.
Obs. 1. Now attention is called to the fact that they are used as
synonymous in the New Test. What Matt. pronounces ‘‘ the Kingdom of
heaven,’’ is said by Mark, Luke, and John to be ‘‘ the Kingdom of God,”’
as e.g. comp. Matt. 5 : 3, with Luke 6 : 20, and Matt. 13 : 11 with Mark
4:11. So also “the Kingdom of God’ is designated Christ’s Kingdom,
as e.g. comp. Matt. 16 : 28 with Luke 9 : 27, Mark 9 : 1, ete.
So also “the Father’s Kingdom’’ and Christ’s are represented as identical. Comp.
e.g. Matt. 13 : 41-43 with Eph. 5 :5, and Matt. 26 : 29 with 2 Pet. 1 : 11, etc., and Prop.
83. In reference to the usage of those phrases, comp. Props. 22 and 23, and the note
by Dr. Craven in Lange’s Vom. Rev., p. 93.

Obs. 2. These phrases thus interchangeably employed to denote the one

Kingdom (Prop. 35) were understood to mean the Davidic Kingdom
restored, as e.g. Acts 1:6, Matt. 20 : 21, Acts 15 : 16, Luke 1 :82, ete.
(comp. Props. 19-23).
This has been so frankly admitted by our opponents (as e.g. Dr. Campbell, Knapp,
Neander, etc.) that more need not be added, leaving our argument to bring in the ad-
ditional proof. On every side do we find this testimony, given, too, without any thought
of its bearing on the subject. Thus e.g. Farrar (Life of Christ, vol. 1, p.22) informs us
that ‘‘ waiting for the Consolation of Israel” is equivalent to Mark 15 : 43, “ waiting for
the Kingdom of God,” and that among the Jews a prayer for the coming of the Messiah
was, ‘‘ may I see the Consolation of Israel.” The Messiah and the Kingdom were united.
We merely suggest that in addition to the meanings and derivation usually given to the
phrase used by Matthew, ‘‘ the Kingdom of heaven’’ (viz. : that the God of heaven gives
it to the Christ, that through it the Father’s will is manifested, that heavenly principles,
etc., are exhibited, etc.), may there not, in the employment of the plural form, ‘‘ heaven-
lies,” be an allusion to the peculiar form of government (Theocratical) under chosen
heavenly rulers (comp. Prop. 154). Dr. Meyer (Com. on Matt. 3 : 2) says: ‘‘ It is called
the Messianic Kingdom, not because the words ‘ of the heavens’ express God, but be-
cause this Kingdom is conceived as descending from heaven and entering the world,
Gal. 4 : 26.” This idea inay (comp. Rev. 19 : 11-16 and 21 : 2, etc.) indeed be included,
but it does not exclude the old Jewish notion derived from Daniel, or the one just
stated. It may include them all, making it the more expressive.

Obs. 3. In addition to the abundant testimony already adduced, that

they were regarded as denoting the same Kingdom, and that the restored
Theocracy, as existing under David, we add a few more. Nast (Com. on
Matt. 11 : 1-6), allowing the Church-Kingdom theory as correct, frankly
says: ‘‘ Though John the Baptist, Zecharias, and those other Israelites
who waited for ‘the Consolation of Israel,’ expected the Messiah to
284 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [Prop. 45.

establish a spiritual Kingdom, a reign of righteousness, they connected,

nevertheless, with it, the idea of a visible, terrestrial Kingdom, that he
would literally sit on David’s throne, and extend His reign from the river
to the ends of the earth.’’ Doddrige (Com. Matt. 3 : 2), cordially adopting
the Church-Kingdom idea as intended by the phrase, says: ‘‘ It is plain
that the Jews understood it of a temporal monarchy, which God would
crect; the seat of which, they supposed, would be Jerusalem, which
would become, instead of Rome, the capital of the world. And the ex-
pected Sovereign of this Kingdom they learned from Daniel to call ‘ the
Son of Man’ ’’ (Were the Jews mistaken? Comp. Props. 19-23 and 31-35).
Fairbairn (Herm. Manual, p. 41-43) tells us that the phrase, ‘‘ points
back to those prophecies of the Old Test., in which promise was made of a
King and Kingdom, that should unite heaven and earth in another way
than could be done by a merely human administration,’’ etc., which we
cordially receive as true, remarking, however, that the plain Theocratical
meaning contained in the grammatical sense (which he carefully avoids),
as held by the Jews, by the disciples and apostles, introduces just such a
union of heaven and earth (as e.g. God in Jesus condescending to reign as
earthly Ruler, etc.) as he advocates. Our entire argument thus far con-
clusively proves that all these phrases do not denote separate things (as e.g.
intimated by Lange, Com. Matt., p. 73), or are given (so Fleck, quoted by
Lange) ‘‘ in order to distinguish the Christian Kingdom of God more fully
from the Jewish Theocracy,’’ but the restored Theocracy, as covenanted
and predicted under the Messiah. They were applied to a definite, well-
known Kingdom, viz. : the Theocratic-Davidic.
But able writers, wedded to the spiritual Church-Kingdom theory, can see nothing in
the phrase but another and differing Kingdom, viz. : the Church regarded as militant
and triumphant. Thus, to illustrate how confidently they appeal to its simplicity in
their teaching, we refer to Gregory (Four Gospels, p. 146), who, speaking of ‘‘ the King.
dom of heaven,” and that Matthew by its use intended to correct false Jewish views
(when Acts 1 : 6, he still held them), confidently asserts : ‘‘ The phrase clearly expresses
the idea that itis a Kingdom distinct from all these kingdoms of this world after which
the Jew had fashioned his idea of the Messiah’s dominion. Its origin is in the heavens,
where God dwells ; its throne, the seat of the King, is there ; its highest present and
prospective glories are there. This simple phrase taught that the Kingdom of the Mes-
siah was to be a spiritual and heavenly Kingdom, unlike the old Theocracy with its tem-
ple and throne in Jerusalem ; unlike the magnificent empire patterned after Rome,
which the worldly Jew was dreaming of ; wholly unlike the temporal empire of the Papa-
cy long after established.” Here is atissue of assumptions : (1) It ignores the fact that
it was a Jewish phrase, adopted without explanation by Matthew, and that it could not
possibly convey the idea assumed, being definitely used to designate the restored David-
ic Kingdom and its extent, etc., as given by Daniel ; (2) it engrafts upon it a modern
notion, which the Jews never entertained, being bound by the plain covenant and pro-
phetical language which locates the Kingdom, not in heaven but on the earth ; (3) he as-
sumes that the phrase is so clearly full of his doctrine that it ought to have taught the
Jew such a view, when the facts are just the reverse, viz. : that its usage fortified them
and the disciples (including Matthew) in believing that it unmistakably taught the res-
toration of the downfallen Theocracy, which was—as we have shown—a Kingdom of
God and of heaven ; (4) its simplicity of teaching established and confirmed the almost
universal Pre-Millenarianism of the early Church and its connected doctrine of the King-
dom—a position just directly opposite to that which Gregory finds in the “ simple
phrase,” and which Shedd (His. of Doc., p. 291) calls a peculiarity of the Jewish-Chris-.
tian.”
Prop. 46.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 285

Proposition 46. The Kingdom anticipated by the Jews at the

Birst Advent is based on the Abrahamic and Davidic Cove-
ants.
This might be shown by numerous references, but it will be suffi-
ciently conspicuous by adverting to the declarations found in only
one chapter of the New Testament. Thus, e.g., Luke 1 : 32, 33, 55,
72, 73, where we have undoubted allusions to previously obtained
covenants, in *‘ the mercy promised to the fathers,’’ in ‘‘ the holy
covenant’’ confirmed by oath ‘to our father Abraham,’’ and in
‘‘ the throne of his father David.”’
Obs. 1. In turning back to the fountain head from whence this doc-
trine, this faith in a Messianic Kingdom proceeds, we only reiterate what
others have most aptly stated when we invite for the covenants an
absorbing interest in view of their living, fundamental connection with final
Salvation um Christ?s Kingdom. Kurtz (His. Old Cov., p. 175) has well
expressed this ‘‘a@ foundation on which the great Salvation is ultimately to
appear.’ ‘Thorp (The Dest. of the Brit. Empire, Pref.,p. 8) justly ob-
serves : ‘* The Abrahamic Covenant is the fowndation of all the dispensations
of heaven, both to Jews and Gentiles.”’
This has been noticed by Brooks (El. of Proph. Inter., ch. 2), Bickersteth (Guide to
Proph.), Judge Jones (Notes to the Scriptures), besides a host of others, as Auberlen, De-
litzsch, Lord, the Bonars, etc.Indeed, it is universally admitted, however explained after-
ward, that the covenants are the proper basis of future Revelation, and that they con-
tain in an epitomized form the substance of God’s Purpose in reference to man’s Salva-
tion, the Messiah’s Kingdom and glory, and the perfected Redemption from the curse.
Hence, men of all shades of opinion agreeing in this matter, it is essential for any one
who desires to become a real student of God’s Word to make himself familiar with these
covenants, seeing, that, in the nature of the case, all things following must correspond
fully with these previously given pledges and guides. While the covenants are neces-
sarily primary in a proper conception of the Divine Plan relating to Redemption, present-
ing « central idea, the reader will observe that they are scripturally based and grammati-
ally founded on direct oath-bound promises, and hence are to be distinguished from that
vague, scholastic, mystical effort to make the covenants a central idea as given e.g. by
John Cocceius (Hagenbach’s His. Doc., vol. 2, sec. 222 and 223), Pres. Kdwards’s (His.
Redempt.), and others. This grasping after the covenants as a foundation thought relat-
ing to the Kingdom of Christ is characteristic of the German Reformed Theology (see
Hagenhach’s His. of Doc., sec. 223, Amer. Ed. added, and Heppe on Ger, Reform. Church
in Mercersburg Review for 1853), and is found in theologians of ability in various de-
nominations. Unfortunately, however, many have much to say about a covenant made
between the Father and Son in eternity—of which we have no record, and which opens a
door for conjecture and unproven inferences—while they ignore, more or less, those on
record,

Obs. 2. Let it be observed that in approaching the covenants we are

not at liberty to receive one and reject another, nor are we authorized to
take just as much as may suit our Theological views out of one and refuse
 286 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 46.

to believe in the rest. Here is where many Theological writings make the
fatal mistake: they are willing to receive the Abrahamic covenant as a
perpetual one, but not the Davidic, when the same perpetuityis asserted of
both ; they are agreed to receive part of the Abrahamic, or part of the
Davidic covenant, but not all that is written. No wonder that a diversity
is thus produced, and an antagonism to the Old Test. The Jews and the
Primitive Church were far more logical and scriptural when they cordially
received those covenants and believed in God’s statements concerning
them. ‘The trouble at present is, that the church, with all her professions,
has too little faith.
Obs. 3. Approaching the covenants and seeing how they form great
central points around which successive revelations cluster—yea, the
foundation stones upon which the Christological structure is erected—we
are not surprised at the efforts made to undermine their force, either by
separating the Old from the New Test. as antiquated, or by elevating the
New far above the Old as only worthy of reception, or by a rejection of
the Old as not authentic, etc. De Wette and others may apply their
mythical interpretation to Abraham, etc.; Ammon and others may
reject the Old Test. as having no special divine worth; Colenso and
others may endeavor to set aside reliance upon the writings of Moses;
Schleiermacher and others may place the Old in a position far inferior to
the New in dignity, value, etc.—all this, and more, may be done, and yet
in the simple covenant words, in their gradually unfolded purpose, in their
continuous progress in and toward fulfilment, in their fundamental
relationship to Messianic hopes, etc., we have the most triumphant
vindication (comp. Prop. 16 and 198) of the equality and truthfulness of
all Divine Revelation, and of the significance and fundamental importance
of the covenants, and also a rebuke given to the foolishness of a learned
display of unbelief.
If the reader follows the development of the covenant, he will be enabled to appre-
ciate the value of the author’s allegation in the History of the Hebrew Monarchy, that
Moses forged God’s covenant with Abraham for political purposes. The wish is father
to the thought, for the very tenor of the covenants forbid such an idea, seeing that for
fulfilment it implies a resurrection from the dead, etc. ; in brief, such an intervention of
the Supernatural, as is evidenced already by the past, that no man could incorporate for
such a purpose. Hengstenberg, Marsh, kurtz, Fritzsche, Havernick, Jahn, and others,
in vindicating the credibility of the Old Test. Scriptures, etc., have performed an excel-
lent preparatory work.

Obs. 4. The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants were very prominently

held by the early church, as can be readily seen by the general use made
of them, illustrated, e.g. in the Epistle of Barnabas, the writings of
Irenzus, Justin, Tertullian, etc. So that Renan (Apostles, p. 116) remarks
in reference to the practice of the Primitive Church :‘‘ The perusal of the
Old Test., above all of the Psalms and the Prophets, was a constant habit
of the sect’’—a testimony most honorable to the church.
At the present day they are largely ignored, just as if we had no personal interest in
them, and so imperfect is the comprehension of Scripture, that we have plenty of works
which present us, as the two great covenants, ‘‘ the Law and the Gospel.”
 Prop. 47.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 287

Proposition 47. The Jews had the strongest possible assurance

given to them that the Kingdom based on these covenants would
be realized.
Attention has already been directed (Prop. 18) to the fact that
the prophecies pertaining to this Kingdom shall not, in their ulti-
mate fulfilment, fail, i.e., they are unconditional. The reason for
this is that they are evolved from covenants confirmed by oath ;
and hence, in view of their absolute certainty (no matter how post-
poned), God has given expression to language which affirms beyond
all doubt that this Kingdom, sustaining a covenanted relationship,
would at some time in the future be established ; and this, too, as
covenanted in connection with the national salvation of the Jewish
nation. Thus, e.g., read Jer. 31 : 35-87, and 33 : 19-26; Isa. 54: 9,
LO ete:
It has been remarked by various writers, that the covenant name of Jehovah or Jahveh,
by which the unchangeableness of God is expressed, indicates the absolute certainty of
ultimate fulfilment.

Obs. 1. Hence it follows : that the Jews were not so grossly ignorant as
many Gentiles now think ; that they were correct in their apprehensions
concerning the Messiah’s Kingdom being identified with the restored
Davidic. Language could not possibly make it any plainer or stronger.
The sun may refuse to shine, the moon and the stars may depart, the sea
may no longer war with its waves, day and night may not alternate in
their season, the ordinances of heaven and earth may be repealed (comp.
e.g. Jer. 33 : 17-26, Isa. 54: 9, Jer. 31 : 35, 36, Ps. 89 : 36, 37, etc.), but
the promises of God shall not fail in restoring the overthrown Davidie King-
dom ; God will perform the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
David, and the Prophets, respecting the Jewish nation. Men may foolishly
ridicule and sneer at these things because still unrealized, calling them
“¢ Jewish notions, fables, and prejudices,’ but God’s word stands pledged,
as solemnly and sacredly as word can be substantiated, for their fulfilment.
It is idle, it is folly—yea more, it is sinful to censure the Jews for a belief
so clearly founded and so unmistakably encouraged.

Obs. 2. Let the reader place himself in the period before the First
Advent, with the Old Test. in his hands. Now what would be his belief in
the Kingdom, with those covenants and prophecies, confirmed by oath and
most expressive assurances? Surely it would be identical with that of the
Jews themselves; it could not be otherwise, if there was faith in God’s
Word and God’s oath. Can we believe that the First Advent of the
Messiah obliterated this belief, destroyed the nature of the Kingdom, erased
the grammatical sense of covenant and prophecy, and cancelled the oath of
288 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 47.

the Unchangeable? Multitudes do this, but we cannot, dare not follow

the multitude in this matter. God’s assurances are too weighty, His
Word is too pure, to allow of such @ destructive process.

Obs. 3. The attitude of a portion of the modern Jews is to be regretted.

Leavened with infidelity, they have lost all faith in the most precise and
determinate utterances that can indicate the determination of God to
verify His promises to the nation, and yet they profess to believe in this
same God, in His veracity, etc. This is utterly inconsistent, and simply
faithless, when their own scattered condition and continued preservation
among the nations (as predicted) confirms the assurances of this God. If
the covenants, and the prophecies based upon them, are not worthy of
credence to a Jew, what is there then in the Old Test. worthy of belief?
Their unbelief may reject the proffered blessings, but it cannot change
the Purpose of God, for (Ps. 33 : 11) ‘‘ the counsel of the Lord standeth
forever.”? Although the Jews are dispersed, under punishment for un-
belief, yet there is something so distinguishing in their national relation-
ship to the Divine Purpose that God, foreseeing all that has occurred in
the past, still most graciously declares (Lev. 26 : 44), ‘ Yet for all that, when
they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither
will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with
them: for I am the Lord their God.’’ Whether they believe it or not,
mercy follows them for ¢he sake of the covenant, and mercy will yet verify
that covenant in the history of the nation, for ‘‘ their God’’ has sworn it.

Obs. 4. A class of writers has arisen, who, professing to be very critical,

tell us that Abraham’s life, and indeed the whole Bible, must be subjected
to ‘* Historical Criticism.’’ To this there could be no objection, if
honestly conducted ; but in the hands of this class, this phrase, stripped
of its applied generalities and pretentious adjuncts, simply means to receive
just as much as any one pleases to accept. By this process, Clarke (Ten
Religions, p. 403) informs us that ‘‘ not a little will be gained for the
Jewish Scriptures by this position. If they lose the authority which
attaches to the Word of God, they will gain the interest which belongs to
the utterance of Man.’’ These men, while professing admiration for
Moses, the Prophets, etc., virtwally convict them of false pretences, decep-
tion, etc. Judas-like, they kiss while in the act of betraying ; Joadb-like,
they pretend friendship while stabbing.’ To this class, the solemnly
covenanted promises of God and th» assurances respecting the Kingdom
are all idle dreams ; men who believe and trust in them are self-deceived
and fanatical; history that corroborates prophetic announcements is
merely a coincidence ; the faith of ages, sustained by personal experience
and Providence, is nothing but a mistaken belief.
1 Let not the reader think that our expressions are too strong. Weacknowledge to a de-
gree of respect for Voltaire, Bolingbroke, Hume, Volney, etc., who, making Moses’
claims pretentious and the Jewish religion a natural development, carried out their
principles at least honestly in not proféssing a regard that they did not feel. But we
have not much for that class of authors who, under the garb of friendship, esteem, and
reverence, stab, with deadly intent, in the most courteous manner the truthfulness of the
divine writers. What care we for the eulogies, e.g. of a Renan and others, when the
sum total of all is to destroy the divine teaching of the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles, and
bring everything down toa mere human level, and natural inspiration? And this is called
‘historical criticism”
—a criticism which at the very outset stands prejudged against the
Prop. 47.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 289
Supernatural, and will not allow that which is part of history itself to testify in its own
favor by reference to a continuous Divine Purpose, a Unity of Design, a general Analogy,
etc. The fact is, as will be shown hereafter, its position is most uncritical, in that it
permits not the higher testimony of the Word to speak in its own behalf, but stands,
sneeringly, picking flaws here and there, and from such presents the most sweeping de-
ductions. Upright criticism, real honesty of heart and design, calls for a far different
attitude. (Comp. Prop. 198.) Against such men might be placed, Bacon, Newton, Max
Miiller, etc. (who declare that the faith of Abraham, etc., was given by special revela-
tion) ; but the truth is, that the Word of God does not need the testimony ot learned and
scientific men, for its best evidence it carries within itself corroborated by personal ex-
perience and history. This allusion to a prevailing sceptical tendency is made, to indi-
cate how the promises of God are shorn of their strength by constituting them mere
human assurances. Alas! if it were only confined to unbelievers! Many believers of the
Word, savingly united to Christ by faith, who would shudder to adopt such a hopeless
platform of unbelief, who actually receive these promises as divine, still by a fatal proc-
ess so fritter them away or deny their intention or validity that they, too, with infidels,
disbelieve in their ultimate fulfilment as written.
290 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 48.

Proposition 48. The Kingdom being bused on the covenants, the

covenants must be carefully examined, and (Prop. 4) the literal
languaye of the same must be maintained.
The appointment, arrangement, disposition, or institution of a
covenant relation, in whatever (as voluntary, a contract, etc.) light
it may be regarded, presupposes two parties; the one who
promises or imparts, and the other who will receive or attains. In
all earthly transactions, when a promise, agreement, or contract is
entered into by which one party gives a promise of value to
another, it is wniversally the custom to explain such a relationship
and its promises by the well-known laws of language contained in
our grammars or in common usage. It would be regarded absurd
and trifling to view them in any other light. (Comp. Prop. 4.)
Obs. 1. Why, then, should this universal rule be laid aside when coming
to the covenants of the Bible? If it is important in any mere earthly
relationship for the parties to wnderstand each other, and such a com-
prehension is based on the plain grammatical sense of the language used, is
it not equally, yea more, essential in so weighty acaseas this ; and to insure
comprehension of the sameis it not most reasonable to expect the same
literal language? Indeed, when the covenants embrace the vital interests
of a nation and the destiny of the race and the world, is it not reqauisite
that they should be presented in such a form that the parties to whom they
are given can readily perceive their meaning, without searching around for
another and very different one to be engrafted upon them, or, without
waiting for an Origen or Swedenborg to arise and spiritualize them into a
proper conception ?
It is saddening (it would be crushing to the few believing ones, if this lack of faith—
its universality—had not been also predicted) to see how extensively the latter is done
by good and great men, thereby darkening knowledge and obscuring the revealed pur-
poses of God. On the other hand, let us firmly hold that the very nature of a covenant
demands, that it should be so worded, so plainly expressed, that it conveys a@ decisive
meaning, and not a hidden or mystical one that requires many centuries to revolve in
order to develop. Otherwise it becomes deceptive and misleading, fostering a faith that
can never be attained, and leading to hopes that can never be realized—which, if un-
worthy in an earthly transaction between man and man, is more discreditable when the
Divine Being becomes a party. No! God never gave the covenants to deceive in their
plain, grammatical sense! Men, indeed, say so; learned men declare it so; but this
does not make it so—leaving the Word to speak for itself.

Obs. 2. This, however, does not imply, especially if the covenant is a

voluntary one on the part of God and contains His merciful purposes of
Salvation, that it may not be briefly expressed or concisely stated, and be
afterward enlarged by way of additions, by explaining how it will be
Prop. 48.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 291

performed, etc. All this may, indeed, be attached to it for prudential and
wise reasons, and yet, as far as given, we are not at liberty to reject the
plain meaning presented. And the less so if the additions afterward
appended accurately coincide with the express language of the covenants.

Obs. 3. Our Proposition is confirmed by the indisputable fact that God

has stamped the grammatical sense as the correct one by Jiterally fulfilling
a portion of the covenants. Take e.g. the promised ‘‘ seed.’? He has come
from Abraham, through the line of David, in a manner recognizable
(implied by the terms) and indicative of His power to redeem and bless.
A sufficiency is found in the history of the past to show that these cove-
nants contain areal, substantial, verified grammatical meaning. Hence we
are not allowed to change it for something else.
If all the rest contained in these covenants has not yet been thus literally confirmed
by fulfilment, we should not hastily limit the Almighty in His dispensational proceed-
ings by rejecting the remainder, or by attaching another meaning to it to suit present
circumstances. No! with Abrahamic faith clinging to His revealed intention, at some
time, to fulfil them as He has done a part, let us calmly ask, Why has it not all been thus
fulfilled? When this question is scripturally answered, and the reasons assigned, which
God Himself gives, then, then we shall not only be satisfied to let its plain meaning stand,
but rejoice in its precious significance.

Obs. 4. The promises in the covenants are not typical, as many argue
(impelled to it by not seeing a present fulfilment, and by a disbelief in a
future fulfilment), for a typical character is opposed to the very nature of
acovenant. It would in a great measure make the real truth unrecog-
nizable until the appearance of the antitype, and the result would be to
enshroud the covenants themselves in conjecture and mystery, which is
opposed to the simple fact that God appeals to the covenants as to promises
well comprehended. The partial fulfilment of them clearly shows that they
are not to be regarded as typical.
As this is a point of great importance, having a marked influence upon the interpre-
tation of much Scripture, a few remarks ought to be appended. Many excellent writers,
as Fairbairn and others, make e.g. the inheritance promised to the Patriarchs a typical
one, and the proof texts assigned for this are the passages which speak of the saints in-
heriting the earth, of Abraham being “ heir of the world,’’ etc. But this isa begging of
the question, for these passages in no shape or form intimate « typical nature of the in-
heritance but, on the contrary, the reality of the promise ; for, as we shall show hereafter
(Props. 142, 131, 137, 141, etc.) this Scripture teaches an exact fulfilment of covenant prom-
ise, unless they themselves are also made typical (as e.g. inheriting the earth to mean
inheriting third heaven, etc.). That no type is intended may be briefly stated thus:
Jesus Christ, according to the Prophets, as David’s Son and Theocratic King inherits
not only David’s throne and kingdom but also the territory, but in connection with this,
in virtue of His Divine-Human character and the original design contemplated, His do-
minion, based on His rightful inheritance, is to extend over the whole earth. To show
the contrary, Fairbairn (On Proph., p. 266) introduces a very inapt and unfortunate in-
ferential proof. For he tells us that the inheritance can only be explained ‘‘ with what
it typically represented, in the same way that Christ is called Abraham’s seed,’’ viz. : as
“the ultimate child of promise.’’ Here comes in the fatal mistake that he and others
make in supposing that covenant promises are typical, impelling them, as an illustration
of the same, to infer the typical nature of ‘‘ the seed.’ We may well ask, in reply, Was not
Christ Abraham’s natural seed, and if so, did ‘‘ seed’”’ stand fora type? Certainly not,
for there is a literal fulfilment of promise. Precisely so, with the inheritance ; it is better
to wait and see what God yet intends to do, before we explain away His own words by a
typical process. For if we adopt this modernized principle, so prevailing, where is then
a promise in the covenants to which can be ascribed certainty of meaning? Rejecting
the plain one that the letter contains, or more conveniently converting it into a type, the
292 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRrop. 48.
promise may then represent what the ingenuity of man ascribes to it, and conjecture fol-
lows. Men may derisively call our view, an adhering to the ‘‘ husk,” ‘‘ shell,”’ or ‘‘ rind ’’
and congratulate themselves in having ‘‘ the developed germ’’ or “ matured fruit,” but
amid the unproven varieties of ‘‘fruit,” from Origen to Swedenborg, we are content to
abide by the former, as certainly God-given. The truth is, that these writers all come
to the Word with an unproven hypothesis, viz. : that the church, as now constituted, is
the covenanted Messianic Kingdom, and hence all Scripture, including the precise and
determinate language of the covenants, must be interpreted to correspond with a pre-
judged case. Learning and ability must champion a fundamental misconception.
Prop. 49.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 293

Proposition 49. The covenants being in Revelation, the founda-

tion of the Kingdom, must first be received and appreciated.
Let us then briefly pass them under review, and notice their con-
tents ; this will clearly indicate their fundamental nature.
God promised salvation to Adam and Eve. The Bible gives us the sad history, that,
while some through faith sought for deliverance, gradually unbelief and sin enveloped
and enshrouded the race. One man and his family were selected by the Almighty to
escape the general destruction, that through him the race might be propagated, the prom-
ise might be extended and ultimately fulfilled. Again, corruption prevailed (Joshua
24 : 2, 14 etc.) to such an extent that a new development was necessary to prepare and
perpetuate the way of salvation. A descendant of Shem and Noah, possessing peculiar
characteristics, was selected as the preeminently chosen one to whom in a more special
and particular manner was committed the assurances of a preparatory development and
final attainment of Salvation. In him the Divine Purpose becomes more specific, de-
tailed, contracted, definite,and certain. Specific, in distinguishing and separating him
from others of the race ; detailed, in indicating more of the particulars connected with
the purpose of salvation ; contracted, in making the Messiah to come directly in his line,
to be his ‘‘ seed ;”’ definite, in entering into covenant relation with him, as his God ; and
certain, in confirming this covenant relationship by an oath. This, then, is the period,
beyond all others, which, descending from the general to the particular, lays, as Kurtz
(His. Old Cov., p. 175, comp. Prop. 46, Obs. 1) aptly remarks: ‘‘ a foundation on which
the great Salvation is ultimately to appear ;” or, as Oosterzee (Ch. Dog., vol. 2, p. 471)
observes : ‘‘ We have learned to recognize the covenant of God with Abraham as the foun-
dation of the entire revelation of Salvation.’”’ Abraham is this chosen instrument, and
through his promised seed complete redemption is to be obtained. Certainly then the
Abrahamic history becomes one of absorbing interest, in view of its fundamental and liv-
ing connection with final Salvation. It deserves and demands our most earnest and
closest attention, for to it all other things, in the development, must sustain a close and
abiding relation. We cannot overestimate the importance of this, as Isa. 51:1, 2
teaches. Even the incarnation, life, etc., of Christ grow out of the deep significancy, and
in behalf of the fulfilment, of the covenant made with Abraham.

I, THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT.

Obs. 1. The covenant (see good remarks on the meaning of the word
“covenant”? by Barnes, Notes on Heb. 8:8, and 9:16) made with
Abraham is found in Gen. 12 : 1-3, 7; 13 : 14-17; 15 :4-21; 17 :4-16;
22 : 15-18. The things promised id God are the following: 1. That
Abraham’s name shall be great. 2. Thata great nation should come from
him. 38. Heshould bea blessing so great that in him shall all families of
the earth be blessed. 4. To him personally (‘‘ to thee’’) and to his seed
should be given Palestine forever to inherit. 5. The multitude of his seed
should be as the dust of the earth. 6. That whoever blessed him should
be blessed, and whosoever cursed him should be cursed. 7%. He should be
the father of many nations. 8. Kings should proceedfrom him. 9. The
covenant shall be perpetual, ‘‘ an everlasting covenant.’? 10. The land of
Canaan shall be ‘‘an everlasting possession.’’ 11. God will be a God to
294 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 49.

him and to his seed. 12. His seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.
13. In his seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.
God added, in order to bring about these promises, predictions, dispensational and
providential arrangements, and while in the course of time there has been a partial,
inchoate fulfilment, sufficient to authenticate their divine origin and ultimate realization,
yet a mere cursory glance at them, and then at history, shows that they have not, to this
time, been verified as given. This partial and limited fulfilment has afforded a fund of
amusement to unbelief, and it sneeringly points to it as evidence of failure, of Oriental
exaggeration, etc. In view, however, of the dispositions already made, the continued
progress of the Divine Purpose toward its realization, the constant preservation of Abra-
ham’s descendants, to whom nationally the covenants were given, the raising up of a
seed unto Abraham, etc., it would be foolishness to say that they, as recorded, never will
be accomplished. To answer unbelief, by endeavoring to make out a fulfilment by
spiritualizing the promises, by substituting something else in their place, is only another
form of unbelief in the precise words of the covenants,

Obs. 2. Out of the blessings enumerated, several are selected, as illus-

trative, which have not yet been experienced. Thus e.g. Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob’ have Palestine ‘‘from the river of Egypt to the great river
Kuphrates’’ promised to them personally, and also to their seed. The
repetition of the precise language admits of no otherconstruction. ‘‘ To
thee and to thy seed will I give this land ;’’ ‘* Zo thee will I give it ;’’ ‘‘ to
ive thee this land to inherit ;’’ ‘‘I will give it wnto thee, and to thy seed
after thee, the land wherein ¢hou art a stranger, all the Jand of Canaan,
for an everlasting possession ;’’ ‘‘ unto thee and to thy seed will I give all
these countries ;’’ ‘‘ the land whereon f¢how liest, to thee will I give it and
to thy seed ;’ ‘‘ the land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, to thee will
I give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.’’ How the
Patriarchs understood this is evident byreferring to what Isaac said to
Jacob when hesenthim away to Laban (Gen. 28 : 1-4) : ‘‘ God Almighty
bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be
a multitude of people ; and give thee the blessing of Abraham, fo thee and
to thy seed with thee, that thow mayest inherit the land, wherein thow art a
stranger, which God gave unto Abraham.’’ Can language be more
definite? Does God so carefully reiterate the personal inheriting (and as
carefully discriminate from such inheriting a present temporary sojourn in
the land), of the land by the Patriarchs, and yet mean something very
different from what the words properly denote? Many, alas, tell us yes !
but we respond, No! Never !?”
1 The reason why the covenant was repeated to Isaac and Jacob was owing to the
fact that they formed the chosen posterity to the exclusion of others in the Abrahamic
line, and with Jacob that exclusion ceased, for as Dr. Kurtz (His. Old Cov., vol. 2, p. 33)
aptly expresses it : ‘‘ Now at length the way of grace entirely coincided with that of
nature.” In other words, all the seed of Jacob were called, and the blessing offered to
each one of them.
2 Those who deny that the Patriarchs shall personally inherit the land, base their. objec-
tion on two points ; viz. : (1) thatit was fulfilled either in themselves sojourning there,
or else in their posterity inhabiting the land ; and (2) that such an inheriting, as we con-
tend for, demands a resurrection of them. Let us now carefully consider these, in the
light of Scripture.
(1) Whatever may be said respecting the temporary possession of Canaan (either as pre-
paratory or initiatory or inchoate,) or whatever may be asserted respecting the descend-
ants being meant ‘‘as yet in his loins,” etc., one thing is most positively stated in the
Bible, viz. : that this promise was not fulfilled in the Patriarchs, in any of the forms
alleged by unbelief. The Spirit, foreseeing this very objection, provided against it, lest
our faith should stumble. Thus Stephen, full of the Holy Ghost, tells us (Acts 7 : 5)
Pror. 49.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 295

that “‘ He (God) gave him {Abraham) none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his
foot on, yet He promised that He would give it to him for a possession and to his seed after
him.” This (also because accordant with the well-known Jewish views) should be deci-
sive, especially when confirmed by Paul (Heb. 9 : 8, 9, and 11 : 13-40), who expressly in-
forms us that the Patriarchs sojourned in ‘‘ the land of promise,’’ which they were to
receive as “ an inheritance,” ‘‘ pilgrims and strangers,’ and that ‘‘ they died in faith, not
having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them,
and embraced them, and confessed that they were pilgrims and strangers on the earth.”
How, with such evidence before us, can we attribute to only their posterity what is
directly asserted of themselves personally ? Those modernized views were not known to
Stephen and Paul (and others, as e.g. Luke 1 : 68-73 ; Mic. 7 : 20, etc.). Hence it fol-
lows that in God’s own time this will be abundantly brought to pass, so that it only be-
comes us to observe how and when, as revealed in the Word. God will perform this for
them, as the Jews held, as the Primitive Church believed, and as taught by every Mille-
narian writer down to the present day.* The deep reasons which underlie this promise
and its relationship to the Kingdom will appear in succeeding pages.
Evidently that which misleads the multitude in this matter is the statement of the
apostle (Heb. 11 : 16), that “ they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly.” Com-
mentators, as Barnes, Bloomfield, etc., overlooking entirely the Theocratic relationship
that this country (i.e. Palestine) is to occupy in the Kingdom of God, at once conclude
that this ‘‘ heavenly” country is the third heaven. They forget that this phraseology
would not mislead a Hebrew, who was accustomed to designate the restored Davidic
Kingdom a heavenly Kingdom, and the country enjoying its restoration and Theocratic
blessings, a heavenly country. The expression does not mean “‘ the third heaven’’
(Prop. 103), but something that pertains to, or partakes of, the heavenly, as heavenly vis-
ion, body, calling, etc. (To avoid repetition, comp. Props. 142-154.)
If no other means avail to destroy the express language of the Covenant, recourse is
had to the typical theory (Prop. 48, Obs. 4). Thus, Pressense (The Redeemer, p. 74)
says, respecting Gen. 17 : 8, ‘‘ Without doubt it was designed to have an earthly fulfil-
ment ; in fact this it received” (against the testimony of Stephen and Paul), *‘ but the
earthly fulfilment was secondary.” That is, it was only ‘‘ a symbol,” symbolizing heav-
enly things ; and then heasks : ‘‘ What interest attaches, speaking in a religious sense,
to the fact that one family or one people should have in prospect a fair earthly heri-
tage ?” Alas! when good men can speak so disparagingly of covenant promise. Has it
not a deep religious signification in the light of man’s being deprived by sin of “a fair
earthly heritage?” The answer to Pressense is found in such Propositions as 120, 140,
142, 145, ete. Irving (Life of Hd. Irving, by Mrs. Oliphant, p. 338),in a letter to Dr.
Chalmers, more comprehensively remarks: ‘‘ I trust the Lord will give you time and
leisure to consider the great hope of the church first given to Abraham ; that she shall
be ‘heir of the world.’ Certainly, it is the very substance of Theology.”
(2) Next we are informed that such a procedure must necessitate the resurrection of
the Patriarchs. Precisely so; and we feel assured from the faith manifested by Abraham

* When Abraham asked (Gen. 15 : 8): ‘‘ Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall
inherit it?’ God condescended to a covenant sacrifice ; and his faith is tested (as in
the case of Isaac, whom he was to offer, although the child of promise), by selecting and
bringing the material for the sacrifice, by the length of time elapsing before the sacrifice
is accepted, by the horror and darkness coming upon him, and by the notification of his
own death lefore he should realize it. But his faith is sustained by the acceptance of the
sacrifice, by the statement made respecting his descendants, and by the assurance thus
given that God sustained a covenant relationship to him. There is something remark-
able in all this, and now, in view of the past, we can readily see why the matter is so
briefly related. This explains what Luther (Table Talk, s. 152) refers to: ‘‘No man,
since the apostles’ time, has rightly understood the legend of Abraham. The apostles
themselves did not sufficiently extol or explain Abraham’s faith, according to its worth
and greatness. I much marvel that Moses so slightly remembers him.’’ The fact is,
that Moses says much, but we appreciate it too little. The writer has no doubt but that
much could be added to our knowledge by receiving the suggestions of the record. Even
names are, perhaps, suggestive. Without asserting its application, e.g. ‘‘ Machpelah’’
has the meaning ‘‘ double’ (Stanley, His. Jew. Church, 1 Ser. Ap. 2), and may have, for
aught we know, an allusion to the fact that Abraham had a double interest in the tract,
first by gift from God and secondly by purchase.
296 THE THEOORATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 49.
in Isaac's resurrection from the dead (Heb. 11 : 17-19), had he sacrificed him, and in
his looking forward to the day of Christ (John 8 : 56 ; Heb. 11 : 10, 11), for the fulfilment
of these promises, that his hope was based on a resurrection from the dead. A resurrec-
tion is implied ; it is taken for granted, for the Patriarchs die, thepromise is unrealized,
and yet God is faithful in His promises. Now to indicate this, and the power of the res-
urrection, God gives us His ‘‘ Memorial,” * which was to be “unto all generations”
(Ex. 3 : 15), “ Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: Zhe Lord God of your
Fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob hath sent me unto you ; this
is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.” What meaning was
couched in this most sublime Memorial? This: I am the God who will remember and
be faithful to my covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and J acob, and to fulfil it I will raise them
from the dead. Now let the reader notice that this is not my interpretation of it, but
that which is given by the greatest Teacher, Jesus Christ. For, when the Sadducees
came to Him denying the resurrection, Jesus, well knowing how the Jews held that the Pa-
triarchs would be raised from the dead to inherit the land, told them that Moses taught a
resurrection when “ he called the Lord, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the
God of Jacob.” This Memorial was then given as proof (Luke 20 : 37) “‘ that the dead are
raised,’’ and not, as many would teach us, of the immortality of the Patriarchs and their
condition in the intermediate state. Neither immortality, nor the intermediate state,
was the subject of dispute ; the resurrection of the dead was denied, and the resurrection
of the dead was defended.+ Whatever might be induced inferentially, the direct subject-
matter between Christ and the Sadducees was that of the resurrection, and the memorial
itself is adduced as proof, decisive, that such a resurrection will occur. Why thus ad-
duced? Simply because the covenant necessitates a resurrection ; without it the covenant
cannot be fulfilled ; and God, in thus calling Himself their God and that He ever shall
remain their God, pledges Himself to a strict performance of His promise, that they them-
selves, personally, shall inherit the land. And in His glorious Majesty, to whom all time
is present, in His omnipotence and wisdom, to indicate the fixity and certainty of His
divine purpose, He speaks of them—foresecing their position and regarding it settled as
a fact—not as dead men but living. Im other words, He speaks only as a God can
speak, making things that are not yet fulfilled, owing to their certainty, present and
real. God looks at the time when Abraham’s body will arise from the ‘‘ marble covered
with carpets embrvidered in gold’’ (Stanley, His. Jew. Church, Ap. 2, 1 Ser.), when
Isaac’s dust shall spring to life, when Jacob’s embalmed body, throwing aside its wrap-
pings, shall be reanimated, and His faithful promise shall be realized, and with this be-
fore Him, as Omniscience alone can comprehend, He speaks. Let us reverently hear,
and understand.

* A writer in an interesting art. (Proph. Times, vol. 2, p. 17) renders the word trans-
lated ‘‘ memoral” into that of “ manchild,’’ as having a reference to the Messiah, the in-
carnation of Deity, and the retention of humanity forever. However ingenious, we pre-
fer the rendering given in our versions, as our argument does not require its special con-
sideration.
+ It is painful to notice the lack of candor in many writers, and in some commenta-
ries. Seeing that if they admit our position, it will tend to overthrow their spiritualistic
views of covenant promise, they insist that immortality is alone taught. This they do
(1) against the express Jewish usage of the words as indicative of a resurrection (comp.
Mede’s Works, Lightfoot’s Works, Harmer’s Mis. Works, etc.) ; (2) Jesus employing the
memorial according to such usage ; (3) the Evangelists expressly asserting that it efer-
red, not to immortality, but to the resurrection, as Matt. 22 : 31 ‘‘ as touching the resu:rec-
tion of the dead,” Mark 12 : 26 ‘‘ as touching the dead, that they rise,’’ Luke 20 : 37, ‘‘ that
the dead are raised ,” (4) the fact that the Sadducees were silenced by the argument. It
is strange, when the matter is so plainly stated, that prejudice can influence men to re-
ject such testimony. One of the best Expositions of this interview is to be found in
Judge Jones’s Notes on Scripture, with which comp. Olshausen, Lange, Nast, etc. Dr.
Schaff, in Lange’s Com. Matt. 22 : 23-33, most aptly remarks : ‘‘ The argument of Christ
avails only for those who stand in personal covenant relations with the God of Abra-
ham,’’ etc. We acknowledge the force of this, and hence infer from it, as is elsewhere
taught (comp. Prop. 119, etc.), thatthe resurrection of the righteous is something dis-
tinctive, pre-eminent, etc. Smith’s Bib. Dic., and many others, admit that Ex, 3 :6
fully implies and teaches a resurrection, but neglect to place it properly on the cove-
nanted basis. More satisfactory is Auberlen (Div. Rev., p, 141), and others like Seiss,
Bickersteth, Bonar, etc.
Prop. 49.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 297

Obs. 3. The reader, having carefully perused the preceding evidence, will
understand the significance of Paul, before Agrippa (Acts 26 : 6-8),
uniting ‘‘ the promise to the Fathers’? with the resurrection of the dead.
The promise and the memorial were thus understood, as we explain, by
the Jews, and it would be simply an outrage for Paul and others to use
language—if another meaning was intended—which would confirm the
Jews in their belief. A brief glance at Jewish belief may, in this connec-
tion, be serviceable. Mede (Works, B. 4, Ep. 43), Brooks (£7. Proph.
Interp., p. 33), and other tell us how Rabbi Gamaliel, the Preceptor of
Paul, silenced the Sadducees by bringing against them Deut. 11 : 21,
‘* which land the Lord sware that He would give to your fathers,” arguing
‘‘that as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had it not, and God cannot lie,
therefore they must be raised from the dead to inherit it.’’ Wetstein (on
Matt. 22 : 32) cites a Rabbinical writer, who thus argues the resurrection
from the memorial. So Mede adduces Rabbi Simai (some later), urging
the same from Ex. 6 : 4, that ‘‘ the law asserts in this place the resurrec-
tion from the dead—to wit, when it said, And also I have established my
covenant with them, to give them Canaan,’’ etc., because the fathers were
mentioned by name and the Jews then existing were not specified. The
same is quoted by Fairbairn (Typology of Scripture), as contained in the
Talmud in Gemara, who also gives Manasseh Ben Israel (referred to by
Warburton, B. 6,8. 3) as arguing the resurrection from the covenant
promise.’ Thus the Jewish view, entertained and continued, indicates to
us unmistakably how the New Test. writers are to be understood, unless we
condescend to adopt the miserable and degrading accommodation theory.
1 For the views of the Jews at the time of Christ see e.g. Knapp, Ch. Theol., sec. 151, 2
(2) p. 5380, or Jones, Notes on the Scriptures, p. 284, note. While there was some differ-
ence of opinion as to who should be raised (some holding only to the righteous of the
nation, others to all.of the race, and others including some Gentiles with these), there
was none respecting the Patriarchs. The hope was indulged of enjoying resurrection
life with them in their covenanted inheritance. This is so clear, and admitted by a host
of writers, Millenarian, Anti-Millenarian, etc., that it admits of no doubt. Allusions to
this resurrection are made in The Twelve Patriarchs and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are
specially mentioned ; also in some of the other Apocryphal books. Comp. an ‘‘ Excur-
sus” in Prof. Stuart’s Com. on Apoc. The Samaritans only receive the Pentateuch, and
yet they firmly hold toa resurrection, even quoting Deut. 32 : 39 ‘‘ I kill, and I make
alive,’ as affirming the same. The fact that Jesus passes by the later utterances of the
Old Test., and selects one from the Pentateuch, shows that if the resurrection is not
clearly enforced by it, He could not reprove the Sadducees on account of their igno-
rance, thus evidencing not only its force (as we affirm), but that the same was recognized
fully by the Jews. If this were not so, His reasoning would be inconclusive and irrele-
vant, but being so, it is conclusive and irresistible. The student willeobserve that, in
view of the fundamental need of the resurrection of Jesus in order to fulfil the covenant
promises, it is taken for granted that it is necessarily implied by Moses, hence e.g. the
puzzling (to many commentators) reference of Paul to Moses (Acts 26 : 22, 23) as teach-
ing the resurrection of Jesus—Paul making such a direct resultant to bring about the
fulfilment.

Obs. 4. To say that all this was fulfilled in the occupation of Palestine
by the preparatory or initiatory possession of it by the descendants of
Abraham, is not only contradicted by Scripture, but is a virtual limiting of
the promise. Kurtz (His. of Old Cov., vol. 1, p. 131) observes, what
history attests, that the descendants never possessed the land promised to
Abraham from the Nile to the Euphrates (comp. geographical boundary
given by Hengstenberg, from Gen. 15 : 18, Ex. 23 : 31, and Deut. 11 : 22-
298 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 49.

24). Itis only by a perversion of facts that a fulfilment can be made out,
although it is attempted under the reigns of David and Solomon. In view
of this non-fulfilment, and the land being assigned ‘‘ for an everlasting or
eternal possession,’’? some writers (e.g. Kurtz, His. Old Cov., vol. 1, p.
214) base an argument upon it in favor of a future restoration of the
Jews, but the same reasoning precisely, with the addition of a promise to
the Patriarchs personally, demands the fulfilment of the promise by a
restoration of the Patriarchs to the land thus geographically bounded.
Warner (In the Levant, p. 82) says : ‘‘ The country the Hebrews occupied was small ;
they never conquered or occupied the whole of the Promised Land, which extended from
the Mediterranean Sea to the Arabian plain, from Hamath to Sinai. Their territory in
actual possession reached only from Dan to Beersheba. The coast they never subdued,”’
etc. He refers to the brief period in the reigns of David and Solomon, when Damascus
and the cities of the Philistines paid tribute, ‘‘ but the Kingdom of Tyre, still in the
possession of Hiram, marked the limit of Jewish sway in that direction.’’ A large num-
ber of similar testimonies might be quoted (comp. e.g. Wines’ Com. on Laws, B. 1, ch. 9,
etc.), but the student does not require them in sucha matter of fact. The past non-ful-
filment insures the future fulfilment, as God is faithful in all His promises. God, foresee-
ing how the Jewish nation would relapse in idolatry, superstition, and extreme bigotry,
permitted other nations, as the Pheenicians, etc., within the bounds of the promised land
to survive and retain possession. In the recent Art. on ‘‘ Palestine’ in M’Clintock and
Strong’s Cyclop., the decided ground is taken that the land as promised to Abraham was
never occupied, extending as it does from the Nile to the Euphrates, and this non-occu-
pation is accounted for in view of the unfaithfulness of the nation. This is trne as to
the past, but the student must not be misled by this to a denial that it ever will be real-
ized, because the promise to the Patriarchs is unconditional, and confirmed by oath and
abundant reiterated promises ; and the fulfilment is explained to take place under the
promised ‘‘ seed,” who is Dayid’s Son, and will come again to bring in its realization.
The unfaithfulness of some does not rob the faithful of their promised inheritance.

Obs. 5. In view of the Scriptural statements, eminent men, who are

inclined to the prevailing modern doctrines, find themselves forced to make
admissions corroborative of the correctness of our position. We append
a few illustrations. Thus Thompson (Theol. of Christ, p. 186-7) justly
takes the ground that (Matt. 22:30, etc.) the Sadducees denied a literal
resurrection, that Jesus in His reply holds fast to the Jewish view of a
literal resurrection, and that every utterance given is to confirm such a
faith, but then leaves a loophole for escape in this sentence : ‘‘ He went on
to assert the Resurrection as sect forth by Moses, in the fact that Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob would ever have a recognized identity in the Kingdom
of God.” Fairoairn (Zypol. of Scripture) says much that is highly in-
teresting and valuable—entire pages might be transcribed—but he
vitiates the whole by making the promise of Canaan, etc., typical of
something else. Barnes, Hody, Campbell, etc., that can only see the
doctrine of a separate existence of the soul in the memorial, still assert that
somehow it infers the resurrection, i.e. because the spirits are alive, the
bodies will also be hereafter. Acknowledging the admission forced from
them, we fail to see how the existence of spirit in any proves the resur-
rection of the body ; and they have failed to show the connection.
Even McKnight, in that spiritualizing Essay (No. 5, p. 256, ‘‘On the Epistles”), which
endeavors to make almost everything typical of something else, fully admits that “ ac-
cordingly our Lord in reasoning with the Sadducees, affirmed, that the promise to give
to Abraham and to his immediate descendants the everlasting possession of Canaan, was
virtually a promise to raise them from the dead.” This reference to an implied resurrec-
tion he sustains by other Scripture, and by quoting the opinions of Jews, as e.g. 2 Mac.
 LA VERINE UUEELEME EER‘ ds
LAVERNE, CALIFORNIA
Prop. 49.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 299
7: 9,36. But the concessions are weakened by making Canaan a type of another world,
thus vitiating the promises (making them to denote something not contained in the lan-
guage), rejecting Christ’s own inheritance, the faith of the Jews, etc. The points in the
essay are fully met under various Propositions. It is now sufficient to say, that the ex-
press language, as e.g. “‘ the land whereon thou liest, lo thee will I give it and to thy seed,” pre-
cludes the typical theory. This itself answers Pressense (7’he Redeemer, p. 74), and
others. We must refer again to the remarkable performance of Fairbairn (Typology, vol.
1, p. 2938, etc.), who justly discriminates between the promise
to the Patriarchs person-
ally and the promise to their seed ; shows by an appeal to the language, to Stephen, etc.,
that they had a personal interest in the land, which would be verified, although they
died, by a resurrection ; quotes Jewish authorities to indicate how they associated a res-
urrection with its fulfilment ; goes even so far as to advance the coming of the seed, as
fulfilled in ‘‘the most exact and literal sense,” thus indicating that the promise “thou
shalt inherit the land” will likewise be thus realized ; in brief, he is forced to the same
conclusions precisely that we arrived at, viz. : that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be
raised from the dead and inherit the renewed earth (which “ renovated earth being the
ultimate inheritance of the heirs of promise,’’ he, at length and forcibly, defends). But
he vitiates it (in order to avoid our Pre-Millenarian position, and to save his spiritualiz-
ing of other particulars) by making Canaan a type of this renewed earth. But it is the
literal Canaan which they saw, walked and reclined on, that is promised ; renewed indeed,
but the same Canaan ; delivered from the curse, and beautified and adorned. The
Theocratic Kingdom, that is to be restored under the Messiah, as numerous predictions
(as we shall show) declare, has its central location in Palestine ; and the restoration of the
Jewish nation, identified with it, isinseparably associated with ‘‘ theland,” ‘‘ the city,”
etc., although at that time (Isa. 65 and 66) enjoying “ new heavens and new earth.’’
The land promised specially to the Patriarchs has set geographical bounds, and we keep
to these as announced ; for, as Fairbairn himself asserts (which is all-sufficient to sus-
tain our position), this inheritance is to be ‘‘ recovered, not made,’’ being ‘‘ the posses-
sion of this very earth, which we now inhabit, after it shall have been redeemed and
glorified.’’

Obs. 6. We turn with a sense of relief from the class of writers who
constantly change the promises of God into something that the language
does not convey (i.e. make it typical, symbolical, spiritual, mystical), to
another class who, with faith, accept of them as they are written, in their
plain grammatical sense, just as the Jews and Primitive believers. As
many of these will be mentioned in connection with other topics, we select
but asingle illustration. Dr. Candlish (Lectures on Genesis, Lec. 13) takes
the position ‘‘ that the hope of an inheritance for himself, individually,
did actually form a part of the faith of Abraham ;’* that ‘‘ nowhere does
Abraham receive any promise whatever of future good, or of a future
inheritance, for himself, if 1t be not in the announcement, ‘ J will give thee
this land ;?’’ that Paul in Hebrews makes no reference to Abraham’s
posterity, but to himself as an individual, so far as inheriting the promise
is concerned ; that Abraham ‘‘sojourned in the land of promise,’’ and
although a stranger and pilgrim in it, yet “‘7t was the land of promase
still ;’’? that ‘‘the place to which he was called to go out, was the very
place which he should afterward receive for an inheritance ;’’ that the
fulfilment of the promise is postponed until after his resurrection ; that God
is his God in respect to both soul and body as when living, and as the cove-
nant relation entered into was when Abraham was living, it must always
be regarded in the light of Abraham again living in the body ; that the
inheritance is not typical but real, evidenced by the renewed earth, the
inheriting of the earth, etc. ; that this renovated earth with its blessings
brings heaven down with its holy influences. This epitome sufficiently
indicates the line of reasoning, identical with that of the Primitive Church
(as Irenzeus, Justin, etc.).
800 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 49.

Obs. ’. Multitudes allow themselves to be influenced in spiritualizing

these promises because ‘‘a city’’ is promised to Abraham, which is taken
for granted to be the third heaven, etc. But the churches established by
the apostles had no such idea, for they clearly apprehended that this
promise of the city, of God being their God, and of not being ashamed to
be such, etc., had reference to the glorious Theocratic ordering in the future.
For they saw that this city of the great King, in which Abraham shall
rejoice, is plainly promised to be here on the earth and not in the third
heaven, etc. As this will come up hereafter in detail (e.g. Props. 142,
146, 152, etc.), it may be passed by with the remark that it certainly is
strange, if the modernized notions of eminent men respecting this city are
correct, that we do not find them existing in the earliest writings of the
Chr. Church.
If the reader who (like Barnes, etc.) applies this ‘‘ city’’ to heaven, insists, at this
stage of our argument, upon a reply, it is amply sufficient to point out the simple fact
that the future city of God is represented (Rev. 21: 2, 10) as coming out of heaven upon
this earth and remaining here. This, of course, fully harmonizes with our view, and
with Abraham’s promised inheritance. But we leave this for the present, asking the
reader to compare Props. 169, 168, 148, 151, etc., for full particulars.

Obs. 8. God gave an oath for the faithful (Micah 7 : 20) performance
of Covenant promises (Gen. 22:16, and 26:3), thus condescending to
present the strongest possible assurance. Now God would not swear to an
equivocal covenant, to a covenant which in its plain grammatical sense
conveys the promises we have referred to, and yet means something very
different. No one can deny this grammatical meaning, seeing that for
many centuries it was the only one maintained, and that for several cen-
turies in the Christian Church it was the one presented by the Fathers
(Props. 76-78).
Even the very name of God assures the fulfilment of the covenant. The reader will
find an interesting ‘‘Excursus’’ on this name in Bengel’s Gnomon, Apoc. 1 : 8, in which
it is contrasted with the names given in the Apoc. The name “ He who is” was familiar
to the Patriarchs, and this name, in view of the covenanted relationship, was changed
into “ I will be what I will be,’’ upon which Bengel remarks : ‘‘ That is, ‘ J will be’ to
the Israelites the character which, by the very fact, ‘ I will be’ in regard to their fathers,
both what I said to them I would be, and what it behooves Me to be to them ; namely,
by now at length fulfilling the promise which I formerly gave.’’ There seems, too, aside
from the reference to the coming one (comp. Prop. 127), an ascending scale in the name
of God in reference to the Covenant, which writers have variously explained, but all have
noticed. Thus, e.g. He is known as ‘‘the strong One,” inspiring confidence ; then as
“* God Almighty,” confirming faith ; then as ‘‘ Jehovah,”’ indicating that being Eternal,
all things were dependent upon Him and He could fulfil all promises ; then Jehovah-
Sabaoth, the Eternal leader of the armies of heaven and earth, dependent upon His will
and self-existence. “Jehovah’’ is the personal, self-revealing name (McCaul, Essay 5, p.
226, Aids to Fuith) ;itis the name indicative of His relationship to Israel, of revealing
Himself in history, and as He acts in it (Kurtz, Sac. His., p. 26). Comp. Dr. Etheredge’s
Targums, Stuart’s Apoc., Kurtz’s Vid Cov.

Obs. 9. Some few writers, as Silliman in The World’s Jubilee, ‘‘ declare

that the Abrahamic covenant and the institution at Mt. Sinai made pro-
vision, had the Hebrews rendered to them a perfect obedience, for their
exemption from death.’’ On the other hand, we find only provision made
for a future resurrection ; and in this we are confirmed by the announce-
ment of Abraham’s death at the covenant sacrifice, by the general analogy
of the Word, and by the fact that the covenant itself contemplated that it
Prop. 49.] THE THEOOCRATIC KINGDOM. 301
would only be through the seed Christ, at some future unannounced period,
that it would be realized—that saints would be honored by a translation.
The covenants, in their tenor, look to the future and not the present for
realization ; the latter being dependent upon the coming of the promised
seed and a Theocratic ordering.
Let it be observed, that not only Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob acknowledged them-
selves ‘‘ pilgrims and strangers’* while in Canaan, but the same is true of their descend-
ants in the land, even while under the Theocratic arrangement. This feature is mislead-
ing to some, who draw conclusions of a spiritual and third heaven nature not warranted
by the fact. Let it be noticed, that if we take Heb. 11, 13, Ps. 39:12, and 119 : 19,
1 Chron. 29 : 15, it will be found that, owing to the intervention of death, the temporary so-
journ in the land is not recognized as the one that the covenant contemplates, for the
latter presents it as ‘‘ an everlasting possession.” Hence, as we have already shown
(e.g. Prop. 25), the Theocracy even was only an earnest of the Theocracy reestablished
in power and glory, with its promised perpetuity, etc.

Obs. 10. Infidelity has triumphantly asserted that in the Mosaic Record
there is no reference to the resurrection and a future life, and this has been
corroborated by the premature statements of some believers. But this is a
grave mistake, and one unmistakably refuted by the Record itself. The
central point in it—the foundation upon which the Mosaic superstruct-
ure rests—vecessitates a belief in the resurrection and a future life. This
we have shown, and this will more fully appear from what follows.
Simple candor requires that we allow Scripture to interpret itself, and if this is done
there can be no question in this matter. Clarke (Ten Religions, p. 250) only repeats what
hundreds before him had asserted :“ But it is perhaps more strange not to find any trace
of the doctrine of a future life in Mosaism when this was so prominent among the
Egyptians,’’ and adds, ‘‘ That in Moses there is ‘ nothing of the future life and judgment
to come.’” Kant and others hence infer a lack of divinity. This can only be said by
ignoring the covenants and the special promises based on them, which, in the nature of
the case, positively demand a future life, seeing that death itself is announced to precede
the fulfilment of these promises. It is simply folly to say that God promises certain
things to the Patriarchs personally, and then tells them that they must experience death
before they are realized, and leave the matter in this condition. God expects reason to
assert itself, and faith in Himself as God to vindicate His truthfulness. Hence we are
sorry to read such utterances as these : Stanley (His. Jew. Ch., 1 ser. Lec. 7) says : ‘‘ The
future life was not denied or contradicted, but it was overlooked, set aside, overshadowed
by the consciousness of the living, actual presence of God Himself.’’ The truth is, that
the consciousness of this presence of God inspired faith in the future life (John 8 : 56,
Heb. 11 : 8-16). This is seen in the promises given being of such a nature, that, if ever
fulfilled, a resurrection from the dead is indispensable ; they are purposely given in such
a manner as to test faith (i.e. by not explaining how they are to be accomplished, leaving
that to the Promiser to perform) ; and now the presence of God, His covenant relation-
ship, the attributes claimed by Him, His oath, are calculated to inspire, bring forth im-
plicit confidence in their fulfilment, notwithstanding the intervention of death (as
illustrated in the case of Isaac). The careful student will see that the Mosaic attitude
vindicates, and presents to us, in a most striking manner, the Majesty of a God (requir-
ing simple confidence in Himself), and the reason and faith of the Patriarchs. It isa
matter of surprise that believers in making concessions to unbelievers overlook three
facts : (1) That many things illustrative of personal faith and doctrine are omitted in
the rapid outline given in the Old Test., and that, in view of this omission, to conclude
ignorance in them, is to judge both harshly and unjustly ; (2) that no passage is to be
found which either directly teaches, or from which it can be legitimately inferred, e.g.
that these ancient worthies had no hope of a future resurrection and life, i.e. the cry of
despair, as found in books of unbelief, is not recognized in the Pentateuch; (3) that
such omissions occur, is amply sustained by the statements of Jesus and the apostles
concerning the personal faith and hope of ancient worthies ; and the union of the Old
and New Tests., given by the same Spirit, ought to prevent our degrading the knowledge
of those who sustained an intimate relationship to God. Even incidental narrative ap-
302 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Pror. 49.

pears to imply this hope, as e.g. the anxiety of Jacob and Joseph to have their bones
carried to Canaan. While this may be explained by the desire, common to human
nature, to be buried with our relatives, yet in view of the great distance between Egypt
and Canaan, and especially of the covenanted relationship of these persons to Canaan,
it is not unreasonable to suppose that they were deeply impressed with the idea—derived
from covenant promise—that they personally had an interest in that land, and that, some
day, they would be raised from the dead to enjoy its possession ; and that by such a
removal they expressed both their interest in the land and faith and hope in an ulti-
mate acquisition of it according to promise. It was virtually a silent but thrilling appeal
to God, when dead, for Him to remember and verify His promise. A number of intel-
ligent writers take the same view of this matter, and they certainly have strong rea-
sons for thus concluding. Thus, e.g. over against the Ch. Union (Sep. 26th, 1877), which
asserts that the doctrine of a future life is not in the Pentateuch, and that this ‘‘ is ab-
solutely indisputable”’ (against the direct testimony of Jesus, John, and Paul to the con-
trary), we refer the reader to Fairbairn’s Typology (vol. 1, Ap. C, pp. 369-390 on “ The
Doctrine of a Future State’’), who gives the proof that such knowledge existed. The
reader, of course, must allow that by the Advent of Jesus, His teaching and sacrifice, a
clear light was thrown on subjects of this kind, because He, in whom their realization
depends, was revealed. But this does not imply that a total ignorance existed before
His coming ; for when the Union says, ‘‘ It is Christ, not Moses, or David, or Isaiah,
who brought life and immortality to light; and if He brought it to light, it was in
darkness before,” this is one-sided : (1) ignoring the Old Test. statements and express-
ed faith (far more than alleged ‘‘dreams’’); and (2) that the light brought by Jesus re-
fers to the undoubted assurance that we have in Him of its fulfilment through His power,
etc.

Obs. 11. But let us return to another promise. It is said that ‘* the
Seed’’ shall inherit the land; and we are told by many that this was
fulfilled in the history of the Jews under Joshua, the Judges, and the
Kings (comp. Obs. 4). What, however, are the facts as given by the Holy
Spirit? Certainly, in the interpretation of covenant promise, Holy Writ
should be allowed to be tts own interpreter, that we may ascertain the
meaning intended by God. Let God, then, and not man, explain : ‘*‘ Now
(Gal. 3 : 16) to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith
not, ‘ And to seeds’ as of many, but as of one, ‘ And to thy seed,’ which is
Christ.’’ If language has any definite meaning, then, without doubt we
have here the simple declaration that when God promised ‘‘ Unto thy seed
will I give this land,’?’ He meant that the land of Canaan should be
inherited by a single Person—pre-eminently the Seed—descended from
Abraham, even Jesus the Christ. Tow this will be verified in David’s Son,
inheriting the throne and Kingdom of David will appear as we proceed.
This explanation of Paul’s is discarded by multitudes, on the ground that it has not
been fulfilled, and infidels, and even some professed believers, make themselves merry
over the foolishness and blind faith that can accept of the same. We know full well
that it has not yet been verified, but we know, too, that it took a long, long time before
‘‘the seed” came, and we know, from Scripture, why it did not take place at His First
Advent, and we also know, from exceedingly precious promises given, that it will occur
when He comes the Second time unto Salvation. God’s ways are not our ways; and,
therefore, instead of denying His faithfulness in performing, or His explanations of
given promises, let us trust—Abraham-like—in a covenant-keeping God, who will yet com-
pletely fulfilthem. In this connection: As the Seed, which is Christ, is to inherit the
land, we only now point to the significancy with which this land is mentioned, and the
relationship that it sustains to Christ. Thus e.g. proprietorship in the land of Canaan 1s
expressly reserved to God Himself (Lev. 25 : 23) : ‘‘ The Jand shall not be sold forever; -
for the land is mine ; ye are strangers and sojourners with Me”—i.e. mere occupants, not
real owners. Hence when Jesus, the Son of God, ‘‘ came” (John 1 :11—and is not His
Divinity implied, in view of Lev. 25 : 23?) ‘‘ to His own’’ (land, so Barnes, etc., loci, or
country, so Bloomfield, etc., or Judea, so Alford, Campbell, etc., or inheritance, so Lange
and others), ‘‘ and His own (people or nation) received Him not.” This land is called
Prop. 49.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 303

** His Land’’ (Joel 2: 18), ** My land’’ (Ezek. 38 : 16), ‘‘ Immanuel’s land” (Isa. 8 : 8);
and being a covenanted inheritance of Abraham’s and David's Seed, it is called “ Thine in-
heritance.”’ Christ is designated “an inheritor of my mountains,’’ and represented as
desiring it for a habitation, a rest, to dwell in (Ps. 182 :13, 14; Ps. 68: 16, etc.).
Surely, in the light of these, and numerous other references, we ought to be guarded lest,
in our eagerness to vindicate God’s purposes, we interpose our own views and opinions
in place of God’s. How often is the heart pained at the exceeding rashness of many,
who either reject the language as “ grossly carnal,’ or make it typical of something
else, or spiritualize it into another meaning to suit a theory.
We add: In connection with the individual seed, reference is also made to the pos-
terity of the Patriarchs, as in Gen. 17 : 7, 8 ; ‘‘ in their generations,’’ in the multiplica-
tion of the seed, Gen. 15 : 5, ete. But Christ is by way of pre-eminence ‘‘ the Seed ”
through whom the remaining Seed obtain the promises, for ‘‘ all the promises of God are in
Him, yea, and in Him, Amen.” Why this is so will appear as we proceed. The promise
specifically is to the one Seed, and through Him to others (comp. e.g. Fausset’s Com. on
Gal. 3 : 16).
Fairbairn (Typol. of Scripture) justly discards the views of Ainsworth and Bush (who
make the promise read “‘ to thee even to thy seed’) as making Abraham and his offspring
one, when they are separated (mentioned even as “‘ after thee’) into two parties. So
also he rejects Gill's opinion (who made Abraham receive the title and his posterity the
possession ; Abraham to sojourn in it and his posterity to dwell in it) as making the title
no personal boon and his sojourning no inheritance. Again, he refutes Warburton’s
theory (who makes ‘‘ Abraham and his posterity, put collectively, to signify the race of
Abraham’’) as swallowing up the specific promises to the Patriarchs, by a generality, in
the race, as a violation of the language which distinguishes the Seed from the Patriarchs,
as opposed to Stephen’s reference to Abraham, etc. He correctly argues for a ‘‘ promise
personally given to the Patriarchs,” and for distinguishing the Seed from them. What-
ever views may be engrafted by him afterward upon these admissions, or however any
one may seek to explain them, these are plain facts that must, in consistency, underlie a
scriptural statement, and we feel under obligations to him for presenting them so
clearly and forcibly. He (p. 357, vol. 1), referring to Hengstenberg and others, makes the
singular ‘‘ seed” expressive of a distinct line of offspring, and His view is embraced by
numerous Millenarian writers, who, making Jesus by way of pre-eminence ‘“‘ the Seed,”
include in it all believers, being one with Him and inheriting with Him.

Obs. 12. The reader has seen where the line of argument is leading us,
viz. : to our inheriting the land with Abraham and the Christ, being
co-heirs, co-inheritors of the same promises. Indeed, let a concordance be
taken, and let the passages be sought out which promise to the saints an
inheriting of the land and the earth, and the student will be surprised at
their number, unity and richness of expression, forming a necessary
sequence to this very covenant relationship (comp. Props. 142, 146-152).

Obs. 138. The stumbling-block in the way of multitudes against receiving

such promises is, that Christ came and there was no fulfilment, and hence
only spiritual blessings are to be anticipated, etc. Our argument will fully
meet this objection as we advance; at present, attention is called to a
singular prediction, deserving marked notice on account of the connection
in which it stands. In Ps. 69, we have (1) the humiliation and affliction
of Christ (for the Messianic character of the Ps. is indisputably settled by
the New Test. writers) ; (2) direct reference to His betrayal and cruci-
fixion ; (3) His deliverance and that of the prisoners (an allusion to those
held by death or the grave, Prop. 126); and then after this (for the
prophetic spirit does not see failure in Christ’s death, but @ means for
accomplishment through the power of the resurrection) the result, not yet
attained but covenanted and predicted, for which we should praise God,
viz. : ‘' For God will save Zion, and will build the cities of Judah, that
they may dwell there and have it in possession. The seed also of His
304 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 49.

servants shail inherit it; and they that love His name shall dwell therein’’
(comp. Ps. 22, Ps. 72, and the Mess. Psls. in general). Well may it be
asked, Has this followed the Messiah’s death ? If not, since God is faithful
to His promises, and the affliction, reproach, gall, vinegar, etc., mentioned
was all literally fulfilled, we may confidently rest assured that in God’s own
time the rest will likewise be accomplished. What little faith, after great
rofessions of the same, men exercise in God’s Word! Let not man, with
titelimited ideas of fitness, judge God’s proceedings ; we see how he failed
at the First Advent, deeming it incredible that God should thus humble
Himself and literally fulfil His Word, for already multitudes are pre-
judging, as unworthy of credence, that which is to take place at the Sec.
dvent.
Obs. 14. Our faith in this matter is the faith of the Primitive Church,
so that we reverently and cordially say with Justin Martyr (Dial. Trypho.,
ch. 119), ‘‘ along with Abraham we shall inherit the holy land, when we shall
receive the inheritance for an endless eternity, being the children of Abraham
through the like faith.’’* Indeed, with Ireneeus (Ag. Her., ch. 32), we may
add: ‘‘ Jt is fittung that the just, rising at the appearing of God, should in
the renewed state receive the promise of inheritance which God covenanted
to the Fathers, and should reign in it ;’’ then following the argument
respecting the covenant promises made to Abraham and ae as we
have done, that Abraham received them not, he continues : ‘‘ Thus, there-
fore, as God promised ¢o him the inheritance of the earth, and he received
it not during the whole time he lived in it, 7¢ 7s necessary that he should
receive it, together with his seed, that is, with such of them as fear God
and believe in Him—in the resurrection of the just’’—and then showing
that Christ and the Church are of the true seed and partakers of the same
promises, he concludes: ‘‘ Thus, therefore, those who are of faith are
blessed with faithful Abraham ; and the same are the children of Abraham.
For God repeatedly promised the inheritance of the land to Abraham and
his seed ; and as neither Abraham nor his seed, that is, those who are
justified by faith, have enjoyed any inheritance in it, they will undoubtedly
receive it at the resurrection of the just. For true and unchangeable is
God ; wherefore also He said : ‘ Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit
the earth.’’’ 'Thus the early Church spoke in strict accordance with wn-
bounded faith in covenant promise. The prevailing modern notions, which
make the covenants mean something else, were then unknown ; for all the
churches established East and West, North and South, both Jewish and
Gentile, held to this inheritance as we now receive it.
Contrast the belief of the modern Church with the expressed faith of the early Church,
and what a sad departure from covenanted promises is witnessed. Direct attention to
this difference, and you meet with the most strenuous and bitter opposition. Advocate
a return to the “ old paths,” the primitive belief, so plainly pointed out in the grammati-
cal sense, and multitudes are ready to deem you guilty of gross heresy. Present the
scriptural reasons for the early faith, and many, many will absolutely refuse even to

* And in ch, 139 he says: ‘There shall be a future possession of the saints in this
same land. And hence all men everywhere, whether bond or free, who believe in Christ,
and recognize the truth in His own words and those of his prophets, know that they
shall be with Him in that land, and inherit incorruptible and everlasting good.” He makes
a number of such references to the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant, making Jesus
the promised Seed, with whom believers are co-heirs in the covenanted inheritance,
Prop. 49.] THE TMEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 305

consider them. Nothing but the terrible persecution of the future following the transla-
tion of the first-fruits, awakening the Church from its fulse exegesis and application and
dreams of prosperity, will cause a revulsion and a return to the scriptural ground, be-
cause the modern idea is too extensively advocated by eloquent, talented, pious men to
be rooted out by other means.

Obs, 15. Having given an illustration of the Primitive faith, it may be

interesting to the reader to contrast with it a specimen of the mode of
interpretation by which these covenanted promises lost their literal aspect
and had another sense engrafted upon them. We select one of the earliest.
Origen, who opened the floodgates for fanciful interpretation, in his work
against Celsus (B. 7, chs. 28, 29, 30), contends that the land promised to
the righteous does not refer to Judea or any portion of the earth, decause
the earth 1s cursed, quoting Gen. 3:17, and, therefore, not fit for an
inheritance. He arguesasif the redemption of the land did not embrace the
removal of the curse (Props. 142-148). He forgets the admissions found
in other portions of his writings respecting the taking away of the curse ;
and he admits that Ps. 76: 2, Ps. 48 : 12, and Ps. 37 : 9, 11, 22, 29, 34, refer
to the saints’ inheritance, and this admission (in view of the statement and
connection of these passages) is all that is necessary to overwhelm his
entire theory. But the beauty and propriety of his hypothesis prominently
appears, when he draws a concurrent and sympathetic argument from his
infidel opponent Celsus. For the latter (B. 7, ch. 28), quoting from Plato,
describing the land of the blessed, says of it: ‘‘ That land which is pure
lies in the pure region of heaven.’’ Origen, not to be outdone, heartily in-
dorses Celsus. Reader, reflect ; what a contrast this later and heathen derived
interpretation, now, alas, so popular, sustains to the earlier and apostolic.
Origen may be called the father of the typical application, now such a general favorite
with Protestant and Romish writers. Some, however, have applied it to this earth, and
even to Palestine, but confined it to a possession by the present existing Church. We
append an illustration of the latter. Thus (Mosheim’s Lccles. His ,vol. 2, p. 144, note
19, Murdock’s Transl.), when the Cathari and Waldenses opposed the Crusades, under-
taken to deliver Palestine from the Saracens, a Dominican, Fr. Moneta, employed this
argument to refute them: “ We read, Gen. 12:7, that God said to Abraham: To thy
seed will I give this land. But we (the Christians of Europe) are the seed of Abraham ; as
says the apostle to the Galat. 3 : 29: Tous, therefore, has that land been given for a pos-
session. Hence, it is the duty ot the civil power to make efforts to put us in posses-
sion of that land ; and it is the duty of the Church to exhort civil rulers to fulfil their
duty.”

Obs. 16. Fairbairn (On Proph., p. 19%), however he fails himself in

logically carrying out the principle in several particulars (viz. : by con-
yerting them into types), is certainly correct in opposing Sherlock and
Davison, who, both, divide the covenanted promises and prophecies based
on them into two classes, one referring to temporal matters which do not
concern us, and the other to spiritual things in which alone we are
interested. Fairbairn justly remarks: ‘‘ We take this to be a superficial
view of the matter. The outward and the temporal did not exist by itself,
but for the higher spiritual things connected with it, and as the necessary
means for securing their attainment. Zo separate such things which God
has bound so closely together, and draw a broad line of demarcation
between them, is false in principle, and sure to lead to erroneous results.”’
Well may it be asked, why separate them finally in ‘‘ the age to come,”’
where covenant and Theocratic ordering place them? Why not continue
306 THE TILEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 49.

to leave them together as the Spirit has bound them, and not, under a
mistaken apprehension of exalting them, typify and spiritualize them
away? This is the rock upon which many a well-meaning system of
interpretation has beaten itself into worthlessness,

Obs. 1%. Some writers attempt to get rid of the phrase “‘ everlasting
possesston,’’ as if it denoted temporary possession. Thus e.g. Augustine
(City of God, B. 16, s. 26) endeavors to cast a shade of suspicion on the
word ‘* everlasting,’’ which may denote ‘‘ either no end, or to the very end
of the world.’’ Suppose we even take the latter meaning (or that it
denotes.‘‘ possession in, or for, the ages’’), it does not help the matter, for
history shows that it has not been fulfilled either in the Patriarchs or in
their descendants. Instead of such a possession, the Patriarchs and Jews
had but a brief sojourn in it, the nation has long ago been driven away and
the land has been in the possession (as predicted) of strangers for many
centuries. It is the lament of the prophet (Isa. 63 : 18) that the nation
** nossessed it but a little while.’’ It is folly to circwmscribe the promise to
the past ; for then it compresses it into the feeblest of proportions, or
makes it an Oriental exaggeration. If it be alleged that the promise
was conditional, we grant it (comp. Prop. 18), so far as the individuals
composing the nation, and even for a time the nation itself, is concerned,
but not so far as the Purpose of God is concerned, which positively, and
without any condition annexed, promises this land to the Patriarchs
personally (although death shall intervene), and to a Seed by way of pre-
eminence, and then to a seed identified with Abraham by descent or adoption
(as explained and enlarged in succeeding revelations), and then to the
nation itself (when fully prepared by its course of discipline and the ad-
ditions made through the resurrecting Messiah)—all of which is yet to be
accomplished as the Bible plainly asserts. Otherwise, what will we do with
Abraham himself and a multitude of his descendants, who were obedient,
who performed the conditions annexed to individuality, and never thus
possessed it? What shall we do with the prophetic announcements, that
they shall yet obtam it? Has God failed in His foreknowledge, wisdom,
and power? To evade this, by making the land typical of heaven, is sheer
faithlessness, seeing that the very land *‘ laid waste’ and ‘*‘ made desolate’’
(which the third heaven never was), is the land spoken of—the same land
whereon Jacob reclined and which Abraham was requested to survey.
Compare Kurtz’s remarks on “‘ the everlasting Covenant” in the His. of the Old Vov.,
p. 128. In reference to the unconditionality of the covenant promise—its positive
future fulfilment—the epitome of Moses in Deut. 32 is amply sufficient evidence in its
favor, even so far as the nation is concerned.

Obs. 18. This lack of faith in the exact fulfilment of God’s covenanted
promises may well be left to infidels. Voltaire and others (recently
reiterated) raise an objection to the inspiration of God’s Word, because
the promise of inheriting the land, given to Abraham personally, was not
realized. They fail, just like many believers, to see that the fact of his
not inheriting is plainly stated 7 the Scriptures, and that we are directed »
to the future, to the resurrection period, for its fulfilment. This feature is
unjustly left out of the question, and the discussion carried on without
reference to ¢he time designated, the ability and faithfulness of God to
perform His promises. It is ever thus with the Divine purposes ; they
 Prop. 49.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 307

must be received by faith, otherwise God’s designs will be enshrouded in

darkness, and the crafty will be taken in a net. It is true to-day, that
(Ps. 25 : 14) ‘* the secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him, and He
will show them His covenant’’—now to faith—then in happy realization.
Recent writers, like Clarke, etc., treat the faith and hopes of Abraham most un-
justly, being utterly unable to look at the Bible as a whole, and observe the connection
that one part sustains to the whole. Abraham’s history is regarded isolated and torn
from its relations, and upon this detachment, assumptions are readily founded to mis-
lead others. One of the most unfair chapters of the Duke of Somerset’s work (Ch.
Theol. and Mod. Skeptic., ch. 20) is the one entitled ‘‘ Stephen,” in which Stephen’s
speech is characterized (a rehash from Paulus, Baur, etc.) as ‘‘ rambling over the mi-
gration of Abraham,’’ as ‘‘ lamentably feeble,”’ as an ignoring of the proof relied on to
vindicate Christianity ; and yet this was an “‘ able disputant,’’ who had not received the
aid promised to be given before tribunals, etc. The speech of Stephen certainly ‘‘ is
full of incomprehensible anomalies’’ to a person possessing the Duke’s love of ridiculing
sacred things. Stephen’s speech was pre-eminently logical, and the very thing demanded
(showing that he was aided) under the circumstances. His hearers believed in the cov-
enants, as the foundation of their religious and national hopes, and hence Stephen begins
with the covenant, traces it, and endeavors to show its connection with Jesus as the
Messiah. We have only the opening, for when he came to Jesus he was interrupted,
and the address remained unfinished. 'The Jews, posted as they were in the Old Test.,
powerfully felt its force ; if the Duke does not, it 1s simply because he fails to notice the
self-evident connection running through the whole, and that Stephen’s aim was to show
that this covenant in which the Jews trusted could only be fulfilled through this Jesus,
whom they had crucified. The Duke might well have spared his sneersand attempted
sarcasm, at the expense of a marlyr!

Obs. 19. Unbelievers have expended their wit over the explanation of Paul
(Gal. 3 : 16) respecting the use of the word ‘‘ seed’’ in the singular number,
pronouncing ita mere ‘‘ quibble,’’ or ‘‘ Rabbinical interpretation.’’ Those,
too, who believe in the Word, but fail to recognize the distinctiveness of
the promises, join, more or less, in the same. Jerome (Chandler, quoted
by Barnes, Joc’) affirmed ‘‘ that the apostle made use of a false argument,
which, although it might appear well enough to the stupid Galatians,
would not be approved by wise and learned men.’’ Le Clerc supposes it
to be a trick of argumentation. Borger (Bloomfield, doc’) pronounces it
an accommodation to Jewish Rabbis. Doddridge even calls it ‘‘ bad
Greek.’’ Rosenmiiller and others, against Paul’s express language, think
that the body of the believers, and not the Messiah, is meant. Paul needs
no apology from men, for the soundness of his interpretation is apparent
from the general tenor of the Word, which indicates that the Divine
Purpose contemplates one distinguished Personage, in the specified Abra-
hamic line, through whom the promises should be realized, and that the
apostle properly directs attention to the fact that the very language of the
covenant, using the singular number (let it be customary or not), is in
accordance with, and significant of, God’s predetermined design. Hence,
ridicule falls harmless, and apologetic explanations are of no force, coming
from persons who would undertake to decide how God ought even to word
His covenant language. We are, ready to receive the language as given,
finding it precise, significant of an important fact, and in full accord with
the analogy of Scripture.
Luther (whom many follow), Com. on Gal. 3 : 16, remarks : ‘‘ Now, the promises are
made unto Him, not in all the Jews, or in many seeds, but in one seed, which is Christ.
The Jews will not receive this interpretation of Paul; for they say that the singular
number is here put for the plural,.one for many. But we gladly receive this meaning
and interpretation of Paul, who oftentimes repeateth this word ‘seed,’ and expoundeth
308 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 49.

this seed to be Christ ; and this he doth with an apostolic spirit. Let the Jews deny it as
much as they will ; we, notwithstanding, have arguments strong enough, which Paul hath
before rehearsed, which also confirm this thing, and they cannot deny them.’’ (The
student will observe that Luther’s reference to the Jews denotes those who endeavor to
break the reasoning which would apply it to Jesus, as the Messiah ; various commentators
and writers oppose Paul’s statement because, as they allege, ‘‘ the interpretation is
found in Rabbinical writers, and the mode of interpretation here adopted is quite Jew-
ish.”) Fausset (Vom. loci) makes this seed to be ‘*‘ the Christ,’’ ‘‘ and that which is in-
separable from Him, the literal Israel, and the spiritual, His body, the Church,’’ because
the covenant promises can only be fulfilled to both through Him. This is correct, as a
little reflection and comparison will show, for e.g. it is only through the power of the
resurrection obtained through this Seed that His co-heirs obtain the inheritance with
Him ; and it is only at His Sec. Advent, and through His powerful interference in behalf
of the Jewish nation, that it enters upon its glorious national existence. Hence, in view
of the Divine Purpose through this Seed, there is eminent fitness and deep significancy in
thus singling Him out and expressing it in the form given by Paul.

Obs. 20. The reader is reminded to keep in view how such promises,
thus given and thus explained by the apostles, would strike the Jewish
mind. ‘The aim of the apostles was to show that ‘‘ the Seed’’ was Jesus
the Christ, and that through this Jesus the covenant promises given to
Abraham would, in due tume, be realized. There was no difference of
opinion concerning the covenants, as to their actual meaning, but only in
reference to Jesus being the Messiah, to the postponement of fulfilment to
the Sec. Advent, etc. Hence, so long as the early Church received the
covenants as the Jews themselves believed and taught (Obs. 3), they could
the more easily find access to Jewish minds and hearts, but just so soon as
the Church departed from this view of the covenants (making the land
heaven, etc.), them the Jew was the more difficult to reach, seeing that the
Old Test. language and promise, upon which he relied as plain and indis-
putable, was changed and transformed into something else. This sub-
stitution made it more troublesome to prove the Messiahship of Jesus, for
he naturally and inevitably became more distrustful of a Messiah who was
not to fulfil the covenant promises as they were written. 'The Origenistic
interpretation, forced upon the covenants, made the Jew and his fathers
virtually believers in ‘‘ carnality and error,’’ ‘‘ gross misconceptions,”’
which charges are applaudingly repeated by eminent men down to the
present day. And then, these lament the unbelief and incredulity of the
Jew, without seeing that, saving in the acknowledgment of Jesus as
Messiah, they are more in darkness than the Jew whom they pity or
despise.

Obs. 21. It must not be overlooked that inexpressibly precious spiritual

blessings are inseparably connected with those pertaining to this inheri-
tance of the land, the earth. This will fully appear when we come to these
same promises enlarged and explained by additional revelation. Already
they are contained in the expressions indicative of God in a special manner
(Theocratic) becoming their God, becoming an ‘‘ exceeding great reward,’’
and becoming a source of enjoyment, honor, and glory. (Comp. e.g. Props.
197, 154-157, ete.)

Obs. 22. The remaining promises of the Abrahamic covenant, and the
deep meaning conveyed in the few but precise words, will come up, more
appropriately, under following Propositions. Briefly, let it be said, that
Prop. 49.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 309

the witticisms offered at our faith are premature, for the time allotted for
fulfilment has, as Scripture itself testifies, not yet arrived. When so much
that is preliminary and provisionary has, as predicted, taken place and is
now transpiring, 1t would de foolishness in us to yield up our faith. Let
men review these promises and ridicule them ; we patiently wait for their
fulfilment. ‘Thus e.g. when it is said that Abraham’s name shall be great,
men of intelligence and learning may exercise their wit in comparing him
with an Arab sheik and extol in contrast the name of a Cesar and Plato ;
we, acknowledging the greatness of Abraham’s name already to the faith-
ful, wait for the time when he shall arise from the tomb and inherit the
promise—then, indeed, will at be great in honor, dignity, and power.
When men ridicule the promise that a great nation shall proceed from
him by contrasting the feebleness of the Jewish nation in the past with
the powerful Gentile nations that have existed, we, with faith and hope,
point ¢o the time, still declared to be in the future, when this nation shall
truly be great (comp. Props. 111-114). When the promise is that kings
should proceed from him, unbelief laughs at the Kings of Judah and Israel
compared with the conquerors of the earth ; we wait patiently and hope-
fully for the Kings, the manifestation yet to come (comp. e.g. Prop. 154).
Thus, with other promises that men deride,' just as if the past was intended
for their fulfilment ; just as if the Word itself declared not that their
realization was still in the future ; just as if the Scriptures did not firmly
unite their accomplishment with the Sec. Advent of the covenanted Seed ;
just as if God were not now performing a preparatory work to insure its
ultimate, triumphant fulfilment.
1 Thus e.g., ‘‘ And thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies” is declared a mere
boast. For if referred to the Jewish nation, instead of being able to drive out their
enemies from Canaan, they themselves were ultimately overcome and finally banished ;
if applied to Christ as the seed intended, it is said that the mighty existing confedera-
tions, counting their adherents by the million, and still forming a vast numerical ma-
jority, disprove the assertion. But we wait for its ultimate realization, both for the
nation and the Christ, at the Sec. Advent, where inspired Scripture locates it. So ‘‘ the
multitude of seed,” ‘‘ In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed,’’ and others are
compared with the history of the past and the present, and conclusions drawn indica-
tive of “ Oriental exaggeration,’’ ‘‘ strong figure,” etc. But, leaving the testimony of
the Word to specify the time and order of fulfilment, we wait in unfaltering expectation
for its complete accomplishment, which we show under various Propositions. Why do
men tear these precious promises from their connection with a determined, and fully
revealed, Divine Plan of procedure, and, considering them thus isolated and fragmen-
tary, refuse the statements of Scripture concerning the manner and time of performance?
Why not permit the very Book that contains them to present its own explanation of
them?

Obs. 23. If the question be asked whether Abraham had a knowledge of

the manner through which he would inherit the land, the answer is
decisively—leaving the entire Record to testify—in the affirmative. A
believer must feel convinced from what Jesus declared, John. 8 : 56 (comp.
Heb. 11 : 8-16), that Abraham had far greater knowledge of the future than
the Bible records. Without receiving the view (so Tholuck, etc.) that
Abraham saw Jesus in His heavenly existence ; without indorsing the
notion (Olshausen, etc.) that Jesus was specially manifested to Abraham by
a vision unrecorded ; without confining ourselves to the idea (Barnes, etc.)
of simple faith anticipating and thus beholding the day of Christ, we
might perhaps adopt the view (of Bloomfield, etc.) of part faith and part
 310 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 49.

added revelation giving him this knowledge. For certainly it is most

reasonable to think and believe that Abraham, the faithful, would not be
less favored by special inspiration to behold the future day of Christ than
Balaam (Numb. 24 : 17), especially when Paul teaches us in Hebrews that
Abraham had views of the future which are not stated in his history.
Being the one to whom the covenant is first given, there is propriety in
imparting such added instruction, that he may foresee its final result and
be thus confirmed in its meaning.
That Abraham believed that God, who gave life, could after death restore life, is evident
in the case of Isaac (Heb. 11 : 19) ; that the Patriarchs held the promises respecting the
land to relate to the future after death is seen in their regarding themselves merely as
‘‘ sojourners and strangers,” and not as inheritors and possessors ; that even their pos-
terity entertained similar views is abundantly evident from the manner in which they
regarded the promises, and themselves as still ‘‘ sojourners and strangers’ (e.g. 1
Chron. 29 :15 ; Ps. 39 : 12 etc.), i.e., expectants and heirs of something permanent and
enduring in the future. Moses clearly foresaw the future, as we show in a number of
places, and men, having a third heaven inheritance in mind, greatly prejudge many ex-
pressions which, in their estimation, have too earthly a cast, forgetting that this very
feature (so objectionable and regarded as temporary in nature) is an essential element in
the scheme of Redemption, which includes the sin-cursed earth. It is true, that while
‘these promises relating to the future are sufficiently precise and clear to reason and to
faith in God, yet they are purposely kept somewhat in the background, owing to the
Thevcratic ordering (for being already in the land and having God for their earthly
Ruler, they could well trust to Him the manner of fulfilment, which the mode of revela-
tion was calculated to develop), until the Theocracy was overthrown. Then the utter-
ances, already given by Moses, David, etc., became more and more distinct under Daniel
and the Prophets.

Obs. 24. Men under the influence of the Origenistic interpretation, or of

the Platonic or heathen notion of the future, and thus rejecting the plainly
covenanted promises of an earthly inheritance, unnecessarily make an
enigma where none exists, and find fault with Moses when the fault really
is in themselves. Thuse.g. Clarke (Zen Religions, p. 417) says: ‘‘ Con-
cerning the future life, upon which the Egyptians had so much to say,
Moses taught nothing. His rewards and punishments were inflicted in
this world. Retribution, individual and national, took place here. As
this could not have been from ignorance or accident, it must have had a
purpose, it must have been intentional.’’ Certainly it was ‘‘ intentional,”’
because in the direct line of the truth and of God’s purpose in Salvation.
Of course, with a third heaven, an outside world, theory prejudging Moses,
it is impossible to find a reference to the future life, for the simple reason
that Moses connects the future life with an inheriting of the land and earth,
thus making his writings to correspond fully and accurately with the entire
tenor of Scripture on the subject (as seen e.g. Props. 142, 131, 13%,
141, 148-152, etc.). The fact is, that a dispassionate comparison of Moses
with the general analogy of Scripture, and noticing that Moses carefully
rejects the Egyptian theories and confines himself to a specific Plan, after-
ward carefully and consistently developed, is strong corroborative evidence
of an inspiration, which, over against existing and prevailing notions
entertained, could lay down a foundation in relation to this earth that
(if accomplished) is adapted to secure the blessedness of man and creation in
deliverance from an imposed curse.
Hence we see why Warburton failed in his ‘‘ Legation of Moses.’’ He undertook a
labor which it was utterly impossible for him to accomplish, and he sank under it, be-
cause he misconceived the plain covenant promises. No man, unless he apprehends the
Prop. 49.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 311
inheritance that Moses says God promised to the Patriarchs and the relation thet believ-
ers sustain to it through coming resurrection power, can do justice to Moses or properly
vindicate his unity with the after statements of prophets and apostles. Accept of the
inheriting of the earth as believing Jew and Primitive Christian held, and then Moses
stands forth a distinctive teacher in the same contemplated and carried on Divine Pur-
pose of Redemption. We only add: The fulfilment of the covenants as given, at once
sets aside a vast mass of mystical, spiritualistic, antagonistic theories of the inheritance,
etc., as presented in thousands of works, and the result of fancy, vain imaginings, and
adherence to wrong principles of interpretation. For, let it be noticed, the Theocracy
pertains to this earth—it is God’s Kingdom here on the earth, He ruliny in it as the
earthly Ruler—and hence the objection that Warburton and others urge (viz.: that
Moses —and during the Theocratic period down to the captivity-_presented only motives,
rewards, etc., relating to a life on earth), has no force, because, in the very nature of the
case, if the Kingdom inaugurated is indeed a Theocracy, it must necessarily present this
very feature ; for with the Theocracy the interests the rewards, of every believer are
identified, and it pertains to the earth. The rewards and punishments relate to its gov-
ernment as established even in its initiatory or earnest form; and the future enjoy-
ment of or banishment from the same, in its higher restored form under the Messiah, is
sustained (1) by present obedience or disobedience ; (2) by promising and threatening
things which God alone can perform ;(3) by basing the future on covenants that necessi-
tate a resurrection for their fulfilment ; (4) by asserting thatif obedient the Kingdom
will be perpetuated, but if disobedient it shall, as a punishment, be withdrawn, and when
ultimately restored it shall be for the righteous ; (5) by making the hopes of the individ-
ual and of the nation to centre in the Theocracy, which in its ultimate outcome embraces
the future ; (6) by exhibiting trust in their Ruler, in His attributes and ability to verify
promise which embraced ‘‘ an everlasting possession” personally here on earth. As we
proceed in our argument, step by step, it will be clearly seen that the very idea of a real,
actual Theocracy, with which the interests of the individual and the nation are identi-
fied, now and hereafter, requires just such language and limitations as Moses and
others give ; for the reign, rewards, etc., eternal in their nature (which are now under
Spiritualistic manipulations, applied to the third heaven), pertain to this very Theo-
eratic-Davidic Kingdom re-established by ‘‘the Seed’’ here on the earth. When our
opponents, however, assert in connection that a future ife-was unknown, they—as we
have shown—go beyond the Divine Record. (Comp. Wines’ Com. on Heb. Laws.) As we
proceed in the argument, these will be brought out under various Propositions.

II. THE SINAITIC COVENANT, MADE WITH ISRAEL AT

MOUNT SINAI.
Obs. 1. The Sinaitic Covenant is an outgrowth of the Abrahamic
covenant, and embraces an offer to the Jews nationally of a complete verifi-
cation of the blessings tendered under the original promises. ‘This pro-
cedure of erecting a Theocracy indicates that 1t was contemplated in the
covenant with Abraham, as preparatory to the future realization of the
promises. Its provisionary and initiatory character has already (Prop. 25)
been noticed, while its conditional nature (Prop. 26) is evident from the
blessings and curses pronounced by Moses in Lev. and Deut., and also by
the language of Paul in Hebrews, who, among other things illustrative of
this, refers to God as saying : ‘‘ Because they continued not in my covenant
and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.’’ This covenant, as the result
shows, was designed both to test the nation and to separate a seed to
whom, at some future time, the Kingdom could be safely intrusted. It
was the inauguration of means by which a suitable preparation could be
made for the ultimate fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant. While it was
the bond under which the Kingdom of God, as an earnest, was bestowed,
it embraced many things which were only temporary and provisionary,
looking forward to a period when the contained and contemplated blessings
in the former covenant could be realized in the spirit and manner indicated.
312 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 49.

So that, in the very nature of the case, the Mosaic covenant being also a
legitimate, but yet inferior, resultant of the previous covenant, it must
itself, when the orzginal covenant is to be fully fulfilled, give place to its
superior. How it does this will appear, e.g. in our next Proposition.
To indicate how able writers enforce the outgrowth of this covenant from the Abra-
hamic, we select as illustrations the following. Fairbairn ( Typology, vol. 2, p. 146) cor-
rectly asserts : ‘‘ Its (i.e. Sinaitic) object was not to disannul the covenant of promise,
or to found a new title to gifts and blessings conferred. It was given rather as a hand-
maid to the covenant, to minister in an inferior but still necessary place, to the higher
ends and purposes which the covenant itself has in view.” So Sack (quoted by him, p.
145) says : ‘‘ ‘The matter of the law is altogether grounded upon the covenant of promise
made with Abraham. . . . The law neither could nor would withdraw the exercise
of faith from the covenant of promise, or render that superfluous, but merely formed an
intermediate provision, until the fulfilment came.”

Obs. 2. It is a gratification to find that Theologians, urged to it by

Rationalistic attacks, are falling back on the old ground that the Mosaic
covenant is a result of the previows Abrahamic one, thus preserving the
anity of the Divine Purpose. The view, adopted by some, that it is a
separate and distinct covenant, simply provisionary without a direct and
vital union existing between it and others, is justly held by many able
writers to be erroneous and misleading—a violation of Scripture state-
ments. A recent author, Kurtz (His. Old. Cov., vol. 3, p. 109), has some
pertinent remarks on this point, saying that ‘‘ the covenant at Sinai was
precisely the same as that which had formerly been concluded at Mamre,”’
that ‘‘ the one was merely the renewal of the other,’’ etc. Admiring the
spirit which so accurately keeps in view the connection existing between the
two covenants, we would more correctly say, that they are not the saine
(the proof is, that the promises contained in the Abrahamic covenant were
not realized under the Mosaic covenant, thus e.g. Abraham did not inherit
the land, etc.), but the Mosaic is a legitimate outgrowth from the former
and designed to be preparatory to a realization of the Abrahamic. An
important caution is necessary to be observed by the careful student ; that
is, constantly to keep in mind that God’s Purpose to establish a Theocratic
Kingdom will not fail because of its being conditionally set up at Mt. Sinai ;
that if the Jews rebel against their King and He gives them up to punish-
ment, yet His promise to Abraham—which we see here already takes the
form of an outward, external, real Theocratic Kingdom—will ultimately be
carried into successful accomplishment. How this will be done, is the
subject matter of several of the following Propositions.
Henderson, art. ‘‘ Dispensation’’ in Ency. Relig. Knowl., is quoted as saying that the
students of prophecy, who hold to a future Messianic Kingdom, make ‘‘ the Mosaic coy-
enant’’ ‘‘ the root of many of the mistaken views of the future state of the Kingdom of
Christ,’’ and argues that its provisionary sacrifices, etc., show that it was to be superseded
by the Christian Church, or the present dispensation, which is ‘‘ spiritual, universal, per-
petual.” As our argument fully meets, in detail, his reasoning, we only now say : (1)
That the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are ‘‘ the roots ;’’ (2) that we hold, that much
was provisionary under the Mosaic economy; (3) that the form of government itself,
Theocratic, was only an earnest of that which should arise under David’s Son and re-
lated rulers ; (4) that the Church does not in any particular meet covenant promises,
and is itself preparative, etc. The student can already see that Waldegrave and others
are mistaken, that our doctrine originates in and is founded on (some say, ‘‘ one pas-
sage”) the Apocalypse, or that (as Prof. Sanborn) ‘‘ the key-stone of the whole system”’
is in the Pre-Mill. Advent. It requires but a little knowledge of our views to see how
deeply and solidly they are founded on the covenants and prophecies,
Prop. 49.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 313

III. THE DAVIDIC COVENANT.

Obs. 1. Having already shown and proven (Props. 28, 31, 32) how the
Theocratic element was incorporated with the Davidic line, which God (as
the chief Ruler and so acknowledged) chose, attention is now called to the
distinguishing covenant with David by which this union is made forever
inseparable ; and by which this union is to be specially manifested in the
sight of, and for the blessings of, the world through a descendant of
David’s. The covenant is found in 2 Sam. 7: 10-16 (1 Chron. 17 : 11-14),
“* The Lord telleth thee that He will make thee a house. And when thy days be
fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, Iwill set up thy seed after
thee which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish His Lingdom.
He shall build a house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of His
Kingdom forever. I will be His Father and He shall be my Son. If he
comnué iniquity I will chasten Him with the rod of men and with the stripes
of the children of men... But my mercy shall not depart away from Him,
as I tookit from Saul whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy
Aingdom shall be established forever before thee; thy throne shall be
established forever.” ”
1 Dr. Clarke (Com. loci), who cannot be accused of special sympathy with our views,
renders this sentence : ‘‘ In suffering for iniquity I will chasten Him (the Messiah) with
the rod of men, and with the stripes due to the children of men.’’ A multitude of our
opponents make it to refer, in some way, to the Messiah, and sometimes give fanciful in-
terpretations to this effect. Thus e.g. Augustine (see below, next Obs.) explains “‘ the
iniquity of Him” and the sin of the children Ps. 89 : 30-33, as referring to Christ’s
body, the Church, and quotes as proof Acts 9 : 4, that when Saul persecuted His believing
people, Christ said, ‘‘ Saul, why persecutest thou Me?’ (It may be said that Ps. 89 : 30,
31 is not exactly parallel, because it refers not to the special seed but to the descendants
of David in general (owing to the fact that the Kingdom is offered continuously (Prop.
26) to his descendants), and this is evidenced by the ‘‘ nevertheless,’ ete., where God re-
turns to the idea of the special seed, previously mentioned, through whom His promise
would be verified). Those who refer it to Christ directly (as Tertullian, Lactantius,
Beza, Calov, Pfeiffer, Buddeus, Patrick, etc.) or indirectly (as Hengstenberg and others),
or in part to Him and in part to Solomon (as Breuz, Sack, etc.), or literally to Solomon
and mystically to Christ (as Glass, etc.)—all find that in Jesus we must find the pre-
eminent fulfilment.
2 When we come to this Davidic covenant, this perpetuation of the Theocratic relation-
ship with the house of David, how much we regret the lost books of Samuel, Gad, and
Nathan on the life of David.

Obs. 2. Learned and able men, forsaking the Primitive view and over-
looking the perpetuity of this covenant, gravely tell us that Solomon and
other descendants were here denoted; but we vastly prefer to let God
explain His own language and the meaning intended. Thus, e.g. Acts
2 : 30, ‘‘ David being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an
oath to him, that of the frurt of his loins, according to the flesh, [Te would
raise up Ohrist to sit on his throne ;’? and Paul, directly quoting this
covenant (Heb. 1:5), applies it to Christ Jesus, asking, ‘‘ Unto which of
the angels said He at anytime.’ . . . “Iwill be to Him a Father and
He shall te to me a Son.’’? The announcing angel (Luke 1 : 30-33) gives
the same testimony that the covenant truly refers to Christ.
The concessions of our opponents are all that can be desired. We select, ont of the
mass, those of an ancient and a modern writer. Augustine (“City of God,’’ b. 17, s. 8),
unable to rid himself of the Primitive interpretation, applies the covenant of 2 Sam.
7 ; 8-16 to Jesus, the Christ. It is interesting to notice that the man to whom the mod-
314 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 49.

erns are so largely indebted for spiritualizing views, argues that this covenant is fulfilled
in Christ, saying : ‘‘ He who thinks that this grand promise was fulfilled in Solomon
greatly errs,’’ and adduces as proof that Solomon’s house was not “ faithful,’’ being
** full of strange women worshipping false gods, and the King himself, aforetime wise,
seduced by them and cast down into the same idolatry ; and let him (the reader) not
dare to think that God either promised this falsely, or was unable to foreknow that Solo-
mon and his house would become what they did.” He then adds, that the Jews do not
understand this to be fulfilled in Solomon, but look for another ; that Solomon began to
reign while David still lived, before he slept with his fathers, and hence is not the one
designated in the promise : ‘‘When thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy
fathers,’’ etc. Augustine is undoubtedly correct in making Jesus the covenanted Son
promised, but incorrect when he attempts to make out a present fulfilment of the prom-
ise. Again, Barnes (Com. Acts 2 : 30) makes 2 Sam. 7: 11-16 the basis of such prom-
ise, and however inclined to drag in Solomon, is forced to say: “ It is clear that the
New Test. writers understood them as referring to the Messiah.’’ He then says that the
Jews thus believed, and that such was the belief of David, giving Ps. 2, 22, 69, 17 as
proof, and that such a reference must be received as scriptural. Soin his Notes on Heb.
1 : 5, he makes the reference taken from the covenant Messianic, that they were so ap-
plied in the time of Paul, and that Paul employs them according to prevailing usage.
Indeed, if we admit that the apostles are inspired, no other possible interpretation can be
given,

Obs. 8. How did David himself understand this covenant? ‘This is best
stated in his own language. Read e.g. Ps. 72, which describes a Son
infinitely superior to Solomon; reflect over Ps. 132, and after noticing
that ‘‘ the Lord hath sworn in truth unto David, He will not turn from
it; of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne’’ (which Peter,
Acts 2 : 30, 31, expressly refers to Jesus) ; consider the numerous Messianic
allusions in this and other Psalms (89th, 110th, 72d, 48th, 45th, 21st, 2d,
etc.), so regarded and explicitly quoted in the New Test. by inspired men ;
ponder the fact that David calls Him ‘‘ my Lord,” ‘‘ higher than the kings
of the earth,”’ and gives Him a position, power, dominion, immortality, and
perpetuity, that o mortal King can possibly attain to, and most certainly
we are not wrong in believing that David himself, according to the tenor
of the covenant ‘‘ thy Kingdom shall be established forever before thee,’’
expected to be in this Kingdom of his Son and Lord both to witness and
experience its blessedness (so Storrs, Diss. on Kingdom, and many others).
There is something wonderful in all this: while seeing and acknowledging that his
throne and Kingdom are fully and distinctively incorporated as part of the Kingdom of
God, that it shall belong to a Son of his own both by divine right and inheritance, he
also perceives and describes that his throne and Kingdom thus occupied, is only, in vir-
tue of its Theocratic relationship, the groundwork of a universality of dominion, it under-
going some peculiar changes to make it harmonize with the evident rulership of immor-
tals. He notices also the connection that this promised Seed of his has with the oldér
promises. For, we have first simply the seed of the woman; next that He shall be
Abraham’s seed ; next that He shall inherit the land and bless all nations ; next, that
He shall be a mighty King ; and next that He shall be David's Son and Lord, sitting
on David’s throne and from thence exerting a world-wide dominion. Many a reference
is made to this connecting series, and it would be highly interesting to trace them, but we
have only space for one, which immediately follows the giving of the covenant. David
(2 Sam. 7:19, comp. 1 Chron. 17: 17) goes to God and expresses his amazement,
gratitude, and praise ; and, among other things, declares: ‘‘ And is this the manner
(marg. read., law) of the Man, O God,” which Dr. Kennicott rendets: “ And this is (or
must be) the law of the Man or of the Adam.” Bh. Horsley translates it: ‘‘ And this °
is the arrangement about the Man, O Lord Jehovah,’’ thus making an exact parallel with
1 Chron. 17 : 17, which he renders : ‘‘ And thou hast regarded me in the arrangement
about the Man, that is to be from above, O Lord Jehovah.”? (Comp. Jones’s Notes on
Scripture, p. 95, Lange’s Com. 2 Sam. loci, Poole’s Synopsis, etc.). In comparing the
different renderings, keeping in view what preceded and followed in the Divine Purpose
Prop. 49.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 315

(and noticing Paul in 1 Cor. 15 : 45-47), there can be no reasonable doubt but that
David regarded this Man, this promised Son, as the covenanted Seed of the woman, the
Seed of Abraham, the Man above all others, in whom, as the Second Adam, the Redemp-
tive.process would exhibit a complete restitution. This is confirmed by his Psalms, and
the use made of them by the apostles. David anticipated, by inspiration, His own Sal-
vation, and the perpetuity of His throne and Kingdom, in the Divine arrangement con-
cerning the Man.
The reader's attention is called to a feature, which gives us one of these indirect but
most forcible (because undesigned) proofs of divine inspiration, Here 1s David receiv-
ing a covenant from the Almighty which explicitly aftirms the perpetuity, etc., of his
throne and Kingdom, and yet David himself now proceeds to predict the long continued
overthrow and desolation (e.g. Ps. 89) of his throne and kingdom, and that this very cove-
nant, confirmed by oath, should for a long, indefinite time be held in abeyance. Now it is
not in the nature of man to do this himself, for professing this covenant relationship, the
most unlikely thing would be the prediction of such an overthrow. In fact it is unnat-
ural, because the natural man would inevitably eulogize the future prosperity of his
throne and Kingdom under the auspices of the Almighty. How then do we account for
this mental phenomenon, and that David described the exact condition of his throne and
kingdom as it has existed during many centuries? The only reasonable way to explain
it is to receive the Biblical account, viz. : that David was inspired by God’s Spirit to
foresee and describe the future—accurately—against what the natural man, influenced by
desire and such expressed covenanted relationship, would have done.

Obs. 4. The Prophets following, had a similar understanding of this

divine-human disposition or ordering, by which David’s Son would person-
ally, through David’s Kingdom, bestow the blessings of perfected Redemp-
tion. Thus e.g. Isa. 9:7, Jer. 23 : 5, 6, and 30 : 9, and 33 : 15-26, etc.
(comp. Props. 21, /31, 33; 68,122, :ete:). ;

Obs. 5. Before censuring the Jews, as many do, for believing that Jesus
would diterally restore the Davidic throne and Kingdom, we must consider,
in fairness, that they were justified in so doing by the very language (Props.
4, 21, and 48) of the covenant. It is incredible that God should in the most
important matters, affecting the interests and the happiness of man and near-
ly touching His own veracity, clothe them in words, which, 7f not true in
their obvious and common sense, would deceive the pious and God-fearing
of many ages. We cannot, dare not (however upheld by many eminent
names) entertain an opinion so dishonoring both to God and His ancient
believing children. The Jews are abundantly defended in their faith by
the covenant itself; the correctness and justness of their fondly enter-
tained hopes appear from the particulars incorporated with it.
(1) The words and sentences in their plain grammatical acceptation, do
expressly teach their belief. This is denied by no one, not even by those
who then proceed to spiritualize the language. Therefore already the
Jews are excusable in believing what God so definitely declares (comp.
Prop. 48).
(2) The covenant is distinctively associated with the Jewish nation and
none other. Passing by the numerous proof texts which will be presented
hereafter, let us confine ourselves to the understanding of this relationship
by David at the giving of the covenant. In 2 Sam. 7 : 28, 24 (1 Chron.
17 : 21, 22) he expresses before God his consciousness of the magnitude of
the blessing ; that this covenant, in virtue of his throne and Kingdom
being thus distinguished, embraces ‘‘ one nation’’ (comp. Props. 24, 59, 60,
etc.), and this the same nation that was brought out of Egypt (i.e.
Abraham’s descendants), who should be established in ‘‘ thy (God’s) land.’’
316 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [Prop. 49.

And then ascending to the promise previously given that ¢his nation is
specially chosen, 1.e. the elect nation, and that this very covenant made
with himself is a marvellous confirmation of this truth, he adds: ‘‘ Thou
hast confirmed to Tnyself thy people Israel’’ (the same nation brought out of
Egypt, as the connection shows) ‘‘ to be a people unto Thee forever ; and
Thou, Lord, art become their God.’’? With such testimony before them,
how could the faithful Jews hesitate in believing as they did respecting
their nation, its elect position, its supremacy owing to this Theocratic
exaltation in and through the Messiah.
(3) It is called a perpetual covenant, i.e. one that shall endure forever.
It may, indeed, require time before its fulfilment ; it may even for a time
be held, so far as the nation 1s concerned, in the background, but zt must
be ultimately realized. David himself, in his last words (2 Sam. 23 : 5),
emphatically says . ‘‘ He hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered
in all things and sure; for this is all my salvation and all my desire.”!
The prophet Isaiah reiterates (55 : 3), pronouncing it ‘‘ an everlasting
covenant, even the sure mercres of David.’? Surely no one can fail to see
that this denotes, as Barnes (Com. loci), ‘‘ an unchanging and unwavering
covenant,—a covenant which was not to be revoked,’’—‘* one which was not
to be abrogated, but which was to be perpetual,’’—and that ‘‘God would
ratify this covenant.’ Assuredly so ;—why then accuse the Jews of folly in
trusting in it ??
(4) It was confirmed by oath (Ps. 132 : 11, and 89 : 3, 4, 33), thus giving
the strongest possible assurance of its ample fulfilment. Could the Jews
do less than trust in language thus confirmed ? (comp. Props. 47 and 48).
(5) To leave no doubt whatever, and to render unbelief utterly in-
excusable, God concisely and most forcibly presents His determination
(Psl. 89 : 34): ** My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is
gone out of my lips.’? It would have been sheer presumption and blindness
in the Jews to have altered (under the plea—modern—of spirituality) the
covenant, and to have refused to accept of ¢he obvious sense conveyed by
the words ; and there is a heavy responsibility resting upon those, who,
even under the most pious intentions, deliberately alter the covenant words
and attach to them a foreign meaning.®
‘In the context he clearly intimates that his house will not continuously advance in
prosperity that of itself it will fall, but that it will rise again under the Messiah to the
highest attainable prosperity. Now after so much of fulfilment we can appreciate the
sudden transitions from predicted triumph and glory to sad reverses and downfall of
throne and kingdom, followed by expressed hopes of a glorious restitution. The reason
for such abruptness and a certain degree of obscurity in the allusions to the overthrow,
etc.. of the Kingdom, will be found in the predetermined offer of this Kingdom to the
Jewish nation at the First Advent (Props. 54-66). While foreseeing and foretelling (in
order to vindicate His knowledge) this downfall, yet God, in consistency with the moral
freedom ot the people, offers to perpetuate this throne and kingdom, that not a son shall
fail to David to sit on his throne if obedient, ete. He could not do less, and therefore,
in testing the nation—which Moses even foretold would fail to endure the test and would
meet with a long, prolonged punishment—-these things are carefully, prudently revealed
so as not to interfere with God’s tender of the Kingdom.
2 Barnes and a host besides do, however, change this identical covenant ; seeing its
perpetuity so clearly asserted, they receive it as perpetual, but only afler changing its mean-
ing. The plain grammatical sense—the one the Jews and Primitive Church received—is
rejected us ‘* carnal,’’ and another substituted by which David’s throne and kingdom is
transmuted into God’s throne in the third heaven and God's Kingdom in heaven or in
the church. Alas ! when pious and excellent men can thus tamper with the foundations
of our hope. (Comp. Prop. 122.)
’ Such altering is only building with ‘‘ wood, hay, and stubble.’” The motives may,
Prop. 49.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 317

like Paul's in Stephen’s case, result from a zeal for the truth’s sake, but, in the light of
the unchangeable covenant, it is evidently misdirected zeal. Learning, philosophy, piety,
cannot, ought not to assume the liberty of altering what God has so solemnly spoken ; but,
alas, it is so prevailingly done that the Church, with here and there some exceptions,
has lost sight of this covenant. Theologies that profess to give a systematic statement
of the truth either ignore it, or very briefly mention it as something in which we are not
interested. Those who cling to this oath-bound, perpetual covenant are regarded as
very ‘‘carnal’’ and ‘‘ Jewish,’’ etc. The simple reason for all this is, that because there
has been no fulfilment of this covenant promise it is taken tor granted that either there
will be none, or else the language must be spiritualized to suit existing circumstances.
From what has taken place in the past, we rest assured that God means just what the
words in their plain grammatical sense convey, and that as such they will, in God’s own
time, be realized. God has hitherto rejected substitutions of His Word. Abraham
tried it, when, after waiting for some years he contemplated adopting a son, thinking
that God probably meant an adopted son, and then atter another waiting he went in to
Hagar supposing that the seed would be his and not Sarah's, but God fulfilled His Word
just as written. Others attempted this with the same result ; no substitution, however
learnedly or eloquently presented, 1s to be received over against the express words of
God. We, indeed, may not be able to tell how they can be fulfilled, t ut if unable, the
matter may safely be trusted to God without putting forward our weak, accommodating
interpretations. We, therefore, must earnestly protest against the manifest injustice
that is done to this covenant. Books specially devoted to the subject of the Covenants
have much to say respecting an eternal covenant entered into between Father and Son,
at some period in eternity, of which nothing is said, but all is inferred, and a covenant
plainly given, confirmed by oath, declared to be perpetual, is coolly set aside. ‘Theolo-
gies, Bib. Dictionaries, etc., totally ignore it. Indeed, it has become fashionable to ridi-
cule the Jewish and Primitive belief based on this covenant, as e.g. Gregory (Four
Gospels), who declares, with intended sarcasm. that their ‘‘ Messiah was to be the Jewish
Cesar of the world,’’ because they ‘* had cast away that grander idea of a spiritual, uni-
versal, and everlasting Kingdom (i.e. the Church) which fills the books of the prophets.’’
It is no matter of surprise to find such writers to have no manner of use for the
Davidic covenants, either in *‘ the preparation for the Messiah”’ or in ‘‘the mission of
the Jews,’’ or in the present and tuture. Instead of being fundamental, it only, in their
estimation, is indicative of the Messiah being of David’s line, and can be employed, if at
all, in a mystical or spiritual senge. We hold, against all such, that, no matter who was
on the throne (David, Solomon, Hezekiah, etc.), and no matter how flourishing the King-
dom, the pious and believing held that the covenant looked for that special ‘* Anointed
One,’’ David’s Son, who should exalt the identical Theocratic throne and Kingdom to a
grandeur immeasurably great.

Obs. 6. The language of the apostles 1s eminently calculated to confirm

the Jewish belief in the literal fulfilment of the Davidic covenant. Thus
e.g. let any unprejudiced reader take the first sermons that were delivered
after the day of Pentecost, addressed to Jews, and he cannot fail to see
this feature. Peter (Acts 2 : 14-36), referring to the covenant promise that
Jesus Christ would sit on David's throne, correctly argues that the per-
formance of this requires the resurrection of Jesus, which David .also
foretold as a prerequisite. He then informs the Jews that He did thus
arise, that He ascended to heaven where He is exalted as Lord and Christ,
waiting for the time when Ilis foes shall be made His footstool, ‘‘ whom
(Acts 3 : 12-26) the heaven must receive witil the times of restitution of all
things’’ (keeping in mind the Jewish idea of restitution as always associated
with the restored Davidic Kingdom) shall come, and then ‘‘ He (God) shall
send Jesus Christ’? through whom this is effected. He exhorts them on
the ground that they ‘are children of the covenant which God made with
oyr fathers’’ to repent that they may become worthy participants in ‘“‘ the
times of refreshing’? (Jewish expression), which ‘* shall come from the pres-
ence ofthe Lord.’’? Let any one read the covenant and prophecies directly
bearing on it, and then place himself in the position (Prop. 20) of a Jewish
318 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 49.

hearer of Peter, with Jewish faith, expectations, and covenant relationship,

and the decided impression will be made that the covenant is not altered
but remains unchanged, that the death of Jesus combined with resurrection
and exaltation only qualities Him the better to meet the conditions of the
covenant, and that through this resurrected Jesus, when the time appointed
by the Father arrives, this covenant will be verified.

Obs. 7. This is confirmed by the fully admitted early church view on

the subject. Let the reader pause and reflect, how it comes, if the prevalent
modern notion of the covenant is correct, that the early Christians (who
had the advantages of apostolic, inspired teaching, or were close to it) held
to the grammatical sense of the covenant and fully believed with the Jews
that the Messiah would come (again, as to Jesus) to restore the Davidic
throne and Kingdom? Upon what supposition can it be satisfactorily
explained, excepting the one that they were correct?
Acknowledging Neander’s manly concessions to the prevalence of Chiliasm in the
early church, and his favorable estimate of Millenarians, he, to make room for his own
modern theory, does these ancient worthies injustice, when (His. Church, vol. 1, p. 78)
he informs us that it was ‘‘ a distinguishing character’’ of Christianity ‘‘ to lower itself
down to the comprehension”? of these men. His standard of comparison, derived from an
anti-Chiliastic bias, is not a true one ; and this appears evident from the covenant itself.
These men, believers in whom the truth is perpetuated, embraced a pure, fundamental
truth, a high and noble faith, indorsed and supported by Divine authority, and needed
not the Origenistic, or the elevating Hegelian, Philosophy to discern it. We leave this
able, but in this respect mistaken, writer give the following testimony to the early church
doctrine. ‘‘ Christianity (His. Plant. Chr. Church, vol. 1, p. 500) allied itself to the expec-
tation of a restoration and glorification of the Theocracy, which was preceded by an increas-
ing sense of its fallen state among the Jews. Those who clung to a national and exter-
nal Theocracy looked forward to this glorification as something external, sensuous (?),
and national. The Messiah, they imagined, would exalt by a divine miraculous power the
depressed Theocracy of the Jews to a visible glory such as it had never before possessed,
and establish a new, and exalted, unchangeable order of things, in place of the transitory
earthly institutions which had hitherto existed. Thus the Kingdom of the Messiah
would appear as the perfected form ofthe Theocracy, as the final stage in the terrestrial de-
velopment of mankind, exceeding in glory everything that a rude fancy could depict under
sensible images, a Kingdom in which the Messiah would reign sensibly present as God’s
Vicegerent and order all circumstances according to His will. From this point of view,
therefore, the reign of the Messiah would appear as.belonging entirely to the future; the present
condition of the world, with all its evils and defects, would be set in opposition to that
future golden age, from which all wickedness and evil would be banished.’’ He then
proceeds to tell us how a change of belief was gradually brought about in the Church
doctrine, and the substance, compressed, is, that man unauthorized made this change
under the plea that a deeper insight, greater knowledge, indicated the early belief to be
erroneous. Such a change may commend itself to human wisdom, but it is not reasona-
ble according to the covenants and the assurances surrounding them, or to the prophe-
cies and the teaching of the first three centuries. No! let us, in all lowliness of mind,
seek no change, but content ourselves, even if it gives rise to invidious comparisons, with
the faith held by the early confessors and martyrs. (Comp. Props. 75-78.)
it is exceedingly gratifying to find this Jewish faith, thus founded on the covenants,
recognized and continued in the early history of the Chr. Church ; for, if true, this very
fealure—now regarded by many as a stain or blot—ought, in the very nature of the case,
to characterize the churches established by the apostles and their immediate successors.
There is a disposition on the part of some writers to treat this matter unfairly (as in
Corrodi’s His. of Chiliasm, Shedd’s His. of Ch. Doctrine, etc.), and to ignore, as much as
possible, the early Jewish belief as something of no value to us (as in various Quarterlies,
Réviews, Theologies, etc.).

Obs. 8. Having called attention to the covenant and its literal fulfil-
ment, it may be suitable to present the order of fulfilment as given by
Prop. 49.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 319

David himself. Necessarily brief and abrupt, so as not to conflict with the
free agency of man, it is a sublime vindication of David’s ¢nspiration, the
perpetuity of the covenant, and its ultimate literal realization.
Consider Ps. 89, and observe these particulars as stated : (1) David acknowledges the
bestowal of the covenant by God, and its confirmation by oath, ‘‘ I have made a cove-
nant with My chosen, Ihave sworn unto David My servant, Thy seed will I establish for-
ever, and build up thy throne to all generations’ (v. 1-4). (2) He expresses praise that
God’s wonders and faithfulness will be shown ‘‘ in the congregation (gathering) of the
saints,’’ and that He has the authority, power, and mercy to perform His promises
(v. 5 to 18). (3) He again refers to the covenant, shows that One shall be specially ex-
alted, and that God says : ‘‘ I willmake Him My First-born, higher than the kings of the
earth. My mercy will I keep for Him forevermore, and My covenant shall stand fast in
Him. His (David’s) seed also will I make to endure forever, and His throne as the days
of heaven” (vy. 19-29). (4) Then asthis Kingdom is offered to the regular descendants
of David, and it is foreseen that they will become unworthy of it, God foretells the same,
with the additional assurance to David that, notwithstanding such rebellion and His with-
drawal for a time, the covenant will still be fulfilled, in these pregnant words: ‘‘ If his
(David's) children forsake My law and walk not in My judgments, if they break My
statutes and keep not My commandments, then will I visit their transgression with the
rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless, My lovingkindness will I not utterly
take from him, nor sutfer My faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break nor al-
ter the thing that is gone out of My lips. Once have I sworn by My Holiness, that I
will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before
Me. It shall be established forever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven”
(v. 30-37). Here it is positively asserted that the relapse of the nation and a resultant
infliction of punishment (just as centuries have witnessed) shall not change God's prom-
ise, to David respecting that seed of his that shall reign on his throne. (5) Now comes
a remarkable transition, which should shame the unbelief of doubting ones, seeing that
it is descriptive of the precise condition of things as they exist to-day. David having
foretold the conditional overthrow of his kingdom, and yet that God will be faithful in its
final restoration, now plainly predicts the downfall itself: ‘‘ But Thou hast dast off and
abhorred ; Thou hast been wroth with Thine anointed”’ (i.e. the Theocratic kings that
followed David). ‘‘ Thou hast made void the covenant of Thy servant ; Thou hast pro-
faned his crown by casting it to the ground,’’ etc. ‘‘ Thou hast made his glory to cease,
and cast his throne down to the ground,’’ ete. The covenant is unrealized ; the Theo-
cratic Kingdom is fallen ; the very throne and Kingdom, the subject of such special prom-
ise, is now overthrown. Then, however, resting upon the assurances given, he asks :
“ How long, Lord ? Wilt Thou hide Thyself forever? Shall Thy wrath burn as fire ?”
“Lord, where are Thy former lovingkindnesses, which Thou swarest unto David in Thy
truth ?’’ David’s faith in God that He would remember His covenant and restore his
cast-down crown and throne, is briefly but finely expressed : ‘‘ Remember, Lord, the re-
proach of Thy servants.” ‘‘ Blessed be the Lord forevermore. Amen and Amen.”
Who, that is an humble believer in the Word as written, can, in the face of such predic-
tions, deride the early church faith evolved by them? Who, when observing how care-
fully every objection is answered lest faith should stumble and fall, can resist the con-
viction that there is a force in these words, which are yet—when realized—destined to,
form one of the grandest displays of God’s faithfulness and mercy in the Redemptive
scheme ?
320 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 50.

Proposition 50. The Kingdom will be the outgrowth of the

renewed Abrahamic covenant, under which renewal we now
live.
Leavi..g the first part of the proposition to be brought out by our
general argument and the considerations under various proposi-
tions hereafter, we confine ourselves to the other fact stated, viz. :
that the Abrahamic covenant is renewed or re-confirmed in this
dispensation, under which re-ccnfirmation we now live.
Obs. 1. This, indeed, might already be inferred by the reflection, that
the Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom be'ng overthrown, and the Mosaic in-
stitutions abrogated, and the covenant made with David being held in
abeyance (or, as David expressed its ‘‘ made void,’’ i.e. not fulfilled) the
original Abrahamic covenant, from which the others spring, in consequence
alone remains in complete force. The covenant of this dispensation,
called the New Testament, or the New Covenant, is none other than the
Abrahamic renewed or confirmed by Jesus the Christ. We are not left to
conjecture or inference on so impurtant a point ; it is one plainly taught
in Holy Writ.
The reader will carefully regard this matter, as it is essential tu a correct understand-
ing of much Scripture. It is a sad fact, that more ignorance and misunderstanding ex-
ist in relation to the covenants than perhaps of any other portion of the Bible. This
originates from the manner in which the subject has been handled by theologians of
talent and eminence. Instead of confining themselves to the covenants in which man is
directly interested and which have been directly given to him by God, they have much
to say concerning ‘‘ a covenant of Redemption” entered into by the Father and Son from
eternity (and undertake to give the particulars of what is not on record), and ‘‘ a Cove-
nant of Grace” (which embraces the particulars of salvation, etc.), but the distinctive
Abrahamic covenant and the manner in which it is confirmed is Jeft without due consid-
eration. This introduces a series of wild and fanciful interpretations, such as that all
nations are now in the position once occupied by the Jewish nation ; that God does not
regard the Jewish nation with more favor than other nations ; that the promises to the
Jewish nation are typical, temporary, conditional, etc. Believing that we are under an
entire New Covenant (which they cannot point out in the Scriptures, but which they
affirm is this or that, viz. : this dispensation, or the sacrifice of Christ, or the tender of
salvation to all believers, etc.), they, of course, ignore the necessity of our bezoming “the
seed of Abraham, of our being engrafted, etc. The relationship that believers sustain to
the Jewish nation is utterly misapprehended, and inevitable confusion and antagonism
arise. (Comp. e.g. Pres. Edwards's His. Redemp., Russell, Witsius, Boston, Strong, etc.,
on the Covenants, and our various systems of Theology). It is painful to notice the
discrepancies, amid a show of profound learning and speculation.

Obs. 2. Turn to Galatians (the more significant, because addressed to:

(rentile believers), ch. 3, and the apostle argues that Gentiles come in
under the Abrahamic covenant, which, consequently, must be the one
under which believers live and inherit. Notice: (1) v. 16, ‘‘ To Abraham
and his seed were the promises mede,’’—the promises of salvation pertain
 Prop. 50.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 321
chen to this covenant. (2) By this seed) y. 16) is denoted ‘‘ Christ ’’—so
that Christ Himself as Abraham’s sced has the promises pertaining to
Himself in the same covenant. (3) Hence (v. 17) this ‘‘ covenant was
confirmed before of God in Christ ’’—i.e. the Divine Purpo:2 embraced this
as a fact to be accomplished, and therefore the Messiah came. (4) In view
of the relationship of this Abrahamic covenant to Jesus Christ, it is added
(v. :7) that the law or Mosaic institution, which was afterward given,
“cannot disannul’’ this previously given one. (5) For, if it did disannul
it, then it would ‘‘ make the promise of none effect,” i.e. it could not be
realized, but because the covenant continues unimpaired, the promise also
is sure. (6) The inheritance of the saints is originally given (v. 18) by
God “* to Abraham by promise,’’ and hence is not affected by the abrogation
of the law. (7) For the law ‘‘ was (v. 19) added because of transgressions,
till the seed should come to whom the promise was made.”’ (8) By the death
of the Seed provision is made so ‘‘ that (v. 13, 14) the blessing of Abraham
might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ ; that we might receive the
promise of the Spirit through faith,’’—i.e. the promise contained in the
Abrahamic covenant. (9) Now *‘ if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s
seed and heirs according to the promise ;’’—we become inheritors with
Abraham and Christ of promises contained in the Abrahamic covenant.
(10) Hence we ‘‘ receive (ch. 4 : 5, 7) the adoption of sons,’’ ‘‘ and if a son,
then an heir of God through Christ ;’”’ i.e. we inherit in God’s Theocratic
Kingdom. (11) ‘* Then (ch. 5 : 5) we through the Spirit wait for the hope
of righteousness by faith’’ contained in the covenant promise, and (vy. 21)
can ‘* wnherit the Kingdom of God’? (Rom. 4:11, 18). Thus then accord-
ing to the apostle we are living under the precious Ab:ahamic covenant,
which is renewed or confirmed in Christ ; and if we desire to inherit with
Abraham and Christ, we must, by faith, become the seed of Abraham, and
thus come into proper covenant relationship. Well may we say, in view of
this, with Paul (Gal. 3 : 15), ‘‘ Brethren, I speak after the manner of
men ; though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man
disannulleth or addeth thereto.’’

Obs. 3. This is corroborated and strengthened by what the apostle says in

other places respecting the Abrahamic covenant containing the promises,
which we hope to inherit through and with Christ. The entire analogy
of the Word sustains our position.
Having given Paul’s views addressed to Gentiles, let us turn to the same as given to
Jews, who were well acquainted with the covenant. Notice the train of thought as
given in Hebrews. (1) Paul informs us (ch. 1 : 16), as a preliminary, that Jesus ‘‘ took
on Him the seed of Abraham ;’ covenaut relationship demanded it. (2) Then after
referring to the rest that remaineth for the people of God (and mind, speaking of it as
something well understood by his hearers, comp. Prop. 143), exhorting to steadfastness,
upholding the faithfulness of God in fulfilling His promises, he approaches the subject
ot the covenant by informing us (ch. 7 : 18) of the ‘‘ disannulling” of the Mosaic law,
and (v. 22) that ‘‘ Jesus was made surety of a better covenant;” that (ch. 8 : 6) “ He is
the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if the
first covenant’’ (Mosaic, as all admit, being the first in actual course of realization)
“had been faultless, then should no place have been found for the second ;’’ i.e. the
Mosaic had many things attached which were merely provisionary. Let the reader
pause and consider what is “ the better covenant ’’ here designated. According to Gal. 3
it is the one established on better promises ; the one which gives the promises of bless-
‘ng and inheritance to Abraham and his Seed, the Christ—in brief, the Abrahamic, and
which, therefore, not being annulled or set aside, remains in force, for otherwise ‘‘ the
 322 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 50.

promise would be of none effect.” Jesus becomes, by virtue of His being the Seed of
Abraham and because of His death (which provides the way of ultimate fulfilment
through resurrection power, etc.), ‘‘ the surety” of its final realization. But we will leave
the apostle to state this in his own language. (3) Then he adds (v. 8 : 13), ‘‘ For finding
fault with them” (viz. : Mosaic), ‘‘ He saith, Behold the days come, saith the Lord,
when IJ will make a new” (comp. Obs. 4, following) ‘‘ covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah ; not according to the covenant that I made with their
fathers, in the day when I took them out of Egypt,” etc. ‘‘ In that He saith @ new cov-
enant, He hath made the first old.’’ While the Sinaitic covenant is an outgrowth of the
Abrahamic, and yet, owing to the foreseen defection of the nation and to the necessity
of securing a satisfactory remission of sin, it was in many of its provisions merely pre-
paratory, and hence, when removed, must give place to that which introduced it. Here
the Mosaic is called the first because under it the Theocratic government was first estab-
lished, and the Abrahamic is designated the second or new because under it, when ful-
filled, that government will be re-established and existing. Paul, it must be remem-
bered, wrote to Jews, and used this quotation as they employed it. Now that the Abra-
hamic covenant is alluded to in this quotation from Jer. 31 : 31, etc., is evident : (a)
from the context in which the passage stands in Jeremiah—preceded, followed, and
connected with a literwl restoration of the Jewish nation, and identified with (for the
prophet does not contradict himself) the Davidic covenant (which is an amplification of
the Abrahamic, showing how it will be fulfilled) in its renewal. (b) The prophet calls
this “‘ a new” covenant, not because it is entirely new, but, as is said by the apostle,
because the other is superseded by it, i.e. it is renewed, as e.g. in the coming of the
seed, etc. (c) It is given to ‘‘ the house of Israel and the house of Judah,’ which, as all
commentators admit (however they may afterward spiritualize), in its literal aspect de-
notes the Jewish people. It is the same people, too, that were ‘‘ scattered,” ‘* plucked up,”’
** destroyed,” and “‘ afflicted,’’ who shall be restored to their ‘‘land’’ and “ cities.’’
Although not yet verified, the apostle aptly quotes it to prove that God predicts such a
superseding of the Mosaic. Addressing Jews and admitting their hopes of a restoration
under the Messiah, they would feel the force of such an argument, which indicated the
setting aside of the law. (d) Unity of prediction requires this, for we have decided ref-
erences to this renewed Abrahamic covenant, conjoined with the Davidic, being a dis-
tinguishing characteristic of, and fundamental to, the Messianic period, as e.g. Mic.
7: 9, Ezek. 16 : 60-63, Isa. 55 : 3, etc. Indeed, many are the prophecies which assume
that under the Messiah both the Abrahamic and the explanatory Davidic, shall be reul-
ized. As we shall have occasion hereafter to quote these largely, it is sufficient here to
say that they not only specifically refer to it, but denominate it (hence it cannot be su-
perseded) “‘ an everlusting covenant ” (which it must be, since its promises bring Salvation).
This does not interfere, as the predictions themselves intimate, in allowing other and
new arrangements under the reign of the Messiah, as e.g. a new dispensation, the ruler-
ship of immortals, the renewal of the earth, ete. But the Bible still insists that these
covenants are fundamental to all those things ; that the dispensation, honor, privileges,
glory, etc., enjoyed, are all the resultants of an existing and then realized Abrahamic-
Davidic covenant—the Abrahamic being the foundation of the others.
But to return to Paul: (e) In the next chapter he shows how the Mosaic introduced
rites, sacrifices, etc., which were typical, and that to obtain the promise of the inheri-
tance (for we have already shown, Prop. 49, how it necessitates, e.g. a resurrection) the
death of Jesus is requisite. Hence (ch. 9 : 15), “For this cause He is the Mediator of
the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions
that were under the first Testament, they which are called might receive the promise of
eternal inheritance.” This promise, let the reader notice, of inheriting the land forever, is
found in the Abrahamic covenant. Now the. Mosaic economy made no provision for the
Patriarch’s or Christ’s inheriting (and through them of the righteous dead), because it
provided for no resurrecting power through which it could be accomplished, but pointed
onward, by its types and sacrifices, to Him who'should have power to perform it. In this
Plan, the death of Jesus is an important factor. Therefore, he adds (v. 16, 17), ‘‘ For
where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. Fora
testament is of force after men are dead ; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the
testator liveth.’’ While the original word, constantly and carefully selected, does not
mean either a will or testament,* but an arrangement, disposition, disposal of matters,

* That we are not forcing a meaning, is apparent from what our opponents themselves
say, as e.g. the excellent remarks of Barnes, Com. loci, and Stuart, Com. loci. We are
Prop. 50.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. ; 323
or ordering of things, yet Paul illustrates the fact that the Abrahamic covenant required,
before its realization, the death of Christ, by what occurs with the disposition men usu-
ally make of their affairs, which disposition is effective after their death us Sar as inher-
ding is concerned. (This is also additional proof of the correctness of our position that
the promises of the covenant are not yet fulfilled.) Without keeping in view this man-
ifest allusion to the promise of inheriting, the illustration would be unnatural and out
of place. Or, if it be preferred, as some do, that the illustration be drawn from the
ratification of a covenant or arrangement over dead sacrifices, the same truth is still pre-
sented, that without the death of Christ the promise of inheritance cannot be obtained.
(7) The matter is summed up (v. 28), and attention directed to the time of inheriting:
‘“‘So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many ; and unto them that lool for Him
shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation.’’ To a Jew, with his belief in
the covenanted mercies of Abraham and David, the only possibie conclusion, from the
language of the apostle, was, that at the second coming, thus specified, the covenant would
be realized. This Jewish opinion would be strengthened by the direct quotations from
the covenants ; by speaking of ‘‘ the world to come’’ (a favorite Jewish phrase, employed
to designate the period when these covenants would be fulfilled) ;by declaring that
“this man’’ “ sat down on the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting till His
enemies be made His footstool ;’’ by foretelling ‘‘ the day approaching,” “‘ the day of
Jesus Christ,’’ in which salvation (as covenanted) was to be experienced ; by saying:
“* For yet a little while, and He that shall come will come, and will not tarry ;’”” by point-
ing to Abraham and all the ancient worthies that they had not received the promise in
fulfilment, but would with us at the appearing of this Jesus ;and by adopting, in conclu-
sion, the prophetical and Jewish denomination of ‘ everlasting covenant” in the phrase
“* the blood of the everlasting covenant,” thus showing that the Abrahamic, known as “ the
everlasting,’’ was ratified by the blood or death of Jesus. Thus a perfect unity of doctrine
is preserved between the Old and the New Testaments, both uniting in the same declara-
tion, that the Kingdom of the Messiah, the glory and blessedness of the reign of David's
Son, is a resultant of an existing, confirmed covenant relationship, a divine arrangement,
which finds its basis, so far as humanity is related, in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the
Jewish nation, and, above all, in the man Christ Jesus.

Obs. 4. Persons are apt to be misled by the use of the word “ new,”’’
thinking that it necessarily means something entirely new, different from
what preceded. They forget that in Bible usage it frequently means
renewed, restored again, newly confirmed, etc., as in new heart, new moon,
new creature, new heavens and new earth, new commandment, drink new
(Matt. 26 : 29), ete. It is important then to discriminate whenever the
word is employed, especially in so weighty a matter as this, seeing the high
interests that are involved. As the phrase ‘‘ new covenant’’ only appears
once in the Old Test. and but a few times in the New, the general analogy
of Scripture must be allowed to determine the sense in which it is used.
Obs. 5. The corroborating proof, drawn from the fact that Gentiles to
inherit the promises must become the seed of Abraham, has already been

not specially concerned, so far as our argument is related, to advocate any of the views
entertained respecting these two verses (16th and 17th), for whatever opinion is enter-
tained, all admit that; in some way, the death of Christ is made necessary to ratify or
secure the fulfilment of the covenant, and this is all that is required in our line of argu-
ment. We only suggest that these verses, which give so much trouble to Expositors, are
easily reconciled. For although the word does not denote strictly a will or testament,
yet the apostle can, and does, correctly compare it with such, on account of the resem-
blance that exists between the Abrahamic covenant and an earthly will or testament.
Both, in order to be realized, call for the death of the testator (and here indirectly we
have the Divinity of Jesus asserted, inasmuch as God in Christ gave this covenant, etc.) ;
both are only valid in their appropriations or fulfilment of contained promises of in-
terest through the death of the parties bestowing them. Keeping this resemblance in
view, all difficulty vanishes. (Comp. Horne’s Introd.. vol. 1, p. 39 and note, Fairbairn’s
Herm. Manual, P. 2, Sec. 7, Judge Jones’s Notes, Nast, Com. Matt. 26 : 28, etc.)
324 7 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [Prop. 50. :

briefly given in Props. 24, 29, 30(united), but will be presented in detail
under Props. 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, etc. To avoid repeating, let it only be
said that the very engrafting or adoption of Gentile believers into the
covenanted, elect nation, is itself evidence that we live under the recon-
firmed Abrahamic covenant,
As a correct knowledge of covenant relationship is essential to a proper
understanding of the truth in Redemption, and to inspire within us
correct hopes of the future, it seems reasonable to suppose that those
believers who lived the nearest to apostolic times and enjoyed the advan-
tages of apostolic explanations upon so interesting and fundamental a sub-
ject, ought to know under what covenant we are living, what covenant
Jesus confirmed by His death, and under what covenant saints inherit.
Now down to Origen not a single Father has the least idea of an entire new
covenant instituted by Jesus, but every one, either directly or indirectly as
far as we can gather, confirms our view of it. If moderns are correct with
their notions respecting a new covenant as taught in Hebrews, is it not
remarkable that they cannot point toa single church, Jewish or Gentile,
that received and taught their views in the first and second centuries. If
the modern notion is so plain and distinct, as is claimed, why not then
proclaimed by some, at least, of the earliest Fathers?
This is seen by their Chiliastic attitude and looking for the fulfilment of the Abrahamic-
Davidic covenant at the speedy Advent of Jesus. They all held that Christ is become
the surety or pledge of the Abrahamic covenant ; that He will fulfil it in connection
with the Davidic, with which it is incorporated ; and that they would, through Christ,
inherit the promises under that covenant. A large array of quotations might be pre-
sented to indicate the general sentiment on this point, but having already given (Prop.
49, etc.) some testimony, and having occasion hereafter in connection with other points
to quote others, it is unnecessary (the more so, in view of the admissions already quoted
from Neander and others respeeting the prevailing belief) to do more than simply refer
to the Epistle of Barnabas. who (Sec. 14 and 15) positively argues that God has not yet
fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant, excepting in sending the Seed, Christ, who is the cov-
enanted pledge that the remainder will be realized at the Sec. Advent, at ‘‘ the day of
restitution,” at “ the renewal of all things.’’ The decided and impressive testimony of these
early Fathers, given amidst weakness and imperfection, and the strong and unwavering
faith they manifested, held amidst derision and persecution, —that they were living under
this renewed Abrahamic covenant as the seed of Abraham, which the death and exaltation
of Jesus ensured to them of finally realizing in the inheriting of the land with Abraham,
—this cannot be set aside as a departure from the truth, or as ‘‘ carnal,’’ without under-
mining the foundations of Christianity itself. If these men, who appealed to the apostles
and elders, are not to be trusted in giving an exhibit of the covenanted foundation of
their Christian faith, —if they were in error and deceived,—then who in the Church can be
trusted in presenting one? Shall we select Origen, or Augustine, or Jerome, or some
later one? We prefer to take that which harmonizes with Scriptural authorities and
keeps the closest to covenant promise as wrilten, and, therefore, in making our selection,
we find Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenzus, and their fellows in like faith, con-
sistent both with covenant language and explanation as given in Holy Writ. In their
simplicity, and with all their imperfection, they have far more of the truth, fundamental,
than multitudes, learned and eminent, who deride them. (Comp. Props. 73-78.)

Obs. 6. This view of the covenant was overshadowed and crushed by the
Alexandrian, monkish, and Popish theories introduced (comp. Props. 77
and 78). It was entertained in some of its leading aspects by a few (as e.g.
Waldenses, Albigenses) down to the Reformation, when it was partially
(not in its primitive purity) revived by the Reformers. The influence of
the late Fathers (as Augustine, etc.) and of the schoolmen, prevented that
clear, consistent, and simple statement that once pervaded the Primitive
Prop. 50.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 325

Church. But notwithstanding this, every Reformer saw and recognized the
Jundamental character of the Abrahamic covenant, that we lived under its
promises, that Christ made provision for their fulfilment, and thus con-
firmed the covenant. Thus e.g. Luther repeatedly asserts the present
existing force of the Abrahamic covenant in his Com. on Galatians ; Calvin
in his Institutes (B. 2, ch. 10) rightly makes the promises of this covenant,
to extend over into the future.
It is interesting t: uotice Luther’s views. Thus e.g. in Vom. on Gal. ch. 3, taking
‘the testament” in the sense of a will (instead of disposition, etc.), he expressly says
(v. 15) : ‘* Now, if a man’s will be kept with so great fidelity, that nothing is added to it
or taken from it after his death, how much more ought the last will of God to be faith-
fully kept, which He promised and gave unto Abraham and his seed after him? For when
Christ died, then was it confirmed in Him, and after His death, the writing of His last tes-
tament was opened ; that is to say : ‘ the promised blessing of Abraham was preached
among all nations dispersed throughout the world.’ This was the last will and testament
ct God, the greut Testator, confirmed by the death of Christ ; therefore no man ought to
change it, or add anything to it, as they that teach the law and man’s traditions do.’’
He tells under v. 16, that “ the promises of God made unto Abraham’’ being called “ a
testament ” makes them ‘‘ a donation or free gift,’’ and that the ‘‘ heirs look not for laws,
exactions, or any burdens to be laid upon them by a testament, but they look for the
inheritance confirmed thereby.’’ In commenting on vy. 17, headvocates the perpetuity of the
Abvahumic covenant (hence is not superseded, —God forbid !), and beautifully illustrates
te relation that the Sinaitic covenant sustained to it : ‘‘ the promise was not abolished
eisher by the law, or by the ceremonies of the law ; but rather by the same, as by certain
seals, it was for a time confirmed, until the letters themselves, or the writing of the tes-
tament (to wit, the promise), might be opened and by the preaching of the Gospel be
spread abroad among all nations.’’ He frequently expresses his faith in this promise,
thai he rests in it, that he hopes to obtain the inheritance (in which, mingling the means
for obtaining the inheritance with the inheritance itself, and thus introducing confusion
of ideas, he includes, v. 18, ‘‘ remission of sins, righteovs, salvation, and everlasting
life ; that we should be sons and heirs of God and fellow-heirs with Christ’’) through
it, and that to receive the promise we must, v. 29, become “ the children of Abraham by
adoption,” and ‘* the heirs of Abraham after the promise.” 'Thus Luther makes much of an
existing Abrahamic covenant, confirmed to us by the death of Jesus, under which we
already enjoy an earnest or prelude to the final inheritance.

Obs. 7. Many writers might be presented who acknowledged the essen-

tials, viz. : that the Abrahamic covenant is an existing one, made sure by
the death of Christ, under which we have the hope of inheritance, and
which shall finally be realized. But under a strange misapprehension,
they either deny, or else omit to state, that a// the promises of the covenant
will be fulfilled ;some they make literal, others are typical or spiritual,
and others are ignored. Whatever view may be entertained, they are
forced by the tenor of Scripture representation to confess its continued
fundamental relationship to Christianity.
We append a few illustrations : Schmucker (Pop. Theol., p. 247-8) says that the coy-
enant made with Abraham ‘‘ was not a temporary one, soon to be abolished, but that it
was to remain in its essential features through all future generations, for an everlasting
covenant.’’ Hodge (Sys. Div.) asserts the identity of the Abrahamic covenant in succeed-
ing dispensations and speaks of it as ‘‘ the common doctrine of the church.’’ When Hodge
says of Christ, ‘‘ He guarantees the fulfilment of all the promises and conditions of the
covenant ; His blood was the blood of the covenant’’ it may well be asked, were not
those promises contained in the Abrahamic, and is not, therefore, the Abrahamic cove-
nant the one sealed by His blood ? Any amount of such testimony, which flatly con-
tradicts other statements of the same writers, might be adduced, but these are sufficient
to show how fundamental the covenant is regarded even by those who are largely ad-
dicted to spiritualizing. When drawing up the first draft of this Proposition, the writer
(March 27th, 1873), being in company with his former theological instructor, Rev. Dr.
326 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 50.

Sprecher, directly asked him the question : Under what covenant do we now live? The
Dr. quickly and unhesitatingly replied : that the church now lived under the Abrahamic
covenant and that it would ultimately reap the promises of that covenant ; and that the
new covenant was the Abrahamic renewed or confirmed by the death of Christ, so that
we had the strongest possible assurance in its realization. It was a gratification to find
my honored friend thus cordially receive the Primitive doctrine, which is the only Scrip-
tural and logical view.

Obs. 8. There are writers who clearly apprehend the truth and fairly
state it. ‘These, of course, are Millenarians; for it is a distinguishing
feature of their system, from the Primitive Church down, that it is directly
founded on the Abrahamic and Davidice covenants. Holding to those
covenants as written, clinging to those promises without changing them,
believing that they will al/, as recorded, be finally realized through Jesus
Christ,—leads necessarily to Chiliasm. The history of the Church con-
clusively shows, that just as Chiliasm in its purity prevailed, in that
proportion were the covenants upheld and exalted as signal landmarks ; and
just as the Origenistic, Popish, and Mystical interpretation extended so
were these covenants ignored as non-essential, or else spiritualized so as to
make them scarcely recognizable.
Outside of the Scriptures, we are alone indebted to Chiliasts for a distinct statement
of the relationship that the covenants sustain to the Plan of Salvation or to the King-
dom of God. But even some Millenarians, influenced by the neglect that the covenants
have sustained, or, not realizing sufficiently their vital and fundamental relationship to the
Kingdom, either omit an extended reference to them when such an one would be in
place, or intimate the same with the briefest mention. It is, indeed, a very simple doc-
trine when contrasted with many of the elaborate antagonistic systems of divinity orig-
inated by the assumptions of Popish doctors, the Schoolmen, Philosophers, etc., but its
simplicity, to a scholar posted in the history of doctrine, and to a believer who knows
that ‘‘ the just live by faith,” only recommends it the more to our notice. Nearly every
Millenarian work refers to the covenant as we have done, more or less. extended. Ad-
mirable things are found in the writings of M’Neile, Noel, Bonars, Shimeall, Bicker-
steth, Jones, etc., etc. An illustration is given: Brooks (Hl. Proph. Inter., p. 19) says:
“The covenant made with Abraham is what is called the‘ New Covenant’ and the
‘ Covenant of Promise’ ; for unless he (the reader) be clear in this matter, he will be un-
able to understand ‘ the hope of his calling’ in Christ Jesus, as set forth in the word of
prophecy. It is the more needful to premise thus much, seeing that many, even
pious Christians, have but a vague notion of the nature of the covenant of grace.’’
Brethren, who may differ from the author, must not become offended at the plainness of
speech, seeing that faith is involved. Luther once said : ‘‘ Charity beareth all things,
faith nothing.’’ Charity will be gentle, embracing those from whom we are compelled
to differ ;faith makes no compromise in doctrine and states its position plainly, and
frankly, and boldly.

Obs. 9. Those who advocate that an entire new covenant was given and
confirmed by the death of Jesus differ very much as to the nature and
meaning of this alleged covenant. A variety of explanations are tendered,
but all these, so far as noticed, with but few exceptions, attempt no
Scriptural proof. We are simply to receive assertion, without having the
new covenant itself pointed out and its language quoted. If Jesus gave such
a covenant, as alleged, it ought, in the very nature of the case (like preceding
ones) to be plainly stated ; for a covenant is of so special a character that
it cannot be taken for granted, or be simply inferred. Now not a single
writer of this class has attempted to produce the covenant itself.
To indicate this variety and the loose method of procedure, several illustrations are
annexed. Augustine (City of God, B. 17, 8. 3), makes Heb. 8 : 8-10, the new covenant,
to refer to King Solomon building the temple (against the context of Jeremiah), and thus
 Prop. 50.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 327
to the earthly Jerusalem historically, and then spiritualized ; ‘‘ without doubt this is
prophesied to the Jerusalem above,” i.e. as elsewhere explained “‘ the true Jerusalem
eternal in the heavens.”” And such nonsense—if not worse—is to be received as worthy
of reception. Reuss (His. Ch. Theol., p. 301) calls it ‘‘ a new dispensation, a new econ-
omy, that which Jesus had called a new covenant.” Barnes (Com. Matt. 26 : 28) terms
it, “‘ the Gospel economy,” a new compact with men, etc. The Encycl. Relig. Knowl.,
Art. “* Covenant,’’ makes the new covenant “‘a new dispensation,’’ or ‘‘ the Christian
Economy.” Knapp (Ch. Theol., p. 499) says: ‘‘On the day of Christ’s death the ancient
Mosaic dispensation ceased, and the new covenant or the new dispensation, instituted
by God through Christ for the Salvation of men, commenced.” “It is therefore the uni_
form doctrine of the apostles that the new dispensation of God began with the death of
Christ, and was thereby solemnly consecrated.’’ The texts cited to prove such an im-
portant deduction are all of a nature, first, to show that the Mosaic economy is abolished
(which we do not deny), andsecondly, to indicate the efficacy, etc., of Christ’s death
(which we as cordially accept), but in none is the slightest hint given that this dispen-
sation is the New Covenant, which is inferred from Matt. 20 : 28. Certainly this process
of reasoning, which makes a dispensation equivalent to the bestowal of a covenant, is
utterly wrong and derogatory to the Word itself, whose explanation of the covenant is
passed by for an unlawful inference. Those who favor the dispensational theory in-
volve themselves at once in a gross absurdity and contradiction. Thus e.g. Hodge, a
writer in Encycl. Relig. Know]l., Schmucker, etc., call this covenant‘‘an everlasting,” “an
eternal’’ one, and yet they make it identical with a dispensation or economy which they
tell us is not eternal, but willcome toanend. The trouble with this class of dispensa-
tional theorists is, that making this the final dispensation, everything, whether it fits or
not, must be crowded into it to fulfil the Scriptures. Lange (Com. Genl. Introd., p. 20),
makes ‘‘ the New Testament the covenant itself,’’ which is totally irrelevant. Some-
thing of the kind must have influenced the mind of Origen, for we are indebted to him
(Horne’s Jntrod., vol. 1, p. 38) for first applying the phrase ‘“‘New Testament’”’ to the
writings of the Apostles. (This is a title, which, while merely of human origin and in-
correct, if understood as pertaining to the New Covenant, may be retained.) Some, there-
fore, are misled in making the Scriptures as contained in the Gospels, Acts, Epistles,
and Apocalypse, the New Covenant. This embraces too much, and defeats itself.
Lange, however, only appliesthis in a general way, for on the same page he particular-
izes : “the Lord designates the Eucharist the New Covenant in His blood, in the strict
sense of the term.”” But Lange is again mistaken, for Christ did not call the Eucharist or
Supper the covenant, because “‘ the cup’’ is significant of the Eucharist, and hence ‘“ the
cup of the New Testament” shows that the Supper or that expressed by it is separate
from the covenant. It simply denotes what we have already shown, that by the death
represented in this cup the covenant itself is renewed or confirmed. Otherwise if the
covenant is the Eucharist, the propriety even of language is violated, for we haye ‘‘ the
Kucharist (the cup) of the Eucharist.” Pressense (The Redeemer, p. 95) has the old cov-
enant spiritualized to form the New, for he informs us: ‘‘ He (Christ) cannot develop
it (the old covenant) except by rendering it spiritual ; and the ancient covenant when
made spiritual becomes the New Covenant.’’ This is simply a repetition of Augustine
(City of God, B. 16, S. 26), who says : ‘‘ The New Covenant is shadowed forth in the old.
For what does the old covenant imply, but the concealing of the New? And what does
the term New Covenant imply, but the revealing of the Old ?’’ All this proceeds on the
assumption that the old covenant was not also of a spiritual nature, which is refuted by
the spiritual blessings that it also promises. And if temporal blessings, blessings relat-
ing to this earth, are connected with it, how can these in an everlasting covenant be
changed, modified, altered, spiritualized without invalidating God’s truthfulness? And,
if it is so exclusively spiritual, how comes it that Jesus came literally in the flesh as the
promised Seed? And if spiritual, who, of all those who spiritualize it, have spiritualized
it correctly? For Jesus, the Christ, certainly never, never spiritualized away His own in-
heritance (comp. Prop. 122). Schmid (Bib. Theol., p. 213) defines the New Covenant to
be *‘ a covenant of more complete alliance and forgiveness, concluded and consecrated
by the death of Christ,” etc. Cheerfully admitting the necessity and efficacy of Christ's
death, yet the Abrahamic covenant itself requires in those who shall inherit its pro-
mises the remission of sins, and as the shedding of blood is required according to the
Scriptures, provision is made for fulfilment in and through the death of Jesus, so that
the resurrection power implied (Prop. 49) in the covenant may be exerted. Hence, it
will not answer to exalt the provision made by Christ for the fulfilment of covenant
promise, however indispensable and frecious, into the position of the covenant itself.
Where is the express covenant, consecrated by the death of Jesus, found, if not in the
328 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 50.
Abrahamic? If any other exists, as Schmid and others state, why-is it not formally ex-
pressed somewhere in the Scriptures. Others, however, refer us to Isa. 49 :8 and
42: 6, where it ispredicted of Christ, ‘‘ I will give Thee for a covenant of the people,’ and
assert that this means that Christ Himself is the New Covenant, or that He will make
such an one. As to the first, that Christ is the covenant, commentators admit (even
Barnes, loci) that the phrase does not mean that Christ himself is the covenant but the
One through whom it is to be effected or established, appealing to Mic. 5 : 5, “‘and this
man shall be the peace;”’ i.e. the establisher of peace, etc. Aside from some Germans
(Hitzig, Ewald, ete.), rendering the word ‘‘ covenant ”’ ‘‘ a mediatorial people’’ or ‘‘ coy-
enant people,’’ which Alexander (Com. loci) says ‘‘ yields a good sense,’’ we accept of
Alexander's explanation : ‘‘ this use of ‘ covenant’ although unusual is in itself not more
unnatural or forced than that of ‘ light’ in the next phrase. As light of the nations must
mean a source or dispenser of light to them, so ‘ covenant of the people’ in the very
same sentence may naturally mewn the dispenser or mediator of a covenant with them.’’
Christ, bevaus He confirms the Abrahamic covenant and eventually fulfils it, bears this
significant title. As to the second idea, that Christ makes an entire new covenant, it is
pure inference and remains unproven. The reader has only to read the context of these
phrases in Isaiah, and he will find o.r position fully sustained by its intimate relation-
ship to the restoration of the covenanted Jewish nation, and henc« these references to Christ
denote that He causes the covenant to be realized. These examples are amply sufficient
to illustrate the opposite views and to indicate their variety and strength. Hence, we
cannot receive the current phraseology on the subject, as e.g. Pressense (The Early Days
of Christianity, p. 240), who says of Paul’s teaching : ‘‘ The new covenant is to him essen-
tially a new fact, the proclamation of pardon, the sovereign manifestation of grace—in
one word, the Gospel” —for this is simply to mistake the means intended to secure cov-
enant blessings for the covenant itself. Much that is said of a “‘ covenant of grace” (as
distinguished from a ‘*‘ covenant of works’’), while correct in principle and showing the
contrast between the dispensations, may be retained, but just so soon as itis made to
occupy the position of ‘‘the everlasting covenant” which contains the promises and
under which we inherit by grace extended, then we reject it as unscriptural and mislead-
ing.

Obs. 10. It follows, then, that it isa grave misapprehension of Scripture

teaching to say, as some do, that all the older covenants ended in Christ.
Able writers take the position (Kurtz, His. of Old Cov., Vol. 1, p. 1) that
the old covenant ended in the Incarnation of Christ (Knapp, Ch. Theol.,
p. 499, prefers to end it atthe death of Jesus), giving place to an entire
mew one. Kurtz tells us that ‘‘ the ultimate aim and the highest point of
the Divine covenant activity in all its manifestations is the incarnation of
God in Christ,’’ and (p. 221) that Christ is ‘‘ the highest and last repre-
sentative of the Abrahamic covenant.’’ Wo! never! for the covenant
comprehends immensely more than the incarnation of the Messiah ; it
embraces His inheritance and future glory ; it is world-embracing, for, as
will be shown hereafter, in its brief but pregnant sentences, it includes the
resurrection, restoration, and inheriting of the Patriarchs and of their
believing descendants and of the adopted seed,—the Kingdom under the
reign of that pre-eminent Seed, the ultimate salvation of the race as a race,
the final removal of the curse, and the perfected Redemption of man and
the creation. The Incarnation, inexpressibly precious and indispensably
necessary, is an important—the first in magnitude—means for the accom-
plishment of covenant promises, but it too is only preparatory. Hence it is
wrong to narrow down the covenant to the First Advent, just as if the
Seed was not in His glorified humanity (comp. e.g. Props. 82, 83, 199-203)
yet to exhibit a glorious part in the fulfilment of covenanted promises at
His Second Advent.
Seeing the weighty consequences resulting to interpretation from this source, we leave
Dr. Kurtz(p. 207) present his view asfollows: After justly speaking of the fulness of the
name of ‘‘ the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,”’ calling it “ the inscription on the por-
Prop. 50.]} THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 329

tal of the historical development of the covenant,” and “ the seal of that covenant,’’ he
then adds, that it continued such until the appearance of Jesus Christ, ‘‘ until the time
arrived in which Abraham ceased to be the rock whence the people of the covenant were
hewn and Sarah the hole of the pit whence they were digged (Isa. 51 : 1, 2), and the new
Israel found in Christ the author and finisher of faith, and in the Spirit of God the foun-
tain of life.’’ This is @ serious misstatement of ‘‘ the hope of our calling,” and if true,
then our promised inheritance is withheld from us and God’s promises covenanted to
Abraham will not be faithfully performed. Let us briefly point out the fallacy of such
language (selecting Kurtz as the ablest advocate of this view), because of its bearing upon
the highest interests of man. (1) The reference to Abraham and Sarah (Isa. 51 : 1, 2) is
an utter reversal of what the inspired prophet declares. Kurtz informs us that in the
Messianic times we shall not look to Abraham, because the people of the covenant are not
derived from him ; the Prophet says exactly the reverse, viz. : that we shall look to him,
and the reason is assigned because of his election (‘‘ for I called him alone’’). Jt stands
connected with a glorious Millennial portrayal. In some way (as we shall explain, Props.
61-65) Abraham is still our Father, i.e. of the elect, them that believe, and because of his
being chosen and his seed in him “‘ the Lord shall comfort Zion, He will comfort all her waste
places,’ etc. (2) When the Jews were rejected nationally during the allotted “ times of
the Gentiles” still a seed must be raised up unto Abraham, to be recognized as his chil-
dren. Why? Because to him and to his seed was given the covenant, and hence we
must be related to him. (3) Believers inherit with Abraham, and this because they come into
covenant relationship with him. (4) All who are received as the seed of Abraham are received
on the same principle of faith that Abraham was, i.e. by faith, and in view of the same
are adopted as his ‘‘children,’’—thus are connected with him. (5) Hence Abraham is ex-
pressly called the Father of all the faithful, because of a sustained relationship. (6) The
chosen are never called the children of Christ, but His brethren, co-heirs, etc., because
they inherit with Him covenanted promises given to Abraham. (7) Being the author and
finisher of our faith does not by any means place Christ in the position of Abraham, it
only shows how through Christ we can attain and retain Abrahamic faith. (8) Christ
Himself is the subject of covenanted promise not yet fulfilled, and therefore the covenant
is not superseded in Christ, for that would destroy promises pertaining to Him. (9) The
‘¢ Spirit of God” was just as much “‘ the fountain of life’’ to Abraham and believing Jews
as to us now, for the Bible abundantly testifies (comp. Prop. 171) how that Spirit attended,
enlightened, confirmed, and strengthened them. In the light of the Abrahamic covenant,
we dare not depart from the plain statements of the Word and reverse one of the most
impressive utterances of Isaiah, and destroy our own covenanted hopes of a blessed in-
heritance. Men may honestly and sincerely think that they are exalting Christ by this
method, but the real truth is, that they are lowering Christ as a faithful Fulfiller of the
promises made to the Fathers.

Obs. 11. We read and hear, at present, what are supposed to be axio-
matic truths respecting the New Covenant, which are eminently calculated
to mislead the inquirer. An immense array of alleged self-evident truth
will not stand the test of Scriptural examination ; and yet men, blinded
and biased by the authority of great names who promulgate them, persist
in retaining them because of their plausible appearance. It is singular
how a rut made by the ornamental carriage of an Augustine or of a
Cyprian, or even by the ruder cart of some monk, has been followed for
centuries, unquestioned, as if it alone, and none other, was the proper road
to an intended goal. The time has arrived when those well worn ruts are
carefully, through their entire length, examined both by the enemies and
friends of the truth; and we may rest assured, from the nature of
truth itself, that if honestly made the Divine Directory will never suffer.
Tf men have erred, if even the multitude have gone astray, it is only what the Bible
has predicted, has threatened, has warned us against, and has pointed out as the natural
result of human wisdom, weakness, and depravity. Hence, as in the present case, when
but few really enter:1in the truth on a given subject, instead of feeling that this is an-
tagonistic to the truth, we ought rather to say thatit precisely corresponds with what
God Himself asserts respecting it. A lack of great faith is predicted, and as Gentiles we
are war.ed not to be “ high-minded” in our privileges. Indeed, we ought only the more
330 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 50.

narrowly examine even the things that may be deemed well established. Surely in such
a procedure is there safety and well-grounded hope. For, as practical Christianity is
fostered and strengthened by a constant renewal and self-examination, so theoretical or
doctrinal Christianity is confirmed and improved by reflection, study, and testing.
When a student has advanced so far that he is unwilling to have his most cherished
views subject to a candid but searching criticism, then advancement in knowledge, and
improvement in understanding, also ceases ;—he no longer occupies a student’s attitude.
By the axiomatic truths alluded to in the Obs., we mean the exalting of means to accom-
plish the covenant into the covenant itself ; the elevation of this dispensation, which is
only preparatory, into the covenant ; the making the Gospel, which gives the glad tidings
how the covenant is to be realized and that we are invited to participate in its realiza-
tion, the covenant, etc. The student can readily find them in ten thousand works.

Obs. 12. Some readers may desire to have the mistakes, into which a
misconception of the covenant necessarily leads, pointed out. In the an-
nexed note several of the more prominent are given, in addition to those
already specified.
(1) Making an entire New Covenant and the Old Covenants abrogated, necessarily dis-
connects this dispensation from the preceding, and erects an independency which is
destructive to the unity of Divine Purpose as exhibited in the Abrahamic covenant. The
reverse of this follows our argument.
(2) Professing to live under an entire New Covenant, and that the Old is no longer ex-
isting, leads to a denial of the Jewish elect and covenanted position, and that the Jewish
nation has certain indisputable privileges pertaining to it which it is plainly predicted
to realize in the future. The reverse of this follows the reception of the Abrahamic and
Davidic covenants.
(3) The annulling of the Abrahamic covenant in Christ and the bestowal of another
covenant, while unjust to the faith of centuries in that covenant, while hostile to the
grammatical sense of the covenant, evinces the grossest injustice in that it denies that
Gentiles, to participate in the blessings of the covenant, must also, in some way, be iden-
tified with the believing portion of the Jewish nation that received the covenant.
(4) The fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant in Christ, and a consequent New one
entered into, flatly denies the inheritance of the land promised to Abraham's Seed, the
resurrection and subsequent inheriting of the land by the Patriarchs, etc., and thus en-
tirely misapprehends the nature of Christ’s inheritance and that of the Patriarchs.
(5) Having such « New Covenant and ignoring the Old, causes its advocates to insist
upon a present fulfilment of promises which are located at the Sec. Advent. To make
such an application, the grammatical meaning must give place to engratted spiritual
ones. Preparatory measures, means of grace, the earnests of taith and hope, are ele-
vated into an ample fulfilment.
(6) Those who admit the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant in the distant future,
but deny that we hve under it now (making a new covenant existing), thus ignore its
not having been annulled, that our adoption as children of Abraham hinges on it, that
Christ’s death confirms its validity to us, and that all our blessings flow from it. The
dislocation offered by them is unnatural and destroys the unity.
(7) Those who make the covenants exclusively pertaining to the Jews, the natural de-
scendants of Abraham, and hence something not pertaining to the Gentiles, the latter
being under another and new covenant —forget that it is the blessing of Abraham that
is to be extended to the Gentile believers, but only on the ground of their becoming
the seed of Abraham through faith, so that they may inherit the promises with Abraham.
The Bible makes no distinction between the believing natural descendants or the be-
lieving adopted. It is, however, not as Gentiles that we can inherit, but Gentiles who,
on account of faith, are adopted, engrafted.
(8) Those who make a New Covenant existing, because the Old was conditional, over-
look the fact that its unconditionality is expressly usserted in that all believers inherit
under it. It isan everlasting covenant unto all generations, and cannot, will not fail to
be realized in the Patriarchs and their seed—those natural and adopted who are of faith.
(9) To create a New Covenant on the ground that the Abrahamic will not be realized
because the Jewish nation has rejected Christ, is to raise up a false issue, and
make it the basis of an important doctrine. For if there is a truth distinctly taught in
the Bible, it is, that the Jewish nation will some time in the future recognize Him whom
Prop. 50.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 3381

they have pierced as the Messiah, the one who is to fulfil the Abrahamic covenant. This
will be shown at length as our argument proceeds.
(10) Advocating a New Covenant and ignoring the renewed Abrahamic, leads to an entire
change of Biblical terms. Thus e.g. Israel and Judah are made to mean simply believers
in Christ without the slightest reference to their adoption as the children of Abraham by
which they become entitled to the name. The true Israel are a covenanted people,
which they obtain by their relationship to Abraham as the covenanted head. Gen-
tiles only can become such by adoption.
Such are some of the mistakes made on this subject ; and let not the reader con-
sider them unimporvant, for they largely affect the interpretation of the Word, a cor-
rect faith and hope in the things of God. By adopting them, no proper discrimina-
tion can be maintained in the fulfilment of promises, no existing and vital connection
between the dispensations under covenant is observed, no satisfactory and unvarying
fundamental covenant forms the theological basis of doctrine, no undeviating usage of
the sense contained in language is constantly preserved, in brief, no correct and consis-
tent Plan of Salvation, preserving the promises to Abraham, to David, and to Christ, can be
successfully advocated. In this again, the Primitive Church shows its wisdom and logi-
cal consistency.

Obs. 13. The very coming of the Seed covenanted to Abraham, insures
the fulfilment of the covenant as written. It is in view of this that He
Himself is designated ‘‘ the covenant,’’ for He is the Fulfiller of it, and
without Him it could not possibly be realized. Justin Martyr (Dial. with
Trypho, ch. 51) and others of the Fathers, who viewed the covenant in the
light that we do, called Christ ‘‘ the New Testament,’’ meaning that in
Him the covenant was confirmed and fully assured of ultimate fulfilment.
The Advent of Abraham’s Seed, then, is evidence already that the purposes
of God expressed in that covenant are sure. Literally He came, vindicating
the truthfulness of the covenant given many centuries before, and teaching
us, if we will but receive it, that every promise will be literally verified.
Hence Paul] in 1 Cor. 11 : 26, having directed attention to this covenant renewed in
the blood of Jesus, immediately in connection points to the Sec. Advent as certain, and
the means of fulfilment, thus : ‘‘ For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye
do show the Lord’s death till He come.”’

Obs. 14. In the promises of the covenant are involved blessings, such as
a resurrection from the dead, a perpetual inheritance, aconstant presence
and blessing of God, a Theocratic ordering intimated, etc., which to be
secured in all their fulness, as the Divine Plan in its unfolding shows,
demands a Mediator, a Sacrifice for sin, in order that those who believe
unto obedience may be thus blessed. The death of Jesus becomes a pre-
requisite to the fulfilment of the covenant, for through this death, as Paul
says in Heb. 9 : 15, all (in the past, present, and future) ‘‘ which are called
might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.’’ By that death not only
the power and majesty of moral law is vindicated, not only a never-failing
proof of God’s love and mercy is manifested, etc., but it constitutes Him @
worthy Messiah, a worthy Theocratic King, tested and tried, acknowledged
and accepted by the Father, able to save unto the uttermost, able to save
from sin and death, able to verify the promises, able to secure the inheritors
of the Kingdom, able to carry out the Divine Will in Redemption in
ransoming from the grave and restoring, once forfeited but now cov-
enanted, the blessings of an Kdenic state. By His birth, death, and
resurrection He is become the promised immortal David’s Son; by the
same IIe has given assurance to all men that Ile is ‘‘ the surety’’ of the
Abrahamic covenant, so that its words cannot fail; by the same Ile has
332 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 50.

confirmed and ratified it, showing in the most impressive manner how it
can be realized (embracing as it does an endless life and unchangeable
happiness) in the justification, purification, and immortality that He
graciously provides.

Obs. 15. How can we refuse to believe in the promises of a covenant,

sealed by the blood of Jesus, established by His resurrection, and confirmed
by His present exaltation? Yea, in all the promises ; not merely in the
Seed, it being said ‘‘ to thy Seed,’”’ but in what is promised to this Seed.
What faith does it require to receive part of the sentence and explain away
the remainder, just as if God never intended that the remainder ‘‘ Zo th
Seed will I give this land to inherit’’ should likewise be fulfilled? What
faith is this, to accept of a portion literally and deny the remainder when
joined together by God Himself. Because not yet realized, is that a reason
that it neyer will be accomplished? Do men forget how long (humanly
speaking) it takes for covenanted blessings to be realized, owing to the
necessary preliminary measures? Let the Scriptures testify on these
points, and with reverent, believing hearts let ws receive the same, especially
when a crucified and resurrected Abraham’s Seed is given to us as a pledge
of its ultimate and most happy realization. That Seed, as we shall show,
is yet to exhibit a most triumphant Redemptive work in connection with
His earthly inheritance.

Obs. 16. This enables us better to comprehend the passage in 2 Cor.

3:6 (already referred to at length, under Prop. 4, Obs. 3): ‘‘ Who has
made us able ministers of the New Testament ; not of the letter, but of
the spirit : for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.’’ Tet the reader
notice how the word “‘ giveth life,’’ ‘‘ quickeneth,’’ is directly applied fo
the resurrection in 1 Pet. 3 : 18 (comp. Barnes’ admirable comment, Com.
loci), and in other places ; then Jet him remember how the covenant for its
fulfilment necessitates a resurrection, and how Jesus has amply provided
for the resurrection of His believers, and in the light of this renewed
covenant the passage is easily understood.
Paul says that they are made sufficient, competent ministers or expounders of a re-
newed covenant (which remained after the Mosaic came to an end), not of the letter as
Abraham received it and trusted in it, but of the Spirit, as it has been unfolded and
ratified by the appearance of the Seed, His death and resurrection, etc. ; for the mere
letter, without this attestation and provision, killeth, i.e. it cannot give life because
although Abraham and all the ancient worthies believed in it yet they all died without
receiving the promise. Something more than the letter is required, and this is furnished
in Christ whom Paul in the context calls “the Spirit.”’ The Spirit giveth life, ie. it
insures the fulfilment of this covenant by the power of the resurrection (ch. 4 : 14), see-
ing that the dead can and will now be quickened. That this is the meaning of the apos-
tle is evident from the use of the word ‘‘ quickeneth,’’ and by a comparison of chs. 1 : 9,
14, 20, 22, and 2:17 and 4:14 and 5:5, in the same epistle. It is wrong to decry, un-
der the cloak of this passage, as worthless the literal meaning of the Word, and we can
see how through a false interpretation of it (comp. Prop. 4, Obs. 3, ete.), the floodgates
of professed spiritual interpretation have been opened, and the valuable treasures of
God’s promises so covered over with man’s additions that they are unrecognizable. No!
the apostle means that we now, in a covenant renewed by the blood of Jesus and by His
resurrection from among the dead, have immensely more than the mere letter originally
given and which in itself cannot save from death ; for now we have the Spirit, which in
the same chapter is said to be Christ, who “giveth life,” i.e. fully ensuring to all who
receive the promises that they by being also ‘‘ quickened ” shall inherit the covenanted
promises. Christ is the rool of the whole matter ; without Him and His solemn ratifying
Prop. 50.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 333
acts, the Abrahamic covenant would forever remain a dead letter. It is in Him, through
Him, by Him, and for Him, that it is given, and proceeds to its final accomplishment.

Obs. 17. The blood of the covenant, i.e. the blood or sacrifice pertaining
to or sealing the covenant, brings us, if received by faith, into covenant
relationship. This is clearly announced in Eph. 2:13, ‘‘ But now in
Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes were afar off, are made nigh by the blood of
Christ.’? Notice the train of the apostle’s reasoning : (1) The Jews were
nigh (vy. 1%), being already in covenanted relationship ; /9) the Gentiles
who ‘' were far off,’’ i.e. not ir such a covenanted position, are now,
when believing (otherwise not), brought also ‘‘ nigh,’ i.e. they too obtain
an interest in the covenanted blessings; (3) this covenanted attitude
brings them into union and fellowship with the covenanted people of God,
‘*the commonwealth of Israel ;’’ (4) and this, enjoying now the same
privileges aud hones of the covenanted people, makes them co-heirs with
the inheritors of sovenanted promises ; (5) but to become this believing
covenanted people, faith (leading to obedience) must be exercised in the
sacrifice of Christ, through which provision is made for fulfilment of
promises.

Obs. 18. The covenant being thus confirmed in Christ, we are not at
liberty (as multitudes do) to select portions of it for belief, and reject others
as unworthy of credence ; or, to accept of one part as literally fulfilled,
and refuse such a literalness to the remaining ; or to receive the Seed and
then disdainfully refuse, as ‘‘ carnal, sensual, lowering,’’ etc., the inherit-
ing of the land. It is not to be set aside in any of its features ; it is not
to be limited in any of its promises; but it is to be received i” all its
statements, as written, without substitution, change, or addition, J¢ is
God that promises, not man.

Obs. 19. We Gentiles should be careful lest we fall into an error the
reverse of the Jewish. The Jews at the First Advent believed in the
covenant, but refusing to credit the fact that the covenant must be sealed
with the blood of the Messiah, they rejected the Seed through whom alone
the covenant can be realized. The error of many Gentiles now is, that
while receiving the crucified One, they reject the covenant promises and do
not look for their fulfilment, as recorded, on the ground that it would be
‘‘to9o Jewish’’ (comp. Prop. 68). The latter error, while not so fatal as
the former, obscures the truth, and destroys the wonderful unity of the
Bible.
Obs. 20. As we proceed in our argument, this covenant will pour a flood
of light on many precious promises linked with it. Language, otherwise
dark, becomes easy of comprehension ; dispensational procedures, other-
wise dim and unaccountable, become precise and significant in their
meaning ; the preaching of John, Jesus, disciples, and apostles, instead of
being contradictory or accommodating to error, is found consistent. It
explains much that enables us the more clearly to perceive and appreciate
a regular Divine Plan in preparing for and ultimately establishing the
Theocratic Kingdom under the Messiah. It tells us, as nothing else can,
why the Gentiles must be grafted in, why ‘‘ blindness in part is happened
to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles is come in. And so all Israel
834 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRrop. 50.

shall be saved, as it is written : There shall come out of Zion a Deliverer,

and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob, for this is my covenant with
them.’’ It, and it alone, as the outgrowths from it are developed, gives us
a strict historical, providential, doctrinal, and Divine Unity of Purpose
in the Word (comp. e.g. Props. 182, 184, 186, 187, 194, and 196).

Obs. 21. Persons under the influence of an entire New Covenant theory
make the Gospel to begin with the Incarnation, or the death of Jesus, or
the call of the Gentiles. But this is a mistake; for ‘‘ the Gospel’’ is
already contained in the Abrahamic covenant, so that (Gal. 3:8) God
‘* nreached the Gospel before unto Abraham,’ and (Heb. 4 : 2) ‘‘ wnto us
was the Gospel preached, as well as unto them,’ i.e. the Fathers, only that
with a covenant reconfirmed, ‘‘ the Gospel’’ is clearer in sound, and far
more faith-inspiring. Now, instead of having the eye of faith solely
directed to the future for the Seed as it once was, it is directed to the Seed
as He came at the First Advent, and, hopeful at what it sees thus far, it
looks onward to the Seed, glorified, as He shall come again.

Obs. 22. It seems almost unnecessary to add, and yet its importance will
justify it, that this Abrahamic covenant was always received by faith,
simple faith. Thus the Patriarchs, the ancient worthies, the Apostolic
Fathers, and many others, have received it. It demands to-day the same
simple, confiding faith exercised by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, only that,
in view of what God has done to verify it through Christ, we are less
excusable if we do not entertain such faith.
Alas ! how little of such faith is prevalent. Reason and Philosophy linked with unbe-
lief, cannot possibly comprehend the covenant, for it is united with the miraculous, the
Supernatural. Hence its promises are idle dreams. But even professed believers are
unwilling to believe and coolly ask, how this and that is to be accomplished, just as if no
Omnipotent God had given the promises. Unbelief even, not seeing the connection of
these promises with the Second Advent (therefore called ‘‘ the blessed hope’’), deliber-
ately proposes to reject the doctrine of the Second Advent itself as an addition made by
enthusiastic followers. Now the clamor is, to have everything demonstrated and leave
nothing to faith. But thisis fundamentally opposed to a Scriptural attitude anda
Christian ‘character. Science and unbelief joined may in fancied triumph and scorn
ask, how this and that can be accomplished, and we may, like the Patriarchs, be utterly
unable to explain, yet this should not prevent us from clinging to a covenant rendered
the more credible and estimable, the more worthy of faith and hope, by the death and
resurrection of Jesus, and the earnest of blessing that we receive. Brethren, fellow-
Gentiles, it is as true to-day as it ever was, that “ salvation is of the Jews ;”’ and if, owing
to their fall, we have been brought in by faith, let us exercise such faith in humble ac-
knowledgment of our dependence on a covenanted people, lest we be ‘‘ high-minded” (as
Paul warns us Rom. 11 : 20), and also be cut off on account of our unbelief and being
“‘ wise in our own conceits.”’ It is saddening to think how many ministers and churches
there are, professedly believing and even pious and devoted to much truth, of whom it
can be truthfully said, that they have no faith in ‘‘ the everlasting covenant,’ saving per-
haps that in some spiritual way all the blessings are to be heaped on the Gentiles, or that
all has been perfected at the First Advent so that it concerns us little.

Obs. 23. The doctrine of the Kingdom presupposes the covenants.

Hence the New Test. Scriptures begin with taking the Abrahamic and
Davidic covenants for granted, as something well known and correctly
apprehended. These fundamentals of knowledge were so deeply rooted in
the national faith, were so constantly the subjects suggestive of hopeful
anticipations of future glory, that no necessity existed for their recapitula-
Prop. 50.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 335
tion. Allusionsto them, confirmatory teaching, a consistent harmony with
their promises, is all that is required, and this is abundantly found in
every writer.

Obs. 24. Let a peculiarity, attached to the fulfilment of this covenant,

be deeply pondered, viz. : that in the history of a partial fulfilment in the
past, it has never yet been so realized as to meet the natural wisdom of
man, or to answer to the general anticipations of the period when thus
fulfilled. Observe this procedure in the very beginning, when Abraham,
contrary to all human expectations, raised up Seed in the covenanted line
against the course of nature. And down to the miraculous birth of
Abraham’s pre-eminent Seed, all things were so ordered that they did not
meet the expectations of the mass of the nation. The Advent itself,
a strictly literal fulfilment, did not meet the hopes entertained by the
Jews. The calling of the Gentiles, to raise up a seed unto Abraham, was
a thing unanticipated. Judging from the writings of the Church, its
expectations have been repeatedly disappointed, so much so that now men
deliberately and unhesitatingly deny some of the most precious promises of
the covenants, both relating to the Christ and His co-heirs, as e.g. the
restoration of the Davidic throne and Kingdom and the inheriting of the
land. Analogy teaches us what prophecy distinctly announces, that at the
period when this covenant is to be most amply fulfilled by the Christ who
confirmed it, the multitude including the kings and nations of the earth,
will be arrayed against it, will have no faith in its realization. This, alone,
should make us thoughtful and careful.
Now, as illustrative of our position in general, we may give the views of two writers.
Take e.g. Dr. Brown (Com. Rom, 11 : 29, to which special attention is invited because of
his being Post-Millenarian and a writer against us), and he allows the connection of the
covenant with the future conversion and restoration of the Jewish nation. He refers to
the irrevocable nature of the Abrahamic covenant in view of the unchangeableness of
God, as it applies to ‘‘ the final destiny of the Israelitish nation,’’ saying : ‘‘ It is clear
that the perpetuity through all time of the Abrahamic covenant, is the thing here affirmed.
And lest any should say that though Israel, as a nation has ‘no destiny at all under the
Gospel, but as a people disappeared from the stage when the middle wall of partition
was broken down, yet the Abrahamic covenant still endures in the spiritual seed of Abra-
ham, made up of Jews and Gentiles in one undistinguished mass of redeemed men under
the Gospel, the apostle, as if to preclude that supposition, expressly states that the very
Israel who, as concerning the Gospel, are regarded as ‘ enemies for the Gentiles’ sakes,’
are ‘beloved for the fathers’ sake ;’ and it is in proof of this that he adds, ‘ For the gifts and
calling of God are without repentance.’ But in what sense are the now unbelieving and
excluded children of. Israel ‘ beloved for the fathers’ sakes?’ Not merely from ances-
tral recollections, as one looks with fond interest on the child of a dear friend for that
friend’s sake (Dr. Arnold)—a beautiful thought, and not foreign to Scripture in this very
matter (see 2 Chron. 20 : 7 ; Isa. 41 : 8)—but it is from ancestral connections and obliga-
tions, or their lineal descent from, and oneness in, covenant with the fathers with whom
God originally established it. In other words, the natural Israel—not ‘ the remnant of
them according to the election of grace,’ but the nation, sprung from Abraham according
to the flesh—are still an elect people, and as such ‘beloved.’ ‘The very same love which
chose the fathers and rested on the fathers as a parent stem of the nation, still rests on
their descendants at large, and will yet recover them from unbelief, and reinstate them in
the family of God.’’ Ina note (6), he adds: ‘‘ God’s covenant with Abraham and his
natural seed, is a perpetual covenant, in equal force under the Gospel as before it. Therefore
it is that the Jews as a nation still survive, in spite of all the laws which, in similar cir-
cumstances, have either extinguished or destroyed the identity of other nations. And
therefore it is that the Jews as a nation will yet be restored to the family of God, through
the subjection of their proud hearts to Him whom they have pierced.” Then take a
Pre-Millenarian : Fausset (Com. Jer. 31 : 31) says of this passage, which so many apply
336 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [Prop. 50.
to a present fulfilment : “ The new covenant is made with literal Israel and Judah, not
with the spiritual Israel, i.e. believers, except secondarily, and as grafted on the stock of
Israel (Rom. 11 : 16-27). For the whole subject of chs. 30 and 31, <s the restoration of the
Hebrews (ch. 30 : 4, 7, 10, 18, and ch. 31 : 7, 1%, 11, 28, 24, 27, 36). With‘ the remnant
according to the election of grace’ in Israel, the new covenant has already taken effect.
But with regard to the whole nation, its realization is reserved for the last days, to which
Paul refers this prophecy in an abridged form (Rom. 11 : 27).”” Comp. e.g. Ezek. 36 : 26,
27, and context.
Prop. 51.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 337

Proposition 51. Zhe relation that the Kingdom sustains to “ the

covenants of promise,” enables us to appreciate the prophecies
pertaining to the Kingdom.
All predictions, all promises, all preparative measures, relating
to the Kingdom, are based on, and result from, these covenants.
The prophecies constantly keep in view what God has covenanted
and confirmed by oath, and enlarge and expand the same by amplifi-
cation, explanation, etc. Therefore, to appreciate the utterances of
the prophets, notice must continually be taken of the foundation
upon which they are erected. ‘To isolate them is to defeat one in-
tent c* prophecy, viz. : to instruct us in the manner by which God
will ultimately fulfil His covenants and establish His Theocratic rule
over the nations.
Cbs. 1. The one covenant singles out Abraham and his seed, and, in the
words of another (Fairba'rn, On Proph., p. 189), ‘* linked indissolubly with
at the better destinies of the world.’’ The other covenant promises the same
Seed, narrowed down in the Davidic line, a specific throne and Kingdom
from which ‘‘ the better destinies of the world ”’ are secured. This con-
nection is observed by the prophets, and is held up so prominently that
many writers (however they explain it) have designated it as ‘‘ the
Abrahnmic type,’’ or ‘‘ the Davidic type.”’ Whatever additions are made
to these two (really one, as the latter is only an ampl:fication of the other
in one of its aspects, or rather, perhaps, an outgrowth preparatory to a
realization of the other) covenants, they spring from them as from a root,
and give ample evidence of the vitality of the covenants sending them
forth, and consequently afford additional assurances of a continued de-
velopme.:t toward completeness.
Hence, in interpreting prophecy, it should be observed how it is founded on, and
united with, the covenants ; and any interpretation, however plausible, which militates
against them, which contradicts or changes their promises, should at once be discarded as
of foreign origin. For it is unreasonable to suppose that God will invalidate the most
solemnly given of all His revelations, or that the Spirit will deliberately contradict Him-
self in His utterances. Therefore, e.g., all applications of prophecy which do not incor-
porate as fundamental the restoration of the Jews, is radically defective, simply because
it makes the fulfilment of the Davidic covenant an utter impossibility. To rid ourselves
of the covenant, and the prophecies relating thereto, by spiritualizing, etc., is unworthy
of faith in God’s promises.

Obs. 2. God zs jealous of His covenanted Word, and after having con-
firmed it by oath, by the sending of His Son, etc., He presents it in a
form, through additional revelation, admirably adapted to test the faith of
His people. Much of it, the most precious portion of it, the distinctive
features of it, still belung to the future and are dependent upon the Sec.
338 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. (Prop. 51.

Advent of Jesus, the Messiah. Hence the predictions of the Old and New
Test., unless viewed in the light of the covenant, cannot be duly appre-
hended. ‘They only form additional links to a previously forged chain,
and the places in which they fit must be found and matched. God having
supplied the material, and given the key for placing them in the covenant,
is pleased with the faith that honors Tis oath-bound Word.
Obs. 3. We see the fatal mistake of those systems of Biblical and
Systematic Theology, which entirely ignore the Davidic covenant. 'The
Abranamic covenant, probably, obtains the merest mention ; the Davidic
is not noticed, although confirmed as strongly as language can make it ;
and both are practically discarded for the most elaborate theories concern-
ing covenants of grace (just as if there were not such)—covenants made
some time in the ages of eternity, etc. The result follows, that these
covenants, being more orless (especially the Davidic) deemed unessential to
the development of doctrine, a one-sided, defective system arises, lacking
unity ; and, in addition, a large portion of Scripture relating to these
covenants, particularly prophecy, is either passed by without incorporation,
or else so spiritualized that it may somehow fit into the hypothesis.
To whom are we indebted for a departure so wide from the Scriptural standard?
Need we wonder, when the Bible testimony is so much ignored, that men to-day are
afraid to adopt its covenanted language ; that the early Patristic Theology is cast aside as
too “‘ carnal ;’”’ and that the doctrine of the Kingdom is covered with a heap of rubbish,
the accumulated work of Alexandrian philosophers, monks, Popish schoolmen, mystics,
etc., who could not make these covenants blend with their systems. Is it not true, that
if a man were to present the Davidic covenant and the Scriptures relating to it, and the
hope to the world contained in it, to almost any congregation throughout the land, he
would be regarded, such is the ignorance on the subject, as foolish in his belief and as
weak in his intellect? What has caused this change, and who are responsible for it?
Let us repeat : it is a fundamental defect in any professed system of Biblical truth, when
it endeavors to give an exhibit of doctrines of God and of Christ without incorporating
as living roots those blessed, precious *‘ covenants of promise.’’ Instead of erecting new
foundations and building on them, we have them qiready laid and built upon in the
Word.

Obs. 4. The Church is ‘‘ built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone’’ (Eph.
2:20). This includes, of course, their teaching and the doctrines per-
taining to Christ. Nothing is fundamental in the Christian system which
cannot be found in their writings, and this embraces a knowledge of the
Old Test. as well as of the New, and particularly the things relating to
Jesus Christ.* Now, the great theme of both the prophets and the apostles,
and which appertains so largely to Jesus, is that of the Messianic Kingdom,
and this is specially contained in the Davidic covenant and the prophecies
resulting from the same found in the Old and New Testaments.

Obs. 5. The rejection of these covenants in their totality, and a re-

sultant spiritualistic conception of the Kingdom, with a consequent

* To indicate that we do notforce a meaning, we leave one of our opponents give us

the intent or spirit of the passage. Thus Barnes, Com. loci, says: * That is, the doc-
trines of Divine revelation, whether communicated by prophets or apostles, were laid at
the foundation of the Christian Church. It was not founded on philosophy, or tradition,
or on human laws, or on a venerable antiquity, but on the great truths which God had
revealed,”
Prop.-51?] TIE TIIEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 339

mystical treatment of the prophcies, lead some of our most eminent

writers to present utterly unwarranted doctrinal constructions.
We append several additional (comp. e.g. Prop. 50, III., Obs. 10, 12, ete.) illustra-
tions. Dr. Meyer (Com. Matt. 3: 2) says: ‘‘ With Christ and the apostles the idea of a
Messianic Kingdom is not national but universal, i.e. so that the participation in it is
not conceived as depending on a connection with Abraham, but on faith in Christ.’’
Here is a mixture of things which, as joined together, are misleading. Why did Christ
and the apostles at first confine themselves to the Jewish nation, if the Kingdom was not
national? (Comp. Props. 54 to 69.) If there is no connection with Abraham, why ac-
counted as his seed, inherit with him, etc.? (Comp. note to Obs. 10, under third di-
vision of Prop. 50.) The Kingdom, the Theocracy, is first national as covenanted, but
this forms the basis, as the prophets predict, from which it will be extended into a univer-
sal dominion, The inheritance of David’s Son forms the groundwork of the universal
Theocratic reign. While it is true that Gentiles, all believers, inherit the Kingdom be-
cause of faith in Jesus Christ, yet it is also true that the promises remain covenunted to
Abraham and his seed, and that it is by this very faith they become (are adopted as) his
seed and thus inheritors. It is a sad mistaking of ‘‘ the hope of our calling’ to deny
“a connection with Abraham.” However done by various theologians, it is, in fact,
allowing one important truth to overshadow and obliterate another of great value.
Again : Neander (Life of Christ, p. 20), in order to get rid of the Davidic covenant, with
the prophecies pertaining thereto, informs us that David being a type of Christ, is a rea-
son why Christ is sprung from the line of David. It is no reason whatever ; the valid
reason lies in the covenanted Theocraiic promise, that a Son of David should, at some future
time, receive David’s throne and Kingdom, etc. But the same author proceeds (His.
Plant. Ch. Church, vol. 1, p. 506, footnote) to tell us: ‘‘ Paul himself, to the common
Jewish idea of a Messiah belonging, as a descendant of David, peculiarly to the Jewish
nation, who would never break through the forms of their Theocracy, in Rom. 1 :3, 4,
describes Jesus as the Son of God, who by natural descent belonged to thep osterity of
David, but evinced Himself to be the Son of God in a powerful manner by His resurrec-
tion through the Holy Spirit ; that is, after His resurrection He divested Himself of all
those peculiar, earthly national relations in which He appeared to stand as a native Jew
of the family of David.’’ One stands amazed at such bold interpretation (comp. e.g.
Props. 81, 82, 84, 200, 203, 204, 122, etce.). What, then, becomes of the promises given to
David, that his Son, “according to the flesh’ (in His humanity, Acts 2 : 30, comp. with
Rom. 1 : 3, etc.), should reign as David’s Son on his throne? Besides, the Kingdom is
never promised to the Son of God, but invariably to the Son of Man (Prop. 81), because it
is not the Divinity but the Humanity that is brought into covenanted relationship with
God. No! the resurrection and the subsequent glorification has not stripped Him of
His Humanity or of His earthly relations. They only qualify Him the better to carry
out the promises relating to that Humanity. He is to-day David’s Son, the covenanted
Seed, who shall fulfil the promises. To-day He glories in the message that He sends us
(Rev. 22 : 16), ‘‘ Jam (continues to be) the root and offspring of David.”’ Paul makes no
such erroneous deductions, as Neander supposes ; far from it, as he unmistakably shows
in the same epistle in the fulfilment of covenanted blessings. Such illustrations could
be multiplied, but these sufficiently serve to show that if men once cast aside the cov-
enants, then, their views of the Kingdom being antagonistic to those covenants, all Script-
ure, and even the person of Jesus, must bend to their preconceived theories.

Obs. 6. By observing this relationship of the covenants and of prophecy to

the Kingdom, those erroneous deductions are at once removed, which
writers of ability have drawn from alleged differences in the teaching of the
apostles. One party, it is asserted, derive their Christianity from a
Jewish covenanted standpoint ; and another, theirs from a form distinctive
from the Old Jewish covenanted relation. This has led to a false distinc-
tion or classification, called the Petrine, Pauline, and Johannine Theol-
ogies. The simple truth is, that they all unite in ¢his renewed covenant
as a central point ; all insist upon our becoming engrafted among the
covenanted people (the children of Abraham) through faith in Christ,
and that all express their faith in, and hope for, a realization of the
340 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 51.

covenanted promises through Jesus at the Sec. Advent. While there is

some diversity in their manner of expressing truth, resulting from tempera-
ment, style, etc., instead of being in conflict with ‘‘ the sure mercies of
David,’’ they are wnanimous in holding up the original “ everlasting
covenant’’ confirmed by the death of Jesus (comp. e.g. Props. 187-191).
Obs. Yt. One reason why somany Messianic predictions in the Old Test.,
especially in the Psalms, are explained away as relating to David, Solomon,
Hezekiah, etc., arises from the fact that the prophecies do not agree with
the writers’ preconceived notions of the covenants and of a spiritual
Kingdom. The covenanted foundation of the predictions is overlooked or
perverted, and, of course, the superstructure is correspondingly untenable.
Thus valuable Scripture is given up to unbelief. Even pious and able
writers, who recognize such passages as Messianic, under the influence of
the idea formed of the covenants and Kingdom, will call the very words
given (as they admit) by God ‘‘ very one-sided ’’ (as e.g. Kurtz, His. Old
Cov., vol. 3, p. 438, on Balaam’s prophecy), because they seem to them
too earthly or too Jewish, forgetting that the Theocracy proclaimed
pertains both to this earth and to the Jewish nation.

Obs. 8. The covenants outline the Plan of the Divine Purpose ; prophecy
partially fills wp and deepens the lines thus drawn. Agreeing with Hengs-
tenberg, Fairbairn, and others, that the prophets are not mere soothsayers
to predict future events, and that their predictions are based on something
higher than mere foretelling, yet we dare not go so far as they do in saying
that ‘‘ a mere knowledge of the future is itself a matter of indifference.”’
The knowledge of the future is an important and essential element to a
correct apprehension of the Plan of Salvation.
The prediction being a foreshadowing of God’s purposes, must necessarily relate to
the future ; and as we value truth, all such information imparted, even theslightest,
possesses great weight. They add to our knowledge of the covenants and Kingdom,
and God Himself regards all such testimony, derived from a foreknowledge of the future,
as evidence of inspiration, credibility, etc. Besides this, as our hopes all lay in the
future, and the covenants upon which these hopes are based give the merest outlines,
we need these extended and enlarged in order the better to appreciate them. A neglect
of prediction, therefore, is a weakening of tendered strength and a diminishing of
offered hopes. The covenants themselves, in their most precious aspects, relate to the
future, and now for any additional information respecting them, we are dependent on
that class of men to whom God by His Spirit vouchsafed a knowledge of the future.
Prophecy thus becomes more than “a prediction of some contingent circumstance or
event in the future, received by immediate and direct revelation ;” for it is a communi-
cation or message from God, a pre historic record of the Divine Purpose, and if properly
linked together forms a continuous chain of evidence, evincing the unity of the Divine
Plan in establishing the Kingdom. To perceive this unity, so confirmatory to faith, a
knowledge of the future is indispensably necessary ; hence it is graciously given, that
we may, beholding the future as present, see the unfolding of covenanted grace, realize
the evidences of a prevaiiing Sovereignty of the Most High, and have excited within us
faith, childlike trust, hope, and love. .

Obs. 9. History does not become, as some make it, a measure of

prophecy concerning the Kingdom; and hence, to make history accord
with a notion entertained respecting the Kingdom, prophecy must be so
spiritualized and explained as to correspond with the standard adopted.
No! History is only a witness to the fact that the history of the Charch
and world, as it progresses, is foreknown to God, and that He orders all
Prop. 51.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 341

things in such a manner that what He purposes to perform shall be

ultimately accomplished. History, instead of being a imeasurer of that
which so largely pertains to the future, only gives us the assurance, from
the testimony of the past and present, that all God’s predictions will be
verified in actual accomplishment.
Thus e.g. it is predicted that at the close of this dispensation the nations of the earth
shall be arrayed against the truth, the church shail be persecuted, etc. ; now those who
live during or at that period will see history (i.e. fulfilment) bearing witness to the truth-
fulness of God ; and more, they, if believing and receptive of the testimony, will know,
in the faith of additional predictions, that this arrogant union of the enemy is doomed
to a terrible overthrow, and that, however victorious for a time, it cannot retard the
Divine Purpose concerning the Kingdom. History may reliantly testify to fulfilment,
but it cannot measure prophecy by the fulfilment, simply because the prophecy includes
the foreknowledge of God, a divinely inspired Plan, covenants as its foundation to
which it stands related, and Christ in His Theocratic ordering as its goal, Besides
this, prophecy contains, indeed, that which becomes historical reality, not because God
predicts and then causes or allows the fulfilment, but because He foreknows what will
arise through the free agency of man and permits it, and yet, in view of such knowledge,
provides means and agencies to counteract the evil and carry out His own purposes.
Thus e.g. He foretells the successive beasts in Daniel, the beasts in Revelation, etc., and
as the time arrives they respectively appear, but affirmative as they are and ever will be
to the truth of prophecy, their naked history by no means exhausts the meaning of the
predictions, which stand related to a progressive and ever-maturing Divine Purpose.
342 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 52.

Proposition 52. The promises pertaining to the Kingdom, as

given in the covenants, will be strictly fulfilled.
This already follows from Props. 4, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 38, 35, 39,
40, 42, 48, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, and 51. A covenant must, in the
nature of the case, be understood by the parties to whom it is
given ; the language employed is that ordinarily used, so that the
ideas intended may be accurately expressed. This has been shown
under Prop. 48. In connection with the same, it is sufficient to
say that a partial literal fulfilment in the coming of the Seed,
should influence us to believe that the remainder will likewise be
thus verified.
Obs. 1. Among the promises that remain unfulfilled, but which we
claim shall be fully realized in their plain grammatical sense, one is selected
that is either generally denied or totally explained away. We refer to the
express, most explicit promise in the Davidic covenant (comp. Prop. 49,
ILL.), that David’s Son (viz. : Jesus Christ, as the Scriptures testify) should
personally occupy and reign on David’s throne and in David’s Kingdon,
i.e. He should appear as the Theocratic King over the restored Theocratic
Kingdom. This possession of the Davidic throne and Kingdom is cor-
roborated by the equally precise phraseology of the prophets and the angel,
as e.g. Isa. 9 : 6-7, Jer. 33 : 14-16, Luke 1 : 30-33. That David himself
expected a literal fulfilment of the promise is evident from his language
which follows the giving of the covenant ; and in this literal anticipation
of the promise he returns thanks to God and praises Him for thus selecting
his house for honor and in thus establishing it for the ages, even forever
(2Sam. 7: 8, etc., 1 Chron. 17 : 16, etc.). It is presumption to suppose
that David returned thanks, and thus prayed under a mistaken idea of the
nature of the covenant. ‘The reasons for a literal fulfilment follow in the
next observation.
Luther on the Second Psalm (quoted by Dr. Seiss, Last Times, p. 254) uses language
indicative of faith in the grammatical sense of the covenant, in a literal personal reign-
ing of Jesus Christ on the throne of David, that we reproduce it. ‘‘ Christ was ap-
pointed King upon the holy Mount Zion. This is particularly to be remarked ; for the
Holy Ghost mentions the corporeal Zion, that we may be assured that this King is divinely
appointed, and is a real Man. . . . The Person and the place are appointed and
made known. The Person is the Son of God, and He is King in Zion ; that is, the Son
of David, and the heir of David ; and He who was promised to David to be the King over
the circumcised people over whom David reigned. We are, therefore, to expect this man
to teach in Zion, and to reveal Himself in Zion, because He is appointed of God to be
King in Zion. . . . The eternal Father Himself crowned Him to be King of Zion,
on Mount Zion, in the City of Jerusalem. . . . He is the Son of God, yet borna
man corporeally, that He might receive the throne of His Father David, and rule in Zion.”
Even extravagance and fanaticism has attempted to cloak its enormities by using the cov-
enanted language. as e.g. John of Leyden (with the Anabaptists at Munster, Michelet’s
Life of Luther, p. 234) was ordained to reign over the whole earth, professing (according
Prop. 52.| THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 343

to a prophet who, 1534 announced it) “‘ to occupy the throne of David’’—the absurdity
of which appears that no throne of David was ever at Munster (hence he spiritualized it
to make it applicable), and the enormity is uggravated by assuming that which only be-
longs to Jesus the Christ.

Obs. 2. If the Davidic throne and Kingdom is to be understood literally,

then all other promises necessarily follow ; and as the reception of this
literal fulfilment forms the main difficulty in the minds of many, a brief,
statement of reasons why it must be received, is in place. 1. It is solemnly
covenanted, confirmed by oath, and hence cannot be altered or broken. 2.
The grammatical sense alone is becoming a covenant. 3. The impression
made on David, if erroneous, is disparaging to his prophetical office. 4.
The conviction of Solomon (2 Chron. 6 : 14-16) was that it referred to the
literal throne and Kingdom. 5. Solomon claims that the covenant was
fulfilled in himself, but only in so far that he too as David’s son sat on
Dayid’s throne. Some from this wrongfully infer that the entire promise
is conditional over against the most express declarations to the contrary as
to the distinguished One, the pre-eminent Seed. It was, indeed, con-
ditional as to the ordinary seed of David (comp. Ps. 89 : 30-34, and see
force of ‘‘nevertheless,’’ etc.), and if his seed would have yielded
obedience, David’s throne whould zever have been vacated until the Seed,
par excellence, came ; but being disobedient, the throne was overtbrown,
and will remain thus ‘‘a@ tabernacle fallen down,’ “‘a house desolate,”’
until rebuilt and restored by the Sced. The reader will not fail to observe
that if fulfilled in Solomon, and not having respect unto the Seed, how
incongruous and irrelevant would be the prophecies given afterward, as
e.g. Jer. 33: 17-26, etc. 6. The language is that ordinarily used to
denote the literal throne and Kingdom of David, as illustrated in Jer.
17:25 and 22:4. 7% The prophets adopt the same language, and its
constant reiteration under Divine guidance is evidence that the plain gram-
matical sense is the one intended. 8. The prevailing belief of centuries, a
national faith, engendered by the language, under the teaching of inspired
men, indicates how the language is to be understood. 9. This throne and
Kingdom is one of promise and inheritance (Prop. 122), and hence refers
not to the Divinity but to the Humanity of Jesus (comp. Props. 82-85).
10. The same is distinctively promised to David’s Son ‘‘ according to the
flesh’ to be actually realized, and, therefore, He must appear the
Theocratic King as promised. 11. We have not the slightest hint given
that it is to be interpreted in any other way than a literal one ; any other
is the result of pure inference (as will be shown). 12. Any other view
than that of a literal interpretation involves the grossest self-contradiction
(as seen in Obs. 3). 13. The denial of a literal reception of the covenant
v0bs the heir of His covenanted inheritance (comp. e.g. Prop. 122). 14.
No grammatical rule can be laid down which will make David’s throne to
be the Father’s throne in the third heaven. 15. That if the latter is
attempted under the notion of ‘‘ symbolical’’ or ‘‘ typical,’’? then the
credibility and meaning of the covenants are left to the interpretations of
men, and David himself becomes ‘‘ the symbol’’ or ‘‘ type’’ (creature as he
is) of the Creator. 16. That if David’s throne is the Father’s throne in
heaven (the usual interpretation), ‘hen it must have existed forever. 17.
If such covenanted promises are to be received figuratively, it 1s mcon-
ceivable that they should be given in their present form without some
344 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 52.

direct affirmation, in some place, of their figurative nature, God foreseeing

(if not literal) that for centuries they would be pre-eminently calculated to
excite and foster false expectations, e.g. even from David to Christ, 1S.
God is faithful in His promises, and deceives no one in the language of His
covenants. 19. No necessity existed why, if this throne promised to David’s
Son meant something else, the throne should be so definitely promised in
the form given. 20. The ¢dentical throne and Kingdom overthrown are
the ones restored. 21. But the main, direct reasons for receiving the literal
covenanted language will be given under Props. 81, 122, 111, 112, 114,
117, 201, 203, 204, etc. These, in connection with the covenants them-
selves, make David’s throne and Kingdom a requisite for the display of
that Theocratic ordering which God has already instituted (but now holds
in abeyance until the preparations are completed) for the restoration and
exaltation of the Jewish nation (which is preserved for this purpose), for
the salvation of the human race (which comes under the Theocratic
blessing), and for the dominion of a renewed, curse-delivered world (the
Theocratic arrangement making this possible and a realization). Sucha
throne and Kingdom are necessary to preserve the Divine Unity of Purpose
in the already proposed Theocratic line. ‘Thus early in our argument
reference is made to this point, not so much to prove it as to direct the
reader’s attention to it, because it is a goal to which the path of Scripture
directly leads us, as it led the Primitive Church.

Obs. 3. The reasons urged for a non-literal fulfilment must also be fairly
presented, so that the reader may compare them with those given on the
other side. Storr (Diss. on the Meaning of the Kingdom of Heaven) in-
forms us that Christ’s sitting on David’s throne, etc., was verified by His
descent from David, by His being born in David’s land, by His claiming
to be King of the Jews, and by His exhibiting, after His exaltation, the
first fruits of His reign ‘‘ within the ancient empire of David.’’ But still
feeling a deficiency—for none of these things meet the covenanted conditions—
he goes on to say : ‘‘ The throne of Christ cannot be called the throne of
David except figuratively, inasmuch as that divine government over the
Israelites which was transferred to David and his posterity as to
the Sons of God, the King of the Israelites, was a shadow and image of
the divine government over the universe, conferred upon that man who
sprang from the stock of David, and who was much more truly the Son
of God. Which being established, it follows that Christ sits not on the
throne of David itself, but on the antetype.’’ And this showing that He
‘* sits not on the throne of David,’’ he calls ‘‘ a real succession to David’s
place.’? This is grounded on the assumption that some fulfilment of the
covenanted promise is required, and this was the best that offered, viz. : to
show that Jesus is not on David’s throne, and that it is not really de-
manded, refuge being sought under another sense, i.e. a typical. But this
is abundantly refuted, (a) by covenant promises containing, in the nature
of the case, no typical promises (Prop. 48) ; (0) by the personal antetypical
language of the covenant itself, promising a lineal descendant of David’s
to sit on Ais throne and establish his Kingdom forever (Prop. 49) ; (c) by
the direct connection it sustains to the Jewish nation (Props. 47, 111-114,
etc.) ; (d) by the time, as predicted, when it shall be realized (Props. 66,
68, 120, 121, etc.) ; (e) by overlooking the postponement of the covenanted
Kingdom (Props. 54-76); (f) by misapprehending the nature of the
Prop. 52.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 345

Davidic Kingdom as a real Theocratic Kingdom (Prop. 31); (g) by

forgetting that it is ‘‘ the fallen down”’ throne and Kingdom (which shows
that it is no type) that is to be restored (Prop. 32) ; (4) by mistaking the
Divine Sovereignty for the covenanted Kingdom (Props. 79, 80); (7) by
agnoring Christ’s inheritance (Prop. 122), and the distinctive features
allied with its restoration, as e.g. place of manifested royalty (Prop. 168),
a visibly manifested Theocracy (Prop. 117), pre-millennial Advent (Prop.
121), the visible reign of Jesus (Props. 131, 132, 133), etc. The fact is,
that the language of the covenant does not fulfil the conditions of typical
language, for the throne and Kingdom of David were already incorporated
(Props. 28, 49) as the real, undoubted Kingdom of God—a Theocracy. There
is no Scriptural authority for constituting it a type ; it is mere human in-
Jerence, because its language cannot otherwise be made to fit into a system
or theory. It is wnreasonable to make it a type, because it makes a throne
cast down the type of an eternal one in heaven, and David a type of the
Father, which is an unfit application, there being no proper analogy
between them. Sucha view entirely overlooks the important and essen-
tial fact, that this throne and Kingdom was covenanted, not to the Son of
God (for it, in virtue of His Theocratic relationship, already belongs to
Him as God, and no covenant is necessary), but to the Son of Man (comp.
Props. 81, 82, 83). It is sadly defective in making the promises of such a
nature, that pious Israelites, John the Baptist, and the disciples, were
deceived by them, resting their faith and hope not in a reality, but in mis-
conceived figures of speech, thus placing the Church before and at the
First Advent in an exceeding low state of intelligence.
Horne’s (Introd. vol. 1, p. 386) declaration concerning types is commended to the
consideration of those who adopt this typical view : “ But if we assert, that a person or
thing was designed to prefigure another person or thing when no such prefiguration has
been, declared by divine authority, we make an assertion for which we neither have, nor
can have, the slightest foundation.’’ Tothis it is alleged that Christ is called David, and
hence David must be a type (others claim that it is mystical to make David mean
Christ) ;but this does not follow, it being a common figure of speech indicative of
Christ’s occupying the station, etc., of David, being his legal royal descendani, as is seen
in the line of emperors, occupying the throne of Cesar, calling themselves Cesars. The
name itself is evidence of the restoration of the Davidic throne and kingdom, being appro-
priately, significantly, and forcibly applied to the Messiah. (Killen, in The Uld Cath.
Church, quotes from Bin. Council, 3, P. 1, 184, how even the ‘‘ most religious” emperor,
Constantine Pogonatus, was complimented as ‘‘ a new David’? whom ‘‘ God raised up,”
etc. What men employ by way of flattery, God uses to designate the certain restored
Davidic royalty.)
In view of the importance of this promise, and the persistent attacks against its lit-
eral fulfilment, we present additional remarks urged by others in opposition to our be-
lief. Thus e.g. the strictures contained in The Kingdom of Grace embrace the following :
(1.) That Christ ‘“‘ was King of the Jews, and, of course, the rightful heir of David’s throne,
but never once did He set up any claim to the literal and material throne on which
David sat.’’ From this we are to infer that Jesus waived His right, and does yet. It is
taken for granted, that since there has been no such a literal fulfilment, there never will be
one, and that, therefore, the whole matter must be understood spiritually. That is, we
are to do just as the unbelieving Jews did : because such a Kingdom has not appeared,
we are to deny that He, ‘‘ the rightful Heir,” will ever establish it. Would it not be more
prudent and wise to ponder over the reasons assigned for its postponement, Props. 66-68 ?
(2) That David’s throne was ‘‘ in dust,” and to raise it up would be “ absurd.’”’ The ab-
surdity is not in the promise of restoring a fallen throne, but in the supposition that the
throne of a Kingdom is necessarily confined to a certain chair or seat. (3) Referring to
Winthrop’s Lectures, where itis stated (as all Millenarians hold), that risen, changed,
glorified saints are rulers and princes in this Kingdom (comp. Prop. 154), and that it is
of heavenly (being Theocratic) origin, established under heavenly power, it is replied,
 346 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 52.

that this involves a contradiction, because David’s throne was not of heavenly origin, and
risen saints were not its princes. This objection (more fully answered in succeeding
Propositions) is set aside by the simple fact that the Theocratic-Davidic rule was of
heavenly origin (Props, 28, 31), for God chose David, adopted his throne and Kingdom,
calling it ‘‘ His throne,’ and gives it as an inheritance to the Seed selected by Himself,
to which Seed He unites Himself«in the strictest Theocratic relationship ; and the re-estab-
lishment at the Sec. Advent is not by earthly but heavenly power, being done by Christ
and His saints. The predictions of David, in the very nature of the case, imply an im-
mortal Ruler. Change in the officials and government of a Kingdom does not destroy
its identity, provided the regular succession (a descendant of David’s), the nationality
(restored Jewish nation), and locality (Palestine) are preserved. (4) Jesus refused to be
made King of the Jews ; now if the rightful heir and the covenant required it, He would
have acceded to the wishes of the Jews. This objection overlooks the reasons assigned
under Props. 57, 58, 65, 66, 67, and 68, that the nation, in its representative men, re-
jected Him and that the Kingdom was postponed. But asmall and feeble proportion of
the natien desired to make Him King ; the leading, ruling class were persistent in refus-
ing Him as the Messiah. (5) At His death Christ said ‘‘It is finished,’’ and as many
centuries have passed since that declaration and David’s throne has remained vacant, it
is evident that it will never be claimed in a literal sense. Here certainly is faith! If
such argumentation (does it deserve to be called such ?) can be admitted, then, as infidels
do, we may deny all that is future, under the plea that ‘‘itis finished.’’ The writer
overlooks the plainly stated fact, that ‘‘ the times of the Gentiles’ (Prop. 66, etc.) must in-
tervene before the claim is again made and realized.
Fairbairn (On Prophecy) reiterates some of the previous statements, insists upon the
covenant being “‘ figurative and symbolical,’’ saying : ‘‘ that He was destined to occupy
the throne and Kingdom of David, meant simply, that He was, like David, to hold the
place of King over God’s heritage, and to do to the full what David could do only’in the
most partial and imperfect manner—bring deliverance, safety, and blessing to the people
of God.”’ If this was all that is meant, why conceal it then under a form of expression
which deceived the Jewish nation and the Primitive Church? Why identify it with a re-
stored failen throne and a restored punished Jewish nation? Why so concisely link to-
gether David’s throne, Kingdom, p2ople, land, and explain that it is only to be realized
when the same shall be restored from a downfallen, ruined, and desolate condition con-
tinued on through the allotted ‘‘ times of the Gentiles?” The idea of Fairbairn’s is far
from exhausting its meaning, and the identification of the promise with other things (as
e.g. the rebuilding of ruined, desolate cities, etc.) forbids such a transformation. The
reasons that urge Fairbairn to the conclusion presented, are mainly two : first, that no
other fulfilment than this can be found to have taken place, and, therefore, this one must
be accepted to meet the necessities of the case ; and secondly, that for Christ to descend
from heaven and occupy David’s throne as literally predicted would be a lowering or de-
grading of His dignity, position, etc. As to the first supposition : it is sufficient now to
say that the non-fulfilment of the literal sense does not prove it to be false. Wisdom sug-
gests that we first ascertain, before condemning it, whether it is not part of the Divine
Purpose to posipone its fulfilment, just as He has postponed the restoration of the Jews.
It took a long time before the Seed promised came and before His coming the non-fulfil-
ment of what afterward literally occurred, was no reason to spiritualize the promise
away ; and so again, it may require a long period before the remainder is fulfilled. The
truth is, that in considering this subject the Scriptures which teach the delay, the post-
ponement, are not allowed to testify. (Comp. e.g. Props. 54-68). These essential wit-
nesses, showing that delay, or postponement, is reconcilable with God’s promises, are
not admitted, and, of course, the view entertained must be one-sided. As to the second
supposition: We are willing to accept covenanted promises and predictions as written,
without setting ourselves up as a judge to decide whether they agree with our sense of
proprieties, or our notion of the fitness of things. (Comp. Prop. 203, where this objec-
tion is considered.) The Jews did this at the First Advent, and they made a fearful mis-
take. Those who, honestly but mistakenly, speak so degradingly of this throne and
Kingdom forget that it is a Theocratic throne and Kingdom (Prop. 31), and they might
just as well write of God lowering His majesty, etc., when He condescended to act in the
capacity of earthly Ruler over the Jewish nation. Even if we had no Scripture to show
that such a reign was an exalting of the Humanity of Jesus, that it stood intimatély re-
lated to the perfection of His work as Redeemer, that the Redemption of the saints, the
Jewish nation, the Gentiles, the race as a race, and the groaning, sin-cursed world, is
embraced in it (comp. e.g. Props. 196, 197, 200, 202, etc.)—even if these glorious and
ennobling things were not recorded, we would not permit our faith in such promises to
Prop. 52.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 347
waver, but with these added it would be folly for us to deny them. The misapprehen-
sion here probably arises from thinking that Jesus must lower Himself to be ‘‘ a King
on the earthly model of David.’’ He was a Son of David’s, but yet far more than a Son,
even David's Lord (being God-man—i.e. having in His own Person the real Theocratic
Rulership united), and hence the promises (while including as a central point the re-
stored Davidic throne and Kingdom) in view of His immortality, His attendant Rulers,
the greatness and power of His administration, the extension into universal dominion,
the splendor and majesty of His person and surroundings, the Supernatural exerted and
manifested, the wonderful works performed, have the same Theocratic-Davidic throne
immeasurably augmented and glorified—to subserve certain purposes—when once occupied
by this august Theocratic Personage. Prophecy unites in asserting the greatness of this
reign in exulting strains. It is not in our place to say that these things cannot take place
without Christ’s descending to the level of an earthly monarch, or without a diminution
of His majesty, lest, peradventure, we be found underrating, disparaging, despising, and
even sneering at His glory. God’s work is ‘‘ a strange work.”’
Then there are others (as e.g. Westminster Review, Oct. 1861, Art. 5) who acknowledge
that such a restored Davidic throne and Kingdom is promised, was entertained by the
Jews, etc., but utterly reject it on the ground of its being Jewish imagination, partialism,
and national pride. The prophetic descriptions are indeed sometimes grand, but
merely poetic ; sometimes sublime, but altogether human. (Every writer of this kind is
very careful not to inform us how ‘‘Jewish partialism and pride’ could conjoin with this
so much that is humiliating and degrading to the nation—as e.g. the long fall of the
nation, remaining under Gentile domination, ete.—preliminary to the Kingdom.) We
give one extract, taken from the review mentioned, as illustrative of the spirit of those who
speak of this matter as “‘ a Messianic fiction,” or as ‘‘ a Christianized Messianic expecta-
tion.” Thus, the writer declares the Apocalypse “proclaims to all ages the intense
reality, the frenzied fanaticism, the splendid superstition, and Berserker transport, of
one great dreamer of this glorious vision, the St. John of Patmos, the author of the
Christian Apocalypse.” From persons who treat the reign of Christ and of His saints in
this condemnatory strain, no favor need to be anticipated in behalf of covenanted prom-
ise. To them it is simply an idle dream or Jewish enthusiasm.
Eminent men (as e.g. Lange, Bremen Lectures, Lect. 8, p. 242) make the Theocracy a
figure or type of a concealed, invisible Kingdom in the church. But the reader can
readily see that this is disproven by the predictions that the same kingdom overthrown shall
be re-established ; by its covenanted relutionship which forbids any such transmutation ;
and even by the fact that no correct antetype exists if such an invisible Messianic King-
dom is admitted, for the one was a real outward Theocratic Kingdom, and this one is in-
visible and hence unrecognizable ; the one had God an accessible Ruler to consult in
cases of difficulty, this one has a God not thus accessible, etc. But we need not repeat
what has been said previously.

Obs. 4. No sophistry in spiritualizing, symbolizing, or typicalizing can

transmute the promise of the Davidic throne and Kingdom into something
else, as e.g. into the Father’s throne, the Divine Sovereignty, the Kingdom
of Grace, Gospel Dispensation, etc., for the simple reason that the tdentical
throne and Kingdom, now overturned, 1s the one that is promised to the
Messiah to be re-established by Himself, as e.g. Amos 9:11, Acts 15: 16,
Zech. 2:12, Zech. 1 : 16,17, etc. (with which compare Props. 33, 122,
etc.). The Theocratic crown cast down, the Theocratic throne overturned,
the Theocratic Kingdom overthrown, is the crown, throne, and Kingdom
that the Christ 7s to restore. ‘These belong to Christ by ‘* right’ (Hzek.
31 : 25-27), and will be ‘‘ given to Him’’ (Prop. 83). These, too, are
linked with a restoration of the Jewish nation, Jer. 33 : 14, Micah 4 : 6, 8,
etc. (Props. 111-114). These facts—the existence of the throne at one
time, its non-existence for a period, its restoration again, its connection at
the restoration with the ancient people and land that formed the original
Kingdom—these facts, as well as many others that will be brought forward,
indicate, as fully as language can possibly express it, that the ancient faith
in coyenanted language must not be discarded through Gentile ‘“high-
348 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRoP. 52.

mindedness.”’? The entire tenor and analogy of prediction wnmistakably

proves this; and, therefore, without an express declaration to the con-
trary, we ought not, dare not, change the sense that is given. Let men
ridicule and sneer at our infirmity; it is the sense contained in the
language, and we can wait for God’s own time of vindication and verifica-
tion.
Obs, 5. The Divine nature of the Davidic Kingdom is admitted by
Storr, Fairbairn, and others. So that our opponents confess, what has
already been proven (Props. 28, 31, etc.), that David sat upon “‘ the throne
of the Kingdom of Jehovah.’’ It was truly a Theocratic Kingdom ; and
this Theocratic basis is the reason why God takes such an interest in its
re-establishment. It is Christ’s ‘‘ inheritance,’’ because it is Theocratic ;
and it is this Divine aspect which makes it, as represented, worthy of the
Son of Man.
Obs. 6. Adhering to the Primitive faith we can consistently explain,
what Reuss (His. Ch. Apos. Age, p. 32) finds, from his standpoint, a
difficult matter, viz. : ‘‘ that the predictions and hopes of the prophets
are invariably associated with the earthly and political existence of the
nation, and thas they never, in their most ideal representation of the
future, break through the circle of conditions belonging to that existence.’’
These are honest, frank words, and we firmly hold tothem, asking, Why seek
to break through that circle of conditions now? Do they not still exist in
the Theocratic ordering? Does the calling of the Gentiles alter or in-
validate them? We shall presently see, in the preaching of the Kingdom,
etc., that the covenanted relationship of the Jewish nation inperatively
demands it.

Obs. 7. This feature again reminds us that ‘‘ the keystone of the whole
system’’ (i.e. Millenarian) is not to be found, as Prof. Sanborn (Essay on
Mill.), in the pre-Millennial Advent (however indispensable), but 7m the
covenants. The promises are not in the Sec. Advent, but in the covenants
and prophecies based on them ; the Advent being only the necessary means
toward their accomplishment.

Obs. 8. Many persons, aside from infidels who ridicule this Davidic
throne and Kingdom, and the precious promises linked with them,
through mistaken zeal, or a conscientious desire to vindicate the Word
spiritualized, or mere passion engendered by controversy, employ the most
slighting language respecting this throne and Kingdom. They insist that
it ‘‘ must be’’ spiritually comprehended, or else it is utterly unworthy of
belief, being ‘‘ carnal,’’ ‘‘ fleshly,’’ etc. They gravely tell us—overlooking
its Theocratic basis founded by God Himself—that it is cmpossidble that
such a Kingdom should be manifested, because of Christ’s relationship to
the Almighty.
If it “ must be,” why does not the grammatical sense sustain them, and why are they
left to infer it? Why do they practically ignore the Humanity of Jesus and lay all stress:
upon the Divinity, not noticing that this Kingdom is given to David’s Son, the Son of
Man by covenant, and that the Divine is superadded to the Human, thus rendering His
reign more exalted, glorious, and necessarily Theocratic? Why do they not observe,
what all the prophets declare, that the Davidic is used as the leverage or foundation of
Christ’s world-wide dominion? Why not see that this Kingdom is one exclusively of prom-
Prop. 52.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 349

ise, and is given to the Man Jesus, and has no reference, as covenanted, whatever to the
Divine Sovereignty lodged in the Godhead? Why not notice that this Kingdom is Divine
as well as Civil—a perfect, complete Theocracy? If these, and kindred points, were ob-
served, it seems to us ‘‘ impossible” for a studer+ of the Word, who reverently ap-
proaches it and earnestly desires its teachings, to speak and write so disrespectfully of the
restoration of the Davidic throne and Kingdom, or to denounce as “ impossible” the
Theocratic arrangement that God has mercifully acknowledged. Even if influenced to
dissent, the same ought to be expressed in guarded language, not denunciatory of that
which Holy Writ contains in its grammatical sense. Prudence, to say nothing of higher
motives, dictates this course.

Obs. 9. The extremely guarded language of Scripture on this point, so

as not to conflict with the covenanted promise, should Jead the student to
reflection. Thus e.g. in Rev. 3:21 two thrones are mentioned, the
Father’s throne and Christ’s throne, and these are distinguished the one
from the other (Prop, 117). In Christ’s typical triumphal entry into
Jerusalem, when the people exclaimed (Mark 11:10), ‘‘ Blessed be the
Kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord ;
Hosanna in the highest,’? Jesus, instead of rebuking the identification of
His Kingdom with the restored Davidic, virtually allows it by defending
the disciples against (Luke 19 : 39, Matt. 21 : 15, 16) the displeasure of
the Pharisees. In John 18 : 33, Jesus, in virtue of His Theocratic posi-
tion, does not deny the affirmative of Pilate’s question, ‘‘ Art Thou King
of the Jews?’’ although the circumstances might involve the charge of
treason against the Roman power. In Matt. 19 : 28 the time of setting
up the Kingdom is specified, etc. And thus through all the Scriptures, as
will be shown hereafter, there is a carefully drawn distinction between
what belongs to Jesus Christ because of His relationship as God, and what
pertains 19 Him by promise, by right, by inheritance, by the redemptive
work that He is accomplishing because of His Messiahship as David's Son,
the promised Theocratic King.
Obs. 10. Having all along the literal, plain grammatical sense in our favor
—a sense that excited faith and hope in multitudes of Jewish and Christian
hearts—the reader ought reasonably to expect that we should constantly lay
stress upon this admitted fact. There is no difference of opinion as to
what meaning the words in their common usage convey ; this is conceded,
but the question is sprung, whether this sense 1s to be .eceived or another
is to be entailed. Considering the matter settled against a literal sense
from its non-fulfilment, 7s wnworthy of a believer, for God’s sayings (as
even unbelieving Jews have asserted, e.g. in professing to receive the Old
Test. on the ground of its being God’s Word) are to be received simply on the
ground of their having been given by the Almighty. This matter of inter-
pretation must be decided from a higher position, viz. : by direct reference
to the Word itself (Props. 4 and 9), and just so soon as God declares that
the grammatical sense is the one vot intended, then, and only then, other
engrafted senses may be tolerated.

Obs, 11. Regarding the intensely warning predictions that at the very
time this Kingdom is to be re-established at the Sec. Advent (Props. 65,
74, 121, etc.), the nations of the earth shall have so little faith (Props.
177-180, etc.) that they shall stand arrayed against the King-—disbelieving
the promises pertaining to Him—it is prudent and wise to avoid that
350 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 52.

prevalent spirit of unbelief taking this predicted direction in avoiding the

literal and substituting another sense. We feel disinclined to foster such
an antagonistic spirit, lest we too should receive the censure (Luke
24: 25), ‘* O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have
spoken ;’? and lest we become of those who, by insidious interpretation,
pave the way for an utter denial of Christ’s claims as David’s Son and
Theocratic Heir. Let the motive of denial be prompted by the best inten-
tions, its fruit, if in opposition to the Divine Will, will result in evil.
It is sad to see the frailty and perversity of human wisdom in the things of God. The
Jews believed in this restored Davidic throne and Kingdom, but overlooked the foretold
sufferings, death, etc. of the Messiah; the Gentiles acknowledge the sufferings and
death, but ignore the Davidic throne and Kingdom, the promises literally understood.
The Theocratic-Davidic inheritance of Jesus is but rarely mentioned ; it is scarcely ever
heard in preaching or praying ; it is deemed of so little importance that Christian teach-
ing hardly refers to it ; and when reference to it is made, it sounds a note of discord in
prevailing systems of theology. Let us ponder: ought promises so solemnly given, so
constantly presented, so literally reiterated, so preciously confirmed, to be passed by in
neglect, and even in silence? Ought they to become the objects of ridicule and reproach?
No! to ignore them, or to mock them, is indicative of serious doctrinal defect.

Obs. 12. The assumption that David’s throne and Kingdom must
denote some other throne and Kingdom in the third heaven never meets
the contradictions that it involves, viz. : that David’s throne, ete. was
never in heaven, never extended over another world, and is not fitted from
its alleged ‘‘ fleeting earthly’’ condition to designate an eternally existing
throne, and that if logically carried out (from which, however, our op-
ponents recoil), then David’s throne being “‘ the Father’s throne,’’ where
Christ is, David himself (for the throne is expressly identified with him)
must also represent the Father! Who would be so rash as to adopt such
an interpretation ? and yet simple consistency demands it.
If the throne and Kingdom is typical, why not David also, with whom the same is
constantly cojoined ? But more than this: if only an enthronement in heaven is meant,
why not say so at once, without leading multitudes into self-deception? Can any reason
be assigned why such a matter, if contemplated, should be disguised under language em-
inently calculated to mislead? Would such a procedure be consistent with the profes-
sions and honor of the God of mercy and love? Why, if only this enthronement is de-
noted, express it in words, which fairly includes the idea of a perpetuation of the throne
and Kingdom of David here on the earth? That this idea is contained in it no one
denies, and so prominently too that David and his descendants, the Jews down to the
First Advent, the disciples of Christ, the apostles (as e.g. admitted by Knapp, Fairbairn,
etc., “up to the very eve, Acts 1 : 6, of Christ’s departure’’), and the early church, all
entertained it. This assumption passes over this general, universal belief as if it were
of no moment, and carefully avoids, as a tender point, all allusion to it; but we insist
that it must be honestly met and candidly explained. This, we apprehend, will be a
difficult task, seeing that the true church, the pious of centuries, and even the inspired
of God, and men sent out to preach, are included in such a faith; and if held to be in
error, then He who sent those messages must, in a great measure (owing to the gram-
matical sense containing it), become responsible for the introduction and perpetuation
(for where is the reproof or denial?) of such alleged error. There is no escape from
this dilemma ; and alas, this is seen and felt by the infidel schools now in existence, who,
fortified by the prevailing authority of believers, reject everything ‘‘ Jewish” as untena-
ble, pointing with delight to the doctrinal attitude (now so antagonistic to the church’s
present position) of the Primitive Church on the subject of the Kingdom (trusting in the ©
literal sense of the promises), as an indication of gross error. Thus professed believers
of the Word from assumptions plunge into strange inconsistencies, charging the entire
ancient church with erroneous doctrine in fundamental things, and furnish the weapons,
manufactured to hand, for Strauss, Baur, Renan, Parker, and others. The expectations
and hopes of the ancient worthies are given up to derision and scorn, and the result is
Prop. 52.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 351
that it recoils back upon the Bible itself, which in its language expresses and favors the
same. The apologies tendered, which invariably reflect upon and lower the intelli-
gence, etc., of the faithful, only make the inconsistency and antagonism more glaring.
It is high time for reverent, intelligent piety to see this abuse of the Word, and aid in
restoring its proper and faith-inspiring use.

Obs. 13. In the objections made to the Apocalypse by Schott and others,
one 1s based on the fact that the royal dignity and honor is assigned to
Christ as the Son of David. In addition to the arguments produced by
Prof. Stuart (Com.) and others against the validity of such an objection,
the strongest of all is found in this: that the covenant relationship of
Jesus requires, as confirmatory and essential, just such references (Rev.
3:7, and 5:5, and 22:16), because as the predicted Seed of David He
inherits David’s throne and Kingdom, and hence his personality, as
covenanted, must be distinctively observed. It is, therefore, both reason-
able and requisite to find them in such a book,
The outgrowths of spiritualizing these promises run into the most painful evidences
of complete ignorance of covenanted promises. The most extravagant and foolish vagary
is foundin Davis (Seven Thunders, p. 151 and 153), who makes Christ, at His Second
appearing, ‘‘an American.” This is equalled by several writers, who, also ignoring
Christ’s Davidic relationship and inheritance, make the Fifth Monarchy or Kingdom of
Daniel the United States, (as e.g. Berg, etc). Such outrageous interpretation, violating
the covenants and the general analogy of the Word, are not worthy of a serious re-
joinder.

Obs. 14. The fulfilment of the covenant promises implies, in view of

this restored Davidic throne and Kingdom, that the Messianic Kingdom is
a visible, external Kingdom, not merely spiritual, although embracing
spiritual and divine things. Its visibility, and a corresponding acknowl-
edgment of the same, is a feature inseparable from the language of
promise (comp. Props. 117, 112, 122, etc.).

Obs. 15. The covenanted Davidic throne and Kingdom, allied as it is

with the Jewish nation (particularly with Judah and Benjamin), necessarily
requires, in order to a future restoration, a preservation of the nation.
This has been done ; and to-day we see that nation wonderfully continued
down to the present, although enemies, including the strongest nations
and most powerful empires, have perished. ‘This is not chance work;
for, if our position is correct, this is demanded, seeing that without a
restoration of the nation it is impossible to restore the Davidic Kingdom.
The covenant language, the oath of God, the confirmation of promise by
the blood of Jesus, the prophetic utterances—all, notwithstanding the
nation’s unbelief, requires ifs perpetuation, that through it finally God’s
promises and faithfulness may be vindicated. God so provides that His
Word may be fulfilled. Every Jew, if we will but ponder the matter, that
we meet on our streets is a living evidence that the Messiah will yet some
day reign gloriously on David’s throne and over his Kingdom, from which
to extend a world-wide dominion.
 352 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 53.

Proposition 58. The genealogies of our Lord form an im-

portant link in the comprehension of this Kingdom.
_ This is seen already from what preceded. A throne and a king-
dom is to be given to a promised son of David, a regular descendant
of Abraham’s. It is his by right of inheritance. He is the royal
Theocratic heir. Hence without such a genealogy something essen-
tial would be lacking in the chain of evidence.
Obs. 1. This link is purposely supplied, and with special reference to
these covenants. ‘This is observable in Matthew commencing his table by
asserting that Jesus was ‘‘ the Son of David, the Son of Abraham,’’ i.e.
both covenants, the Abrahamic and Davidic, were thus realized in the
person of Jesus Christ. Also in designating ‘‘ David the King,”’ and
omitting it in the descendants ; the same expression is significant only
when the royal covenant which made David’s throne and Kingdom sure is
taken into consideration (comp. Judge Jones’s ‘* Notes’? on Matt., ch. 1,
for some excellent suggestions). The Kingdom is covenanted to a legal
descendant, and this legal descent is clearly traced, showing the legal,
divine right of Jesus to the Theocratic throne and Kingdom.
Ebrard (Gospel His., Div. 2, ch. 1) says of Matthew's genealogy: ‘‘ In v. 16 it is de-
scribed as that of Joseph. From this circumstance, as well as from the fact that it com-
mences with Abraham ; from the stress laid upon King David ; from the frequent ref-
erence made to persons or events of theocratic importance ; and lastly, from the division
in ‘three periods, the central one being that of the theocratic line of kings—we may clearly
discern the intention of the author : not to give the natural pedigree of Jesus, but to prove
that He had a right to claim the theocratic crown—an intention in perfect harmony with the
general character of the Gospel. We have here also the true key to all the supposed difficul-
ties.”’ (It will repay the student to see how Ebrard applies this ‘“‘ key” in the solving
of difficulties. He makes the genealogy of Luke to be that of Mary, giving the natural
progenitors.) Lord Hervey (The Genealogies of our Lord) and Mill (The Mythical Interp.
of the Gospels, ch. 2) hold that both genealogies are those of Joseph ; the one (Matthew’s)
exhibiting the legal descent of the Christ from David ; the other (Luke’s), His natural de-
scent through Nathan. Ernest von Bunsen (The Angel Messiah) takes the ground ‘‘ that
Jesus was not really a Jew by extraction. The descent of David from Caleb, the Kene-
zite, and thus from non-Hebrews, points to a connection with ‘ the strangers in Israel,’
and this is confirmed by four female ancestors being non-Hebrews” (so also M. D. Con-
way in Cin. Commercial, May 31st, 1879). But suppose all this were admitted, it does not
effect His descent whatever, provided there is a continuous intermingling of Jewish
blood. Besides, these objections overlook the fact that such engrafted ones were by the
Hebrew laws fully incorporated, and recognized as legal members of the nation.

Obs. 2. If the Saviour was merely to descend from David, to take’

human nature in that line for the purpose of redemptive work at the First
Advent, and then that was to be the finale of the matter, why lay so much
stress on descent from the royal line? Does the mere notion of identifica-
tion meet the point why one table should be exclusively given to designate
Prop. 53.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 353

His legal right to the throne? This certainly must have some very
significant meaning, for God does not put His descent in such a form
without some weighty reason underlying’it. If we accept of the covenant
just as it reads, without alteration or substitution of sense, then a forcible
reason appears for being so minute. On the other hand, if David’s throne
is God’s throne in heaven, no satisfactory reason can be assigned for so
strange a peculiarity. What difference, on the latter supposition, was it
then, whether Jesus was, or was not, the legitimate Heir to David’s throne,
if He was never to occupy it? Why-should special stress be laid on
that which, if we are to credit the multitude, God never intended to
fulfil? We, therefore, hold that there is a solid, sublime reason why those
tables, so uninteresting to many, are given, viz. : not merely to identify
Jesus as the Saviour, but to identify Him as the One, the Messiah, who
has the lawful right to David’s Theocratic throne. The throne is not
typical, not representative, not symbolical, but actually and really cov-
enanted to this Heir, and hence the tables truthfully and actually show how
by course of descent He is the rightful Heir (comp. Prop. 122).
Clelland (Bib. Sacra, Ap. 1861) denies that the promise to David concerning his seed
(2 Sam. 7:12 ; Acts 2:30 and 13 : 23 ; Rom. 1:3) demands for our Lord a natural
descent from David through His mother Mary. His reasoning, highly speculative, is satis-
fied with a simple humanity, supernaturally attained, and the relationship to David
established through Joseph as a legal son. ‘Thus, being the seed of David according to
the flesh, means only, according to this writer and others, to be legally regarded as
David’s Son, but not virtually or naturally. This is an error specifically contradicted by
the Scriptures, which expressly declare that this seed shall spring out of his loins, ete.
Our position is sustained by the Word, which requires a natural and legal descendant ac-
cording to the covenant and promises. Men may think, honestly, to exalt Jesus by such
theories, but they virtually degrade Him as the covenanted, predicted Christ. We turn
from such writers to others, who refresh us by maintaining a Scriptural attitude. Thus
Kurtz (Sac. His., p. 279) remarks: “'The difference between the two genealogies is most
easily explained by referring to the particular object which each evangelist had in view
in commencing to write. It was the main object of Matthew, when he composed his
Gospel, to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah promised in the Old Test. ; it was,
accordingly, incumbent on him to furnish the evidence that Jesus was the lawful heir and
successor to whom the royalty of David belonged, and that the fundamental prophecy in
2 Sam. 7 was thus fulfilled. In accordance with his leading design, he necessarily
showed the legal connection (derived from the Jaws of inheritance) of Christ with the
house of David in the line of Solomon. If this descent, although fixed by the laws, did
not coincide with Christ’s descent after the flesh, the latter was passed over, and the
former was set forth as entitled to recognition. As Luke wrote for Christians who pro-
ceeded from the Gentile world, no necessity existed for giving prominence to that line
of succession which was valid in law in a theocratical point of view ; it was, on the con-
trary, far more important, in accordance with his main object, to set forth Christ’s true
descent according to the flesh.” We affirm, in the light of covenant and prophecy, that
both tables are a necessity—hence given—in order that both the natural and the legal de-
scent be presented, for both are claimed as pertaining to the Messiah. We reproduce an-
other : ‘‘ Greybeard” (Graff), in his ‘‘ Lay Sermons,’’ No. 94, says : ‘* Matthew, writing of
Christ as the rightful heir to Abraham’s land and David's throne, very properly reproduced
the lineage of Joseph, the lawful husband of Mary, while Luke, in portraying His his-
tory as the seed of the woman, traces the genealogy of His mother not merely to
Abraham, but to the first human pair. Lest the captious take exception to this construc-
tion as involving a fraud on the part of Matthew in order to establish His Lord’s right-
ful heirship as a descendant of David, it must be observed that the genealogies of both
Joseph and Mary unite in David.’’ In a footnote he adds, respecting Luke’s: *‘In
reading this passage it will be observed that the words ‘ the Son’ (being in italics) are
merely supplied, and do not appear in the original text. Joseph was the son-in-law of
Heli, not ‘ the son.’ In that sense he was of Heli. So (in the 38th verse) Adam was of God,
but not ‘the son’ of God. No human being ever was the the son of God until after
Christ’s resurrection, Luke 3 : 23-28.’’ So Van Oosterzee (Lange’s Com. Luke, p. 63)
354 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 53.

says : “ The often-contested descent of Mary from David is raised above all possibility
of refutation by the genealogy of Luke. The Lord Jesus was therefore naturally, as well
as legally, descended from David ; and this descent is with perfect justice made promi-
nent by both Peter and Paul (Acts 2:30 ;12:23; Rom.1:3;2 Tim. 2:8); while
Jesus designates Himself the Son of David, Mark 12 : 35-37.”

Obs. 3. Without entering into a discussion of the genealogies, which is

ably performed by others,* it is sufficient to confine ourselves to the fact,
fully admitted, that Jesus, according to Matthew, is a legal successor to
the throne of David. Lord Hervey and others show this ; for His descent
is traced through a line of kings or their legal descendants, whilst Luke’s
table proceeds more on the principle of tracing His descent through pro-
genitors who were the paternal stem of Him who was the heir. By this,
and other considerations, the anomalies of the two pedigrees are fully
explained. Now, seeing that the promise has been so /iterally fulfilled in
Christ’s descent, in His being the legal Heir to the throne and Kingdom,
we hold that such a fulfilment gives us ¢he strongest assurance that the re-
mainder of the promise will likewise, in God’s ordering and time, be
realized.
This descent from David was not called into question during the life of Christ, and for
some time after His death it passed unchallenged, although most conspicuously affirmed.
It was long after that it was questioned by unbelievers ; it has been attacked by the
English, French, and German infidels ;and more recently it has been repeated by
Renan and others, that Jesus is not descended from David, but that He endeavored, in
order to carry out His purposes, to make the impression that such was His descent. Renan
(Life of Jesus, p. 217), as usual, sets himself up as infallible judge, and elevates mere
conjectures into facts. To make out that the family of David was extinct because
Asmonean princes ruled ; to attempt to prove the same because Herod and the Romans
did not dream of such a representative of the ancient dynasty living ; to speak of ‘‘ in-
nocent frauds,’’ of his birth at Nazareth, et¢., is simply indicative of a preconceived
prejudice and a desire to prejudge the case. But when he tells us that Jesus ‘“‘ never
designated Himself with His own lips as the Son of David ”’ (over against His quotations
and accepting of the name, as e.g. Matt. 9:27 ;12 :23 515: 22 ; 20 : 30-31 ; Mark
10 : 47, 52, and 12 : 35-37 ; Luke 18 : 38), we instinctively feel a spirit of dislike and
hatred to the truth underlying such statements. To all those objections it will suffice
to say : (1) That a pedigree regularly presented at a time when genealogical tables were
carefully kept, and passing by unchallenged and unprotested even by the bitter enemies
of Jesus, must be taken as better evidence of truthfulness than the mere conjectures of
later ages ; (2) That if there was a discrepancy or untruth, as alleged, the Jews would
only have been too glad to avail themselves of the same ; (3) that the apparent disagree-
ment between the two pedigrees has been reasonably and satisfactorily explained by
those (note 1) who have given the subject special attention ; (4) the claim set up by
Jesus is confirmed by His words, life, works, death, resurrection and exaltation ; (5) if
the first link in the chain were missing, the rest could n t be attached to it, but seeing
a necessary connection, promise and prediction verified, the matter of descent assumes
its due importance in a completed chain of evidence to the Messiahship. It may be
well to observe here that Reuss (His. Ch. Theol., p. 392), correctly noticing that the
genealogy of Jesus was given ‘‘ to prove the right of Christ to the title of Messiah’’ as
the promised Son of David, and that great stress was laid upon His humanity, then adds,

* See Lord Hervey’s Genealogies of our Lord, the commentaries of Olshausen, Lange,
Meyer, etc., Smith’s Bib. Dic. and N. Test. His., Kitto’s Journal of Sac. Lit., M’Clintock ©
and Strong’s Cyclop., Evang. Review, vol. 4, p. 168, Bib. Sacra, vol. 18, p. 410, Meth.
Quart. Review, vol. 11, p. 593, and the writings of Beeston, Cochrane, Green, Horne’s
Introd., Gresswell’s Diss. Morris, Sympson, Birks, Watson, etc. Numerous writers
have more briefly but satisfactorily referred to the same, as Judye Jones (Notes), Dr.
McCosh (Christi. and Positiv.), Farrar (Life of Christ), Kurtz (Sac. His.).
Prop. 53.| THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 355

that it must have had little value in the estimation of those who made Him divine.
This is not correct so far as the Primitive Church is concerned, for they clearly and dis-
tinctly announced their faith and hope in the promises made to the Son of Man, and
hence in David’s Son as the promised Theocratic King. (Comp. Props. 81-83, and
74-78). It was later, under Alexandrian and Popish influence, that the Humanity was
ignored in a great measure for the Divine.
356 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 54.

Proposition 54. The preaching of the Kingdom by John, Jesus,

and the disciples, was confined to the Jewish nation.
This necessarily follows as a sequence from preceding Proposi-
tions (as e.g. Props. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 31, 33, 35, 38, 39, 40,
42, 48, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49). It is plainly stated in Matt. 10: 5, 6
and 15: 24, etc., ‘Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into
any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go ye rather to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel, as ye go preach, saying: the
Kingdom of God is at hand.’ ‘Iam not sent but unto the lost
sheep of the house of Israel.’ These, and other intimations, are
sufficiently distinctive of the fact.
Obs. 1. The special covenant to Abraham and renewed in David, the
election of the nation, the very nature of the Kingdom — Theocratic-
Davidic—allied with the Davidic throne and Kingdom, and hence the con-
finement of the Kingdom in its re-establishment to the descendants of
Abraham in their national capacity, demanded such a restriction of the
distinctive offer of the Kingdom to the Jews. It could not possibly be
otherwise, unless God violates His solemnly pledged Word. So carefully
does the Sacred Record guard this restrictive feature—vecessary in the
very nature of the case—that the only time Jesus left the Jews for Samaria,
John apologizes for the same by urging its necessity (John 4: 4), informing
us, ‘‘ He must needs go through Samaria,”’ i.e. His direct route lay through
it.
Obs. 2. For some reason, a decided and exclusive preference is given to
the Jewish nation. Whyisthis? If, as persons now so confidently assert,
there is nothing in being a Jew, a real descendant of Abraham’s, how
comes it at this crisis, that, when the Kingdom is preached, express
charges and admonitions are given to avoid the Gentiles? Simply and
solely because by the promise made to Abraham, by their previous Theo-
cratic relationship, and by their national adoption in the Davidic covenant,
the Kingdom that was preached, viz. : the restoration of the Theocratic-
Davidic, belonged, as per covenant, exclusively to them. It would have
been a violation of God’s oath to have passed by these covenanted people
and to have turned to Gentiles, with whom zo special covenant was thus
made. This procedure of John, Jesus, and the disciples, in accordance
with sacred covenanted relationship (but the subject of ignorant and un-
believing ridicule), teaches a fixed, fundamental truth, which must by no -
means be overlooked, viz. : that the regular lineal believing descendants
of Abraham—the nationality of David—with those adopted (Prop. 29) by
them, were entitled, by covenant, to this Kingdom. Hence the Kingdom
was preached to them—tendered to them individually and nationally, and
Prop. 54.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 357

it was left to their choice to accept of it or to refuse it, because it was also
in the Divine Purpose to bestow it upon ‘‘a willing people,’ to the
descendants of Abraham and those adopted, who made themselves worthy
of a Theocratic Kingdom by faith, obedience, and holiness. The offer of
the Kingdom is not in violation of but in unison with free moral agency.
Obs. 3. Even after the call to the Gentiles was made out, the apostles
still affirmed this covenanted position of the Jews, so that Paul and
Barnabas (Acts 13 : 46) said to the unbelieving Hebrews : ‘‘ it was neces-
sary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you.’
The explanation usually given does not cover this necessity, viz. : that the necessity
arose because Jesus commanded His disciples to preach, “ beginning at Jerusalem,’’ and
it was solely to fulfil the command that this was done. Now, aside from Paul (Acts
9 : 20, 21), not having fulfilled the command, let the reader consider why the command
itself was given ; in that lay the necessity, the injunction of Jesus only manifesting it as
existing. This can be none other than the one already asigned by us in Obs. 1 and 2.
It is given by Peter (Acts 3 : 25, 26), and by Paul (Rom. 9 : 4), and because of it an
express revelation in reference to the Gentiles was needed and bestowed.

Obs. 4. Even the instructions imparted in a more private way, and the
mercy extended to Gentiles by Jesus, teach and enforce our Proposition.
Keeping in view, as will be presently explained, the peculiar position of
Christ, that He foreknew the rejection of this Kingdom by the Jews and
the subsequent call of the Gentiles, it seemed eminently suitable in Him to
echibit His foreknowledge of the fact, and also His interest in and sym-
pathy for the Gentiles. But He does not do, this by sacrificing the
covenanted relationship of the nation ; He only confirms it in a striking
manner.
Let us take the examples recorded, and illustrate this feature. Take the Syrophe-
nician woman (Matt. 15 : 21-28 ; Mark 7 : 25-30), and when she first addressed Him for
mercy, ‘‘ He answered her not a word,” and when besought to send her away by the dis-
ciples, answered, ‘‘ I am not sent but unio the lost sheep of the house of Israel,’ and then
added, when the woman in her faith worshipped Him, ‘‘it is not meet to take the
children’s bread and cast it to the dogs.” Thus far He kept this covenanted relation-
ship in view, and expressed it fully ; but also foreseeing that this, the children’s bread,
would be freely given to others in response to their faith, so now in the plenitude of His
mercy and power He also, as an earnest, responds to the faith of the woman. If we refer
to the centurion (Matt. 8 : 5-13), the mercy extended to him had direct reference in the
mind of Jesus to the foreknown rejection of the Kingdom by the Jews and the introduc-
tion of others ; for keeping in view His exclusive mission, He remarks, as explanatory of
His course, “ that many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abra-
ham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Kingdom of heaven, but the children of the Kingdom shall be
cast out into outer darkness.’’ Thus predicting the rejection of His offer, and the sub-
sequent call of the Gentiles. So with other cases briefly mentioned, intimations of the
same kind are given, and when they are lacking (as e.g. comp. Luke 7 : 1, etc., who does.
not state the language that Matthew does), we may rest assured, from the examples ad-
duced, that brevity alone has excluded them. The peculiar case of Zaccheus shows that
by his faith, charity, and joyful recognition of Jesus (Luke 19 : 1, etc.), he was adopted
into the covenanted relationship, for the precise language is : ‘‘ this day is salvation come
to this house, for so much as he also is a son of Abraham,” thus wonderfully foreshadowing,
after He had foretold His own death, the future adoption of Gentile believers ; and to make
this the more striking, indicative of Divine inspiration, appends the parable of the
nobleman and Kingdom (comp. Props. 108-110). Even in the memorable interview
with the Samaritan woman—closer related to the Jews than others—and which, as we
proceed in the argument, will be found to be based on the then unrevealed but still pre-
dicted purpose of God respecting Gentile worship, etc., He forgets not His restricted
mission. For while partly unfolding to the woman and Samaritans this important feat-.
358 THE TEEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 54.

ure coming, dependent on the foreknown fall of the elect nation, He presents that
remarkable declaration (which some critics denounce as so excessively ‘‘ Jewish” that it
becomes ‘‘ the dead fly in the ointment,’’ but which, as we see, is pre-eminently suitable
to fall from Christ’s lips)—‘‘ Salvation is of the Jews.”’

Obs. 5. Origen (De Princip., ch. 1, s. 22) first (and he has been largely
copied) endeavors to break the force of our Proposition by saying that the
Saviour came not specially to the ‘‘ carnal’’ Israelites, ‘‘ for they who are
the children of the flesh are not the children of God.’’ Thus by a de-
liberate perversion of Rom. 9 : 8 he endeavors to make out a sense which
the passage cannot possibly bear.. Isolated, torn from its connection, the
Scripture may be employed in a dishonest way, while in its orderly
relation it strongly affirms our position. What children of the flesh are
alluded to? All the children of Abraham, or some of them, or none of
them? The answer is, that some of the children of Abraham were not
identified with the covenanted relationship, viz. : Esau and his descend-
ants ; these are the children of the flesh purely, but some of the children
were thus under covenant, viz.: Jacob and his descendants, and these of
the flesh were not of the flesh only, but the children of promise. But they
could not be the latter unless they were also of the former, and it is this
union of the two that makes them to differ from the mere children of the
flesh to whom the promise was not given.
This important point needs some additional remarks. The apostle’s argument does
not proceed on the ground that because they are the natural descendants of Abraham
they are rejected (for that would prove too much), but that even out of those born to Abra-
ham some are chosen and others not; and that, in view of this distinction made by God
Himself, He can in His sovéreignty even yet, and does, reject those who reject Him.
The apostle’s reasoning sustains the doctrine of election in Abraham’s line in a certain
direction and within marked limits. Origen here laid the foundation upon which a
multitude—ignoring the express declarations to the contrary—have thoughtlessly built,
deeming it trustworthy, and being deceived by the mere sound of words. Origen, how-
ever, can be recommended for his candor and consistency, by which, from such a position,
he continues to spiritualize until he finds spiritual counterparts for the Egyptians, Tyrians,
Sidonians, etc., paving the way for Swedenborg and others.

Obs. 6. This exclusive mission to the Jewish nation, viz.: the direct
offer of the Kingdom to them and to no other nation, removes at once the
arbitrary constructions put upon this so-called ‘‘ Jewish Partialism’’ by
commentators and others.
Thus e.g. Dr. Alexander (Com. Isa. Introd., vol. 2, p. 8) tells us that ‘“‘ their national
pre-eminence was representative, not original ;’’ ‘‘ symbolical, not real ;”’ ‘‘ provisional,
not perpetual.’’ Such language is based, in view of their rejection for a time and the
call cf the Gentiles, on an entire misapprehension of the covenanted relation and election
this nation sustained to God. This nation was singled out and chosen from all others
(Prop. 24, etc.), and certain blessings were covenanted to it (Prop. 49), and in sucha
form that while individuals of the nation and even the nation itself might reject them,
yet ultimately by a wise ordering and provision, in gathering out a selected people and
in the manifested judgments of the Messiah, these blessings shall be manifested through
the basis of that nationality because of its relationship to the contemplated restored The-
ocracy. Hence this national pre-eminence, thus even observed by Jesus and His disci-
ples, was original and real, being founded on the covenants, and although now for a
time (during “ the times of the Gentiles”) nationally rejected, yet the perpetuity of this -
covenant relationship is manifested by the oath of God, the assurances given of its ful-
filment, the continued preservation of the nation, the predictions of its future restora-
tion and pre-eminence, and the necessity of Gentiles being engrafted into ‘* the com-
monwealth of Israel’’ and becoming the adopted ‘‘ children of Abraham” in order to re-
ceive the promises under the covenants.
Prop. 54.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 359

There seems to be in some writers a confounding of the provisional in the Levitical

economy with the things established by the covenants ; and, what is still more mis-
guiding, having in their own minds the Kingdom of the Messiah already existing with-
out arestored Davidic throne and Kingdom, they, with this veil over their eyes, must, of
course, discard the most solemnly covenanted arrangements of God, and place, with Gen-
tile ‘‘ high-mindedness,” the Jewish nation, to which pertains the covenants, in an at-
titude of inferiority. Ignoring the express covenant language, and mistaking the King-
dom itself--two fatal doctrinal mistakes—this prohibition of Christ’s not to go to other
nations is to such writers either a very tender or a very difficult subject to explain, so
that they pass it by or gloss it over in the fewest possible words, or else totally refuse to
allude to 1t as something to them utterly inexplicable. Strauss and other unbelievers
object to Jesus sending His disciples only to Palestine, and not to Phoenicia, Egypt,
Greece, Italy, etc., but such an objection has no force when viewed from the covenanted
standpoint. It has only propriety and pertinence when it is assumed that the modern
notion of the Kingdom was the one preached. Therefore the usual replies given to
Strauss do not meet the objection fairly, as e.g. Ebrard (Gosp. His., p. 333), which is
insufficient, limiting this exclusive preaching of the Kingdom toa “‘ ground of prudence,”’
and then in order ‘‘ to form in Judea a centre and starting point for the new Kingdom.”’

Obs. %. If the Kingdom of God is really what the multitude affirm it to

be, viz. : the Church, or the reign of God in the heart, etc., what con-
sistent and valid reasons can possibly be assigned for its being thus re-
stricted nationally to one people? It seems strange that intelligent
theologians fail to see that none, on their hypothesis, can be given.
Even Millenarians, who adopt the prevailing Church-Kingdom theory (as preparatory
to the final Messianic Kingdom), involve themselves in difficulties. Thus Olshausen in-
forms us: ‘‘ We cannot suppose that in this (restriction) Christ was accommodating
Himself merely to the weakness of the disciples, but rather to the demands of the times,
and the immediate destination of the twelve” (Com. Matt. 10:5). And this, in place of
the ‘“ everlasting covenant,” is offered as a reason to infidelity. No wonder that unbeliev-
ers revel in this accommodation theory to ‘‘ the demands of the times.”” Olshausen adds
another conjecture : ‘‘ It was necessary, first of all, to prepare in the nation of Israel a
hearth to receive the sacred fire, and to keep its heat in a state of concentration.’’ These
surmises show an evident seeking for, and manufacturing of, a reason, which by no
means covers the question ; for, even admitting these doubtful suppositions, why alone
select the Jewish nation (that rejected Christ, etc.), and not others? Why should the
times demand this exclusiveness, if a mere spiritual apprehension was concerned? The
response, alone affording a solid reason, always follows : the covenant and covenant relation-
ship made it necessary. Barnes (Com. Matt. 10 : 5, 6) has much to say about the Samari-
tans, but waives the plain (but to him, with his Church-Kingdom view, knotty) ques-
tion, by saying : ‘‘ The full time for preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles was not come.
It was proper that it should be first preached to the Jews, the ancient covenant people
of God, and the people among whom the Messiah was born. He afterward gavethem a
charge to go into all the world.” ‘‘ They (the Jews) had been the chosen people of God ;
they had long looked for the Messiah ; and it was proper that the Gospel should be first
offered to them.” This is all that he has to say, basing the restriction upon proprieties,
and nol, where the Bible places it, upon the covenanted promises and their national iden-
tity with the Davidic people over whom and in whom the Kingdom was to be estab-
lished.

Obs. 8. The difficulty that theologians, who endorse the prevailing

Church-Kingdom theory, are under to reconcile this preaching of the
Kingdom exclusively to the Jewish nation with their own system of belief,
is indicative of a serious flaw, a fundamental doctrinal defect, in the same.
The difficulty is found in a multitude of writers. It may be both interesting and
profitable to give additional illustrations. Reuss (His. Ch. Theol., p. 154) thinks: “‘ The
difficulty can be solved by supposing, first, that Jesus was often obliged to use the
language af His hearers in order to be more easily understood ; next, by remembering
360 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 54.

that the blame cast upon the heathen was well deserved, and that it does not imply
praise of the Jews; and lastly, by admitting that in His wisdom Christ designedly
drew a narrow circle for His disciples in their first mission of evangelization.”
The reader may well ponder such a circuitous and accom:iodating way of giving no
reason why Jesus “ in His wisdom’’ “‘ drew a narrow circle for His disciples.” Fairbairn
and others try to evade this restrictive mission, this confinement of the preaching to
one nation, by saying that Christ before His ascension said that they were to be His wit-
nesses at Jerusalem, and then preach the Gospel in all the world (Obs. 3, note 1). This
does not remove the obstacle to their view ; it isin fact no answer to the question, be-
cause, as we shall show, the reasons for the removal of this restriction are also given and
recorded. Christ gave His command to go to other nations after the postponement of
the Kingdom and calling of the Gentiles was fully determined ; and even when the com-
mand to preach to all the world was given, such was the decided influence of this re-
st.iction upon the minds of Jewish believers that it was only made manifest afler the day
of Pentecost and after special revelation and council held, how it could be removed.
Such writers fail to answer why the exclusive mission was first given, and shielding
themselves under what afterward, for well assigned reasons, took place, do not see that
the final removal, instead of explaining, only makes the restriction the more conspicuous.
Dr. Neander (Life of Christ), not satisfied with the common view entertained, tells us
that Christ’s ministry was confined to the Jews, and that before the truth could be
offered to the heathen it must be “ fully developed in the disciples,’’ etc. It follows
then thet the truth partially developed (contained in ‘‘ the husk”) was good enough for
the Jews, but not for the Gentiles. Besides this, Neander flatly contradicts himself ; for
what must we say to such an announced full development in the disciples, taken for
granted to meet a contigency, and his repeated assertions in other places (some of which
we have already quoted) that the disciples and apostles had only “ the germ” which was
afterward to be developed in the church—that they could never entirely divest themselves
of ‘‘ Jewish forms” and ‘‘ Jewish prejudices.’’ Explanations like these amount to noth-
ing ; they are simply conjectures worked out by a preconceived theory. Neander endeav-
ors to guard his explanation by stating, what is emphatically contradicted by the Rec-
ord, viz. : that the disciples could not infer from this restriction that the Samaritans
and heathen were to be excluded from the Kingdom of God. It is surprising that such
an assertion can be made in the light of the most positive prohibitions to go to the Gen-
tiles. That such was their opinion or inference, derived from a specific covenanted
relationship and confirmed by the language of Jesus, is evident from the special vision
vouchsafed to Peter to indicate the call of the Gentiles, and from the apostolic meeting
when the question of the call was discussed. Thus able men pervert Scripture, in
endeavoring to bend it, honestly meant, to a favorite theory.
Schmid (Bib. Theol., p. 54) misses the historical connection, and entirely overlooks the
covenants, when he affirms : “‘ His only reason for limiting His own operations, and at
first those of His disciples, to the Jewish nation, was to gain a firm foothold and start-
ing point for His entire scheme.’ He assigns the cases of the centurion and of the
Samaritan woman (Obs. 4, note 1) as proof. These exceptional cases only prove that
the foreknowledge of Jesus anticipated the final result of His mission, and gave a fore-
taste of hope to the Gentiles. In addition to what has been said, see our next Propo-
sition for a reply to Schmid. Renan (Life of Jesus, p. 213) thinks : ‘‘ If, in other cases,
He seems to forbid His disciples to go and preach to them (Gentiles), reserving His Gos-
pel for the pure Israelites, this also is undoubtedly a precept dictated by circumstances,
to which the apostles may have given too absolute a meaning.”’ The Record as it stands
is sufficiently satisfactory and consistent with both what precedes and follows ; there is
not anything ‘‘seeming” about it. For, “ the absolute meaning” is a necessity grounded
in the preceding covenants : the circumstances dictating such ‘a one-sided ” mission,
are found in the election of the nation ; the disciples, instructed by Jesus and conver-
sant with the covenants, are better qualified to express the idea fairly than Renan, who
cares very little for both. Indeed, if the mission of John, Jesus, and the disciples had
been made indiscriminately to Gentiles and Jews, what would have become of God’s cov-
enants made with Abraham and David? What would God’s solemn affirmation then be
worth? Let the analogy of Scripture answer, why such a restriction was laid in the
preaching of the Kingdom, and the reply comes clear and distinct, that it was conditioned
by covenant promises which belonged eaclusively to the seed of Abraham and the people of
David. If this prohibition were lacking, this exclusive turning to the one elect nation
were not exhibited and recorded, then an important and essential link in the golden chain
of Divine Purpose were also missing.
ae
Se
Prop. 54.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 361

Obs. 9. The reader will bear in mind that the message of the disciples—
a peculiar and distinctive one—to say ‘‘ the Kingdom of heaven is at
hand”? was not addressed by them to any Gentile. The same is true of
John, and also of Jesus, who carefully avoided it in His address to Gentiles
(Obs. 4, note 1). The reason is, as we have seen, that the Kingdom
belonged to the Jews, and until the call of the Gentiles was entered into on
account of Jewish unbelief, the message pertained to the Jews and those
adopted as Jews.

Obs. 10. The Kingdom was ultimately to be extended from the Jews so
that it would embrace the Gentiles also, as indicated plainly by the
prophecies (Prop. 30). This opinion was held by the Jews, as the titles
given to the Messiah showed (e.g. Mac. 2:7, 14, ‘‘the King of the
World ’’). But this ordering did not interfere with the Davidic cov-
enanted basis, or with the predicted (on this account) supremacy of the
nation (Prop. 114).

Obs. 11. Some writers, anxious to find some basis for their idea of the
Kingdom, and consequently that it also was preached to the Gentiles,
assume that the mission of the twelve was exclusive, but that of the
seventy was general, including the Gentiles. But this, as we see from the
covenanted position of the nation, would be contradictory and fatal to the
truth.
Advantage is taken of the omission in Luke 10 : 1, etc., of the exclusive injunctions
elsewhere recorded, and a hasty, desired deduction is made. Thus e.g. Dr. Killen (Old
Cath. Church, p. 5) remarks that ‘*‘ the seventy symbolized His regard to the whole
human race,’’ an opinion derived from some tradition that the inhabitants of the earth
were divided into seventy nations, speaking seventy languages, etc. It is surprising that
so careful a writer as Olshausen (Com. Matt. 10:5 and Gen. Introd. to Paul’s Epistles)
makes the ministry of the seventy ‘‘also directed to the Gentile world,” and ‘‘ these
seventy appear as the representative of the whole Gentile world.” Now there is positively
nothing in the Record to lead to such an inference ; more than this, the statement of
Luke, carefully considered, teaches the exact reverse. For these seventy were only to
go to the places “ whither He Himself would come,’’ and therefore not outside of Christ’s own
mission ; the message was the same that the twelve delivered, and Jesus would not con-
tradict Himself in the injunctions covering the same ; the nighness of the Kingdom to
the people preached to (as we shall show, Props. 57-59, etc.) indicates the Jews ; the de-
nunciations against Jewish places only and the lack of any mention of Gentiles visited,
shows the restrictive character of the mission ; the fact that the call of the Gentiles had
to be made the subject of special revelation, that the seventy were Jews with Jewish ideas
of covenanted relationship, looked for the restored Davidic throne and Kingdom, etc.—
these things afford ample evidence of the restrictive nature of their mission corresponding
with that of the twelve. If there was anything symbolical in the number chosen, then
it would be better, as many do, to make the twelve representative of the twelve tribes
and the seventy of the nation, either through the number of the Sanhedrim, the Elders
of Moses, or the family of Jacob.
362 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 55.

Proposition 55. Zt was necessary that Jesus and His disciples

should at first preach the Kingdom as nigh to the Jewish
nation.

That the Kingdom was nigh to the nation is distinctly stated,

Matt. 4:17, Mark 1:14, 15, Luke 11: 20, Matt. 12:28. The cove-
nanted Theocratic Kingdom was overthrown ; at the appearance of
the promised Davidic son, who should inherit the Kingdom, it was
absolutely requisite, in view of the covenanted relationship of the
nation to this Kingdom, to offer it to the Jews for their acceptance.
This was done by John, Jesus, and the disciples.
Obs. 1. Jesus Himself tells us (Luke 4 : 34) that He ‘‘ must preach the
gospel of the Kingdom, for therefore am I sent ;’’ and He must preach it as
nigh—within reach—to the elect nation, for to it the promises are given.
The reason why Christ did this, is assigned by Paul in Rom. 15 : 8, viz. :
because He was ‘‘ a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to
confirm the promises made to the Fathers.’’ Now the Kingdom is specifi-
cally promised to the nation, and to meet the conditions of the promise and
to confirm them, it was necessary (Paul and Barnabas keep up the spirit of
this feature even later, Acts 13 : 46) to tender the Kingdom to its ac-
ceptance.

Obs. 2. Tf Jesus came to fulfil the law and the prophets, if He came as
the messenger of the covenant, the One through whom the covenants were
to be realized, then it follows as anatural sequence that He could not other-
wise but offer this Kingdom to the nation, for that nation was composed
of the covenanted people, only conditioned—as found stated in the
prophets, in the preaching of repentance, and in the future predicted
repentance of the nation—by its national repentance and acceptance of the
tender made.

Obs. 3. Hence the Kingdom was offered as nigh, on the condition of re-
pentance annexed to the tender. ‘The proclamation of nighness was
involved in the fact (to be made plain hereafter) that, as a certain number
of elect are contemplated as requisite to the establishment of the Theocratic
Kingdom (former experience teaching that otherwise it could not be
sustained), that number, in case of national repentance, would have been
speedily obtained. But owing to the rejection of Christ, the number of
inheritors must now be obtained in a different and more gradual way ; and
consequently the nighness of the Kingdom is conditioned by the national
action. Coming to such a people so peculiarly related by covenant
promises ;coming in behalf of the covenant itself, any other style of
preaching the Kingdom would have been out of place ; inconsistent with
 Prop. 55.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 363
His own Mission, with the relationship of the people, and with the pre-
determined number of ‘ willing people’? to be obtained previous to its
re-establishment. In the very nature of the case and of past experience,
the covenant required the offer of the Davidic-Theocratic Kingdom, while
a moral fitness for the same demanded a previous repentance.
Barbour (Three Worlds, p. 121), influenced by his invisible spiritual Kingdom theory,
says that the Kingdom was offered to the Jews in a ‘‘ shadowy sense.’’ Never! the cov-
enants, preaching, etc. all forbid it. It is strange that Schenkel’s accommodation
theory is so largely prevailing among believers, when so derogatory to fundamentals.

Obs. 4. It was left, we find, to the moral freedom of the representative

men of the nation to receive or refuse it. The phrase ‘‘ nigh at hand” is
indicative of a tender, which, if necessary, can be withdrawn. The phrase
is purposely chosen, pregnant with meaning, and, in view of the power of
choosing, leaves a degree of indefiniteness about it, which is materially
heightened by its dependence on the preceding ‘‘ repent.’’ For what then
uf they do not repent? In that case will they notwithstanding receive the
ingdom, or will it s¢i/2 be nigh to them? Leaving following Propositions
to answer these questions, let it now be suggested (what so many entirely
overlook) that the exact reversal of this formula would be, If you do not
repent, the Kingdom will be far from you ; now it is nigh, within reach ;
then it will be distant, removed, postponed. Alas! how fearfully true this
became : nationally nigh, then nationally distant.
The conditionality of this matter is apparent from the cal! to repentance and the un-
fortunate result. God never violates moral freedom in His purposes relating to the
nation. Jesus, with full purpose of fulfilling, and yet foreknowing the sad result, em-
ploys the only language adapted to their free agency. Such expressions as ‘‘ Ye will not
come unto me that ye might have life,” ‘‘ would not have this man to reign over us,”
‘“ve would not,” ‘‘ He came unto His own, and His own received Him not,” and kindred
ones unmistakably indicate the power of choice. If not, where is human responsibility ?
The Saviour, therefore, in offering this Kingdom as nigh to them, addresses this power of
choice, this capacity (we are not concerned with the question of natural or acquired, but
only with the fact of actual possession), of making a suitable selection ; and in view of
the possibility of making a proper choice, exhibited in repentance, preaches, ‘‘ Repent,
for’ (if you do so) “ the Kingdom is nigh at hand,” i.e. the Kingdom already covenanted
to you, and nigh to you in view of sucha relation, will be given to you. But if you make
no such a choice, if you refuse to repent, then, of course, this Kingdom is not nigh to
you. Strange that so many theologians overlook the conditionality on which all hinges,
avd affirm (as Neander, etc.) that the Kingdom was established. The Primitive
Church, taught by inspired men and their immediate successors, held to no such absurd-
ity, but maintained in this matter a logical consistency.
In view of this conditionality, Jesus comes in a state of poverty, in order that the
moral appeal to repentance may be fairly tested. Had He come rich, loaded with
honor, etc., the Jews would have been influenced by selfish, improper motives. Hence
the Theocratic King, to test the nation, comes in humble circumstances.

Obs. 5. It has already been shown (Props. 19, 20, 21, 22, 38, 39, 40, 43,
etc.) what Kingdom was preached, how the Jews and disciples understood
it, and hence that the people were aware of the Kingdom that was offered
to them. If we are to credit the multitude, Jesus tendered a motive, held
out an inducement, for repentance, which the nation misapprehended and
could not understand. Those few, then, that did repent were influenced
by mere “‘ Jewish prejudice’’ and ‘‘ Jewish partialism.’’ Thus the pre-
vailing Church-Kingdom theory degrades the early preaching of the King-
dom from every point of view (comp. Props. 42-44).
364 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 55.

Let it again be noticed that Jesus employs the very phraseology in vogue among the
Jews indicative of this restored Davidic throne and Kingdom. Thus, to point out a sin-
gle example which Neander (see Prop. 42, Obs. 6) and others attempt to make contra-
dictory to Jewish expectations, viz. : the Sermon onthe Mount. Now, keeping in view
the Jewish ideas of the Kingdom and the phrases in common usage expressive of the
same, the promises pertaining to ‘‘ the Kingdom of heaven,’’ ‘‘ the meek shall inherit
the earth,’”’ ‘ fulfilling the law and the prophets,’’ “‘ the least and great in the Kingdom
of heaven,” ‘‘ Jerusalem the city of the great King,” “ thy Kingdom come,’’ ‘‘ the King-
dom of God’’-—these are all of a nature to impress the Jewish mind (as the result
proves), that our Saviour alluded to the Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom as covenanted to the
nation. It was, under the circumstances, simply impossible for the Jews to entertain
any other view. The naked fact that they thus understood Him and were not corrected
in their comprehension of the Kingdom, is evidence that our position is the only tenable
one ; for otherwise, knowing the grammatical sense of the covenants and how the same
was held, Jesus would not be performing His mission worthily if it led to the indorsement
of error, confirmed by His own language. Let the reader reflect : How could He ask
them to repent, and on condition of such repentance offer them a Kingdom contrary to
the universal expected covenanted one, without a suitable explanation? Common honesty
required it. How could He urge repentance cn the ground of something which they
utterly misapprehended ? Common charity forbids such a notion. Questions like these,
involving the gravest of charges and reflecting upon the character of Teacher and hearer,
must first be satisfactorily answered before we can give up the precious covenanted King-
dom.

Obs. 6. It is wrongly stated by Reuss (His. Ch. Theol., p. 147) that the ex-
pression ‘‘ Kingdom of heayen”’ in the formula ‘‘ restricts the idea to a com-
ing period or place, to a state of things different from that in which human-
ity at present exists,’’ and objects to it therefore (through his modernized
Church-Kingdom view) as ‘‘a less comprehensive form”? than that of
‘* Kingdom of God,”’ and attributes it as belonging “‘ originally to the
Jewish Theology, which assigned the idea of the Kingdom of God absolutely
to the sphere of final or future things.”’ This is @ misapprehension of the
phrases ; for we have shown (Prop. 45) that they are convertible, that all of
them were used by the Jews to denote the restored Davidic rule under the
glorious Messiah, David’s Son, and that they were employed ty the first
preachers without explanation according to common usage. This makes the
phraseology “‘ Feepent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand,’’ the more
significant to a Jew, and the motive for a speedy repentance the stronger ;
for then, if penitent, the long-cherished hopes excited by covenant and
prophecy might at last be realized.
The time selected forthis preaching of nti onal repentance was, humanly speaking, fa-
vorable, and the refusal to repent, under the circumstances, increases the guilt ot the
nation and evinces the power of depravity. While with Reuss (His. Ch. Theol., p. 39)
we object to the theory advanced by some, “ that the Jews during the exile, through the
influence of the Babylonian and Persian civilization, underwent a complete metamor-
phosis”’ in religious matters, yet it must be admitted that the captivity and partial res-
toration produced changes—changes, however, which, instead of destroying, only devel-
oped the distinctive and characteristic traits of Judaism. Among the latter, a more steady
and persistent attachment to and expectation of a coming King in the restored King-
dom by which they should be nationally exalted, according to the prophets. This pro-
duced an intense (and in many a selfish) exclusiveness, as evidenced by history. The
sorrows and trials of the nation, the long-continued submission to Gentile domination
had more and more directed faith and hope to the covenants, so that, as
far as the
national situation was concerned, the time was favorable for such preaching, but the repent-
ance urged, the moral preparation required, was too much for its representative, leading men.

Obs. 7. The reader is reminded that this preaching of the nich ti

the Kingdom, this offer of the Kingdom to the Jews at the First Mivene eu
Prop. 55.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 365

condition of repentance, is the key to the commingling of the Advents of

Christ (Prop. 34). It could not be otherwise. It being predetermined as
eminently suitable to tender this Kingdom at the First Advent of Jesus,
the Messiah, and it being also foreknown that it would be rejected, the
matter is so guardedly presented as not to interfere with the free moral
agency of the nation, and as not to be opposed to foreknown fact. Yet
both the rejection of the Kingdom at the First Advent, and the subsequent
obtaining of it at the, now understood, Second Advent of Christ, are
unmistakably predicted. Hence, too, in view of this offer and rejection,
the prophets pass on and describe more repeatedly and vividly the scenes
connected with the Second Advent.

Obs. 8. The reader, from what has been said, cannot fail to observe that
this Kingdom, thus brought nigh by the offer made by Jesus and His
coadjutors, is the same Kingdom predicted by the prophets (Prop. 35).
There is only one Kingdom covenanted, the prophets describe but one, the
Jews believed only in one, the disciples knew and preached only one, viz.:
the covenanted Theocratic-Davidic. Jesus, coming to fulfil what the
prophets predicted, the covenant demanded, could not preach any other
Kingdom than the one described. Hence in His teaching He appeals to
the prophets and appropriates their predictions to Himself (but only in so
far as not to make the false impression that under Him the Kingdom was
already established), as e.g. in Mark 12 : 10 He refers to the stone of Ps.
117, and applies it to Himself. This would naturally suggest the Stone of
Dan. 2 : 34, 45, and the inference follows that, although rejected, He is
the Head of the coming Kingdom, and through Him the God of heaven
will yet set it up. So also Matt. 22: 24, Luke 4:18, 19, etc.; and He does
this to make the rejection of Himself the more ineacusable in them.

Obs. 9. Writers in abundance censure Millenarians (as e.g. the Prim-

itive Church) for believing in the restoration of the Theocratic-Davidic
Kingdom under the Messiah, on the ground of its ‘‘ earthly relations,”’
*‘ carnality,’’ etc. They do not pause to reflect that, owing to its Theo-
cratic nature, 7¢ cannot be set up without a suitable moral, spiritual prep-
aration in the hearts of those who are to experience its blessings. The
proof is found in this first preaching, in its being brought nigh on
condition of repentance, in its being offered solely in view of a proposed
change of character. Those who inherit it as kings and priests must be
among the penitent (Prop. 91); the nation itself before it can enjoy its
restoration must be converted (Prop. 113). Therefore, seeing how it was
proposed at the First Advent to the nation, and how it is offered to us now
conditionally on repentance and faith in Cl:-ist as a future inheritance,
it becomes thoughtful, reverent men to be eatremely cautious how they
write concerning it.
 366 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 56.

Proposition 56. The Kingdom was not established during the

ministry of Chrast.
This necessarily follows from the preceding ; for no swch a cove-
nanted Kingdom as promised, no such a restored Davidic throne
and Kingdom as predicted appeared. He (Luke 19: 11-27) had to
leave before he would receive (Prop. 83) the Kingdom.
Obs. 1. The men who were the preachers of this very Kingdom, and who,
above all others (especially mode:a theologians), ought to have known
whether it was instituted or not, had no knowledge whatever of its being
thus erected. These persons, preachers, and singled out to be witnesses to
the truth, are more reliable, vastly more, in their belief and testimony,
than theologians with their spiritualistic and philosophical conceits con-
cerning the Kingdom and its ‘‘ husk’? envel:pe. Is it conceivable, can it
be credited, that such special chosen ones, upon whose testimony the faith
of others was to be founded, should, after their own preaching, after all
their private and public instruction for several years, and after the
particular ‘‘ forty days’’ (Acts 1: 3), “‘ speaking of the things pertaining to
the Kingdom of God,’’ be ignorant of the fact Gf it be as alleged) that a
promised Kingdom was (as eminent theologians now gravely inform us)
actually in existence? No! such a supposition is damaging, jatally so, to
preachers and Teacher, and cannot possibly be entertained.
Theologians, to carry out their Church-Kingdom theory, assert that Jesus established the
Kingdom during His life. Thus e.g. Ebrard (Gosp. His., p. 185) says: ‘Jesus mani-
fests Himself in Galilee as Rabbi, announces that the Kingdom of God has come, and
seeks to make men disciples, or members of that Kingdom.’’ The formal organization
of the same he places in the selection of the twelve, the very persons (see next Obs.) who
knew positively nothing of Ebrard’s Kingdom. Jesus nowhere declared “that the King.
dom of God has _come’’-—this is added to the record to sustain a preconceived notion.
The utter inconsistency of Ebrard will appear more distinctively if we quote him (p. 243)
respecting the use of the Parables : ‘‘ He (Jesus) explained to them (the twelve) that the
whole nation was not yet in a condition to understand the doctrine of the Kingdom of
God, and that He selected the form of parables, that His preaching might be unintelli-
gible to those who were not yet mature, and so act as a stimulus and provocative to future
inquiry ; while to the disciples, to whom he explained the parables, it was a revelation of saving
truth.’’ See next Obs. and continued argument ; we may well ask, How, then, if thus ex-
plained, could they misapprehend the Kingdom, especially when formally established, as
he says, by their call?

Obs. 2. The apostles, the best judges in the matter, knew nothing about
a Kingdom set up ; and therefore, consistently with covenant and proph- -
ecy, with former preaching and instruction, with desire and hope ask,
Acts 1:6, ‘* Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore again the Kingdom to
Israel?’ The reply of Jesus confirms their view of existing facts ; for
instead of telling them that they were mistaken in their idea of the King-
dom, that the Kingdom already existed, etc. (according to the Alexandrian
Prop. 56.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 367

formulas), the answer, referring to the ‘‘ times and seasons,’’ implies on

its very face that they did not misapprehend the nature of the Kingdom
(comp. Prop. 43). They, like Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15 : 43), *‘ also
waited for the Kingdom of God.”’
Commentators frankly admit the views of the apostles. Thus e.g. Bloomfield loci
says that the word rendered ‘‘ restore’’ ‘‘ signifies properly to restore anything, which
has suffered change, to its former state ; and it is not unfrequently used (as here and in
Matt. 17:11 and Mark 9 :12)of restoring a ruined kingdom or government to its
ancient form, and there is usually implied some improvement upon that.’’ He admits
that the apostles ‘‘ thought that Christ would then restore the Kingdom of Judea to its
former consequence,’’ etc. Thus Barnes loci, Olshausen, and other commentators. To
make this, as Lightfoot (so Barnes, but footnote to Olshausen, p. 176, A. E.), a question
asked in indignation against the Jews, as if it meant ‘‘ Wilt Thou confer dominion on a
nation which has just put Thee to death?” is so far-fetched and unworthy of serious
consideration that our opponents—even Barnes, who quotes him-—reject it, saying :
“‘' The answer of the Saviour shows that this was not the design of the question.’”’ Dr.
Increase Mather (The Mystery of Israel's Salvation, p. 130) gives the general Millenarian
interpretation : ‘‘ Christ did not say to them that there should never be any such restora-
tion of the Kingdom to Israel as their thoughts were running upon; only He telleth
them that the times and seasons were notfor them to know ; thereby acknowledging
that such a Kingdom should indeed be, as they did from the holy prophets expect. Herein
was their error, not in expecting a glorious appearing of the Kingdom of God, but in
that they made account that this would be immediately.” So Lechler, Lange’s Com. Acts,
loci, remarks : ‘‘ The Kingdom, which is the object of their hope, is a Kingdom of
Israel], a theocratic Kingdom, deriving its existence and reality from the Messiah, and
intended to give liberty, greatness, and dominion to the people of Israel, who were at
the time oppressed by a heavy yoke. The apostles believe that they are almost author-
ized by the words now pronounced by the Lord, to hope for an early restoration of this
Kingdom.’’ After rejecting Lightfoot’s interpretation as not needing a ‘‘ special refu-
tion,’’ and stating that the answer of Jesus, so ‘‘ frequently” and even “‘ grossly misin-
terpreted,’’ refers to the time, he adds: “ As to the fact itself, the coming of the Kingdom,
and as to Israel’s privilege with respect to the latter, they entertained no doubt ; and
the Lord was so far from disapproving of such an expectation that He rather confirmed it
by declaring that the Father nad fixed the times. Now we know that neither a period
nor an epoch can ke affirmed concerning an event which is only imaginary. Those in-
terpreters have altogether mistaken the sense, who maintain that Jesus here entirely re-
jects the conceptions entertained by His apostles respecting the Messianic Kingdom, for
this is by no means the case. He did not deny that either their expectation of the ap-
pearance on earth of His glorious Kingdom in its reality, or their hope of the glorious
future which that Kingdom opened to the people of Israel, was well founded ; He sim-
ply subdued their eager curiosity respecting the time, and directed their attention to the
practical duties which they were to perform at the present period. Numerous testimo-
nies of a similar nature could be given. Comp. e.g. Judge Jones’s Notes, Alford’s Com.,
Bengel’s Gnomon of N. Test., Olshausen Com. etc.

Obs. 3. Jesus, before His death, declared the Kingdom to be still future
(comp. Props. 58, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, etc. ). Take e.g. one of His
last utterances (Matt. 26 : 64) to Caiaphas, the High Priest : ‘‘ Hereafter
shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming
in the clouds of heaven.’’ This was taken from the prediction of Daniel,
applied to Himself to occur ‘‘ hereafter,’? and was well understood by all
Jews to refer to the Messiah and the Kingdom of the Messiah.. The
charge of blasphemy corroborates this view. This is so clear that even
Renan (Life of Jesus, p. 331) says: ‘* The high priest adjured him to say
whether He was the Messiah. Jesus confessed it, and proclaimed before
the assembly the speedy coming of His heavenly Kingdom.’ So also a little
later before Pilate, He reiterates this direct reference to His Kingdom as
future, when He says (John 18 : 36): ‘* But now’’ (i.e. at present, during
 368 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 56.

this order of things) ‘‘my Kingdom is not from hence’’ (comp. Jones’s
admirable Notes on this verse, and see Prop. 109).

Obs. 4. The significant fact that our opponents cannot tell when this
promised Kingdom was set up, although professing that it was established,
1s corroborative evidence in our favor. They cannot agree in the time,
giving various periods (Prop. 3), although it is a Kingdom that prophets
describe as so manifest, when re-established, that men shall see and rejoice
in it. This Proposition is the more necessary, in order that these conflict-
ing opinions may be presented to the reader—opinions, too, that never
would have been entertained if the grammatical sense had not been yielded
under the pressure of a spiritualistic Church-Kingdom theory. Some tell
us that the Kingdom already appeared under John the Baptist, but this is
disproven in Prop. 41, etc. Others locate the beginning of the Kingdom
at the birth of Jesus ; some place it at the commencement of His ministry ;
others, when He commissioned His disciples ;some, at the confession of
Peter; others, at His death ; some, at His resurrection and ascension;
others, at the day of Pentecost ; and still others, at the destruction of
Jerusalem. Here certainly is diversity, and this alone should, to a reflect-
ing mind, suggest something radically wrong in a theory which is «utterly
unable, with any degree of unity, to show when so important a thing as a
Kingdom is founded. Alas! how blind is man, when wilfully blind, or
when allowing the blind to lead him.

Obs. 5. That no Kingdom, as covenanted, was set up, is corroborated by

the entire tenor of the Gospels and Epistles, and forbids, if sheer inference
is laid aside, the notion to be entertained. As evidence that those
opinions have no weight, we point to the twofold work of Christ. The
first work was to offer this Kingdom, on the condition of repentance, to
the nation. This He faithfully performed, and in the act, at least,
eliminated the elect, chosen ones from the mass. But as the result of
this part of the mission was foreknown, there was, in consequence, con-
nected with it (as a sequence) His second work to accomplish the Redemp-
tion (by the shedding of His blood), even of those who had been previously
chosen, and of those who would be among the elect in the future, and this
was performed through the sacrifice of Himself, thus making provision for
the fulfilment of the covenants in ‘‘ the age to come.’’ ‘This mission
positively forbids the idea of the establishment of the Kingdom.
Provision was to be made in vindication of the majesty of moral law, by which not
only sins could be remitted, but that those who obeyed the truth could be ultimately
delivered from all the effects of the curse and become co-heirs with Jesus in the restora-
tion of the forfeited dominion of Adam. This provision was accomplished by the life
and death of Jesus, confirmed by His resurrection, established by His ascension and ex-
altation, thus sealing and making sure the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, through
the fulfilment of which such a dominion shall be exercised. During this period of His
mission, having those definite objects in view, intending the performance of a great and
precious preparatory work, designing to make us inheritors with Himself of a coming King-
dom through the efficacy and resultant power of His sacrifice—during such a period
there is no room for the Kingdom. No! instead of a Kingdom His work required humili-
ation, suffering, and death ; instead of exaltation to power and Kingship, it was a veiling
of power and kingly authority, an emptying of Himself, of honor and glory in our be-
half. The two states are in antagonism and cannot coexist in the First Advent of the
blessed Redeemer. This Lord and Son of David came to ‘‘ suffer many things’ instead
of reigning ; ‘‘ it behoved Christ to suffer,” so that the Father, instead of giving Him the
Prop. 56.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 369
Kingdom predicted by Daniel, described by the prophets and covenanted in the sure
mercies of David, gave Him the exceedingly bitter, sorrowful ‘‘ cup’ to drink for us.
Instead of a Kingdom, He ‘‘ was despised and rejected of men ;’’ ‘‘ He came to His own
and His own received Him not,’’ for ‘‘ they all forsook Him and fled.’’ Instead of
reigning, He was betrayed, reproached, spit on, crowned with thorns, mocked as
King, and crucified. Tell us not that David’s Son reigned, ws covenanted, during such
trials. Any effort to unite the two is a violation of what the prophets have written and
the Gospels have recorded, and opposed to express passages which teach us, among other
reasons, why Christ endured all this, Phil. 2 : 6-11 ; Heb. 12 :2 ; Rom. 14 :9, ete.
And (which is a remarkable and decided proof that Scripture embraces a Divine, not
human, Plan) that this humiliation, suffering, etc., of David’s Son is, according to
David's own predictions concerning his Heir, a necessary prelude to reigning as an
immortal Son of Manon David’s throne, and a requisite preparation to qualify Him pre-
eminently for the lofty position of a universal Theocratic King. We are, therefore, abun-
dantly sustained in our position by converging evidence taken from different points,
while a mass of confirmatory proof remains still to be presented as we advance in the
argument.

Obs. 6. This nighness of the Kingdom to the nation was evidenced not
merely by the offer of the Kingdom, but by the tender of it in the person
of Jesus Christ. He was the predicted King, the Son of David who should
reign, and in virtue of this the Kingdom, in a manner, has come nigh in
His Person, He being a representative of the Kingdom, or, rather, in Him
it is lodged as in Divine royal right. So that, as the King of Babylon is
called the Kingdom in Dan. 2 : 38, 39, so also the Kingdom was vested in
Christ, but with this material difference (which many overlook), that whilst
in Him as of divine and legal right it was not then manifested, the right,
for certain reasons and purposes, was not then entertained and pressed fo
an actual realization. 'The Kingship was held in abeyance because of the
foreseen result.
The Kingdom thus connected with the person of Jesus may serve to illustrate and ex-
plain some peculiar phraseology, such as is contained in the Kingdom coming nigh,
upon, or among them. But as these passages will deserve a separate notice, we pass
them for the present with the simple caution, that such language must not be pressed
(as many do) beyond its legitimate meaning and application. While it is true that Jesus
never clenied, even in the face of death, His royalty, His Kingship, His divine and legal
right to reign as covenanted, yet it is likewise true, that, foreseeing His rejection by the
nation, and appreciating the work before Him to be performed, instead of urging His
claim He veiled it, giving us only an occasional glimpse of it, and that when solicited by
some (not the representative men of the nation), He refused to be made King.

Obs. Y. The reader will observe that there is not a single declaration of
Christ’s which asserts that the Kingdom was ¢hen in actual existence. It
is simply inferred by others against covenant promise and prediction. One
of the strongest passages from which such an inference is drawn is that
of Matt. 12 : 28, ‘* But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the
Kingdom is come unto you.’’ Leaving a full answer to follow in succeed-
ing Propositions, we now only remark that in the establishment of this
Kingdom (as predicted) the miraculous and supernatural (Props. 6 and 7)
is required, and the miracles of Christ are a foreshadowing and evidence of
the future fulfilment of the promises. To this evidence Jesus simply
appeals, as confirmatory of the tender of the Kingdom made to them, of
its sincerity and surety ; for His miraculous power exerted, evinced that
the Kingdom was nigh unto them, both in the person of the King, although
in humiliation, and in His possessing the adequate power to re-establish it,
if they made the necessary choice.
370 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 56.

Observe, also, that this language was addressed to unbelievers, to captious persons
who rejected Jesus. Hence, the Kingdom is come unto or upon you, certainly does not
allude in their case to an actual possession, but merely to its being offered to them.
Again, as critics have often noticed, the phrase ‘‘ is come’ is frequently used to denote a
drawing nigh, a divine purpose not then actually accomplished, etc., as e.g. Gen. 6 : 13;
Isa. 60 : 1 ; Heb. 12: 22, ete.

Obs.8. Renan (Life of Jesus, p. 249), after telling us that Christ had an
‘‘ apocalyptic theory’’ of the Kingdom (which, in another place, he defines
to be a literal fulfilment of Daniel), adopts very much the prevailing view of
the Messianic Kingdom by saying: ‘‘ He often declared that the Kingdom
of God has already commenced (?), that every man carries it in himself (?),
and may, if he be worthy of it, enjov it ; that each creates this Kingdom
(?) quietly by the true conversion of the heart,’’ and then interprets
the Kingdom to mean “‘ the good,” ‘‘ the reign of justice,’’ or, ‘‘ the
liberty of the soul.’’ He gives as proof, Matt. 6:10, 33, Mark 12 : 34,
Luke 11 :23;12:315; 17:20, 21. Such a@ total misapprehension of the
Kingdom (which ignores express covenant and prediction) is fortified by
the usage of eminent theologians. For the present, we only reiterate our
conviction, that the disciples on the ground were far better able to judge
concerning the Kingdom and what Christ declared respecting it, than
Renan is prepared to do at this late day.

Obs. 9. Olshausen, Neander, Lange, and many others are compelled,

in order to preserve consistency in their theory of a spiritual Kingdom,
to make this Kingdom commence somehow with the First Advent. Now,
while it is true that the Kingdom in a certain sense (Obs. 6) was in Christ,
and brought nigh by Him to the nation, yet it is wrong and misleading to
infer from this that 7¢ was established. The contrary, as held by the early
Church, is the truth. It is in view of this wnwarranted inference that
such writers take the great and unauthorized liberty of changing the
phrase “‘ nigh at hand ’’ into ‘‘ now established,” ‘‘ now founded,”’ ‘‘ now
already present,’’ etc. Overlooking the Kingdom that is covenanted even
under oath, and spiritualizing the promises, 1t is an easy matter to draw
from Christ’s language erroneous inferences.’ Forsaking the expressly
covenanted Kingdom for something else, introduces widely antagonistic
contrasts. The most divergent theories are a natural result. Some of
these have already been mentioned ; others are presented in the following
note.’
1 We will allow some to speak for themselves, leaving the reader to ponder a certain un-
decisive tone. Storr (Diss. On the Kingdom) says, respecting this nearness, that the
Kingdom was present and actually realized, because “ Jesus being born (Matt. 3 : 2), the
Kingdom in a certain sense (Luke 11 : 20, and 17 : 21 ; Matt. 12 : 28) was come,’’ being
promised to “‘ the offspring of David ;” and it could not commence until He was born,
and then “ the Kingdom had so far come that the King by whom it was to be adminis-
tered was certainly present.’’ From this he takes it for granted that it was thus “ ad-
ministered,’’ never attempting to prove the main fact, never considering that the pres-
ence of one entitled to reign and the reign itself are not necessarily cojoined, and never
noticing that a part of the covenant promise (i.e. the descent) he takes literally and the
rest (i.e. pertaining to the Kingdom) he discards. Is it possible to base so important a
ia bigr as the founding of a Messianic Kingdom, upon so slight and inferential a founda-
tion?
Schmid (Bib. Theol., p. 244) remarks : ‘‘ He describes the Kingdom of God as already
begun at the then present time (Matt. 12 : 28 ; Luke 11: 20, 21). The starting point of
this Kingdom is the appearance of John the Baptist (Matt. 11 : 12 ; Luke 16 : 16); up to
this time the Old Test. dispensation lasted. By Jesus in Matt. 11 : 11, contrasting the
Prop.. 56.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 371
Baptist with the members of the Kingdom of God, it may be perceived that the real com-
mencement of this Kingdom is connected with His person.’’ This needs no comment,
its points having already been anticipated (as to the Baptist, see Props. 38-41) ; but may
we not ask, Why this shifting of commencement from John to Christ, and then, as Lange
(Vom.) does, from the birth to the baptism, and from the baptism to the confession of
Peter, or to the death, or to the resurrection of Jesus, or to the day of Pentecost, etc. ?
Is this not a sign of weakness? Von Gerlach (Lange’s Com. Matt., p. 309) begins it at
the baptism of Jesus : ‘‘ At His baptism Jesus had, as the Son of Man, entered that new
Kingdom of God upon earth which He Himself had founded.’’ Strange procedure : the
Son of Man founds a Kingdom and then afterward enters into it Himself! This theory
is only a following of Augustine, who (City of God, B. 17, S. 8) speaking of His ‘‘ do-
minion from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth,” remarks : ‘‘ He
took the beginning of His reigning from the river where John baptized,’’ etc. The ab-
surdity is so apparent that it needs no reply.
Van Oosterzee (Theol. N. Test., p. 70), so also Thompson (The Theol. of Christ), tells us
that the Kingdom is ‘‘ something essentially present. When He comes, it appears with
Him ; it is already in the midst of those who are asking when it shall appear, Luke
17 : 20, 21.” | From this it is inferred, without noticing that if his argument is correct it
will also hold true that when He leaves the Kingdom leaves with Him. A full reply to
this favorite passage for inferential proof, taken from Luke, will appear under Prop.
110. It is only by confounding (Props. 79 and 80) the Divine Sovereignty with the
specially covenanted Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom that such inferences are unjustly
made. So Reuss (His. Ch. Theol., p. 154) argues: ‘‘ The Kingdem of God, which Jesus
desired to make a reality, commences with his personal appearance on the theatre of the
world. His Advent and the setting up of the Kingdom are one and the same thing, be-
cause He is the Head and the cause of the Kingdom, and the cause cannot exist without
its effect.’’ Then (p. 157) he asserts that for ‘‘ a precise date for the commencement of
the Kingdom,” “ that date is no other than the moment in which John the Baptist, the
last and the greatest of the prophets, opened its doors, so to speak, by proclaiming to the
world Him who was to realize its most cherished hopes,’’ and appeals as confirmatory to
Luke 16: 16 and Matt. 11 : 11-14. Thus, when men forsake the covenants and the pre-
dictions which determine the nature of the Kingdom intended, do they blunder and per-
vert the simple truth—men, too, who are able instructors in many other things. Alas:
it demands just such men to cause the church itself to drift into its predicted course of
unbelief (Prop. 177) ; weak men, or persons of no ability and power, could not exert such
an influence.
2 Thus e.g. Storr (Diss. on the Kingdom), not satisfied with his own declarations (Obs. 9,
note 1), adds : ‘‘ After the death of Jesus, from the period of His resurrection and ascen-
sion into heaven, that heavenly Kingdom which the ancient prophets had predicted was
entered upon by the offspring of David.” ‘‘It follows, then, that the commencement of
the Messiah’s Kingdom, although in a certain sense it.may be traced from His birth, yet
properly is to be reckoned from His ascension into heaven. Which proves that a far
different appearance was then given to the Kingdom of David, which Jesus possessed after
His death and return to a new life; and that the throne of David became a far more
exalted seat of majesty, from the time that it was occupied by Jesus.’’ Here is simply
one asssumption built upon another, and the leading one is that in some sense Jesus
really was on David’s throne. (Comp. Props. 52 and 122.) Nowif the Davidic throne
(taking their own theory) is the Father’s throne in the third heaven, how could the Son
of man, during His natural lifeeand previous to His exaltation, reign in the promised
Kingdom? Does that exaltation in the third heaven meet the conditions of a Theocratic
Kingdom covenanted to be here on the earth, or the predictions of the prophets in
describing the restoration of an overthrown Theocratic Kingdom in the land of Palestine ?
Dr. Bascom (Sermons, series 1, ser. 4), brings us to a climax. He informs us that the
Kingdom (as delineated in the 110 Ps., called ‘‘ the Creed of David’’) here described was
witnessed in the covenant of redemption in Paradise, is from eternity and extends to
eternity, and hence is not, as some assume, “‘a mere parenthesis in the Divine adminis-
tration.’’ This sadly mixes the Divine Sovereignty with the Kingdom specially cove-
nanted to David’s Son ; it utterly ignores the Humanity of Jesus, the Theocratic-Davidic
ordering, and what is promised to the Son of Man. But instead of answering Bascom,
we leave one of his own class of interpreters—but far more able—reply. Van Oosterzee
(Theol. N. Test., p. 69) observes: ‘‘The Kingdom is something new. Since it drew
near only in the fulness of time, it was not before found on earth. It is consequently
not merely the continuation of the former thread, but the commencement of an order of
things not before seen, Luke 10 : 23, 24, comp. Matt. 26 : 28.’’ Leaving otners to rec-
372 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [Prop. 56.

oncile, if they can, such opposite statements, it may be said that Oosterzee is right in
saying that it is new,’’ i.e. something to come, not existing just previously to the advent
(Props. 37 and 38), but is certainly wrong in the assertion that it was ‘* not before found
on earth,’”’ as shown by Props. 25, 29, 31, etc. For it is to be restored ; it is the restored
Theocratic Kingdom ; and it is “ new,’’ i.e. renewed (for the word ‘‘ new’’ is often used,
Prop. 50, in the sense of renewal), having also many ‘‘ new” features added (as e.g. the
rule of a God-man, of glorified and immortal rulers) that the Davidic Kingdom never
possessed. But we will not anticpiate coming Propositions.

Obs. 10. Here, at this preaching of the Kingdom as nigh at hand, so

many stumble and fall into serious error (comp. Props. 38, 42, 55). Let
us take Reuss (His. Ch.. Theol.), illustrative of a large class, which rightly
affirms that the idea of the Kingdom is fundamental, and then gives as a
special means for comprehending the nature of the Kingdom the epit-
omized formulas, ‘‘ the time is fulfilled ; the Kingdom of God is at hand ;
repent ye and believe the Gospel.’? Thus farcorrect ; but instead of look-
ing at these formulas from the covenanted standpoint and from the
Primitive view, he regards them entirely from @ modern position. More
than this: he overlooks the fact that the Jewish nation to whom this was
preached refused to repent ; the conditions then being altered and the
preaching of Jesus also (which he never notices) being changed, he pro-
ceeds on the assumption of repentance and the «mediate setting up of the
Kingdom ; and then to find this Kingdom nothing offered itself but the
Church, or believers, as the Divine Sovereignty, which, of course, under
such an illegitimate process of reasoning (leaving out the conditions,
whether actually complied with, upon which the Kingdom was tendered)
are elevated to the dignity of a Kingdom.

Obs. 11. The climax of unbelief in this direction is reached by Deprez

(John, or the Apoc. of the New Test.), a professed believer. Admitting that
the Kingdom was believed and preached as covenanted ; confessing that
it was not set up, as thus received, during the First Advent and since;
informing us that the apostles and Primitive Church wniversally looked
for the coming of this Kingdom, locating it at the Sec. Advent of Jesus,
he then proceeds, in the coolest possible manner, to suggest that all such
references to the Kingdom and Advent connected with it are to be rejected
as spurious, as additions given under a gross misapprehension of the
truth. This interpretation and remedy (indorsed by eminent men) is
simply a. total perversion of covenant and Scripture, a fatal blow at the
integrity and authority of the Word itself. It follows, as a natural result,
from three things, all of which are taken for granted : (1) that the King-
dom now exists, in a form so widely different from the expectations of the
early Church and the descriptions of the Word, that it is impossible to
reconcile them ; (2) that the most solemnly given Scripture, viz.: the cove-
nant (given under oath and the basis of the Kingdom), is to be also ignored
as incapable of fulfilment ; (8) and that Holy Writ, descriptive of the
postponement of this Kingdom to the Sec. Advent, is not to have any
weight in the consideration of this subject. In other words, Deprez,
whether intentional or not, sets himself up as the judge of Scripture (what
to receive and what to reject), without allowing Scripture to testify in its
own behalf. If no such Kingdom exists now, certainly it is no more than
simple justice demands to permit Scripture to assign its reasons for the
same (comp. Props. 57-68).
Prop. 56.] TILE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 373

Obs. 12. In the light of Scripture there is no excuse for the prevailing
interpretations respecting the Kingdom, for, over against the meanings
engrafted by man, there is an abundance to satisfy the reverent student
that they are utterly untenable. Without attempting to forestall the
proof that the following Propositions contain, it may be well to say that
numerous passages directly affirm, or imply, our position. ‘Take e.g. Matt.
26:29, Mark 14:25, and Jesus in the expressions “‘ wntil that day’’
locates the Kingdom in the future, which is made more emphatic by Luke
(22 : 18) saying: ‘* Until the Kingdom of God shall come.’’ If the King-
dom already existed, such phraseology would be entirely out of place, but
with our view it is consistent and significant. The general tenor of the
Word indicates the same feature. Thus e.g. when Jesus speaks of entering
into the Kingdom of heaven (Matt. 7 : 21, 22), its futurity is expressed by
the phrase ‘* 72 that day,’’ i.e., it is something not present to be realized at
once. So-also in the prayer‘‘ thy Aingdom come,’’ the futurity of which
was believed in by the disciples, and which excited the petition (for the
prayer was given in accordance with the well-known views of the disciples)
just before the ascension, Acts 1:6. Thus in Matt. 19 : 28, Luke 22 : 29,
by adopting the Jewish phraseology linked with the Messianic Kingdom,
Jesus conclusively teaches that the Kingdom is future and not present.

Obs. 13. The distinctive preaching of Jesus, based as it is on the

covenants, throws light on the vexed question pertaining to the relation
that He sustained to the law. He observed the law Himself and enjoined
it upon others, and yet intimated, in the destruction of the temple, etc.,
the abrogation of the Mosiac law. But we must carefully distinguish when
the latter was done, viz. after the representative men of the nation had
conspired against Him, and after He had revealed His rejection by the
nation. We hear much about Jesus being no Jew in spirit, etc. Even
believers largely indorse the language of Renan (Life of Jesus, p. 207),
‘* Jesus, in other words, is no longer a Jew.” ‘‘ He proclaims the rights
of man, not the rights of the Jew ; the religion of man, not the religion of
the Jew ; the deliverance of man, and not the deliverance of the Jew’’
(comp. Prop. 69). Against all such inferential, cosmopolitan reasoning,
we need only place one passage (Rom. 15 : 8) out of many: ‘‘Now I sa
that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to
confirm the promises made unto the Fathers.’’ Hence His restricted mis-
sion, Prop. 54.
This deserves more attention. The preaching of Jesus indicates that He was a Jewish
preacher to Jews. The covenants, the promises, the predictions all demand this, and
hence His exclusive mission to the Jews. The cosmopolitan results are invariably linked
with, first, a fall of the Jewish nation, and, secondly, with a recovery of the same nation.
The Gentiles are reached and blessed through the Jews, for it is ever true that ‘‘ Salva-
tion is of the Jews.” Paul affirms, what simple consistency requires, that Jesus exercised
His office of Messiah with special reference to the covenanted people, the Jews. He
could not,. with covenanted truth before Him, occupy any other position. Besides this,
as the law was obligatory upon the Jewish nation, and had formed part of the Davidic
institution or Theocratic rule, it was essential that the Heir, the promised Son of David,
should, as Son of Man, render obedience to that law (until set aside) thus vindicating
His fitness, sinlessness, reverence for God’s appointments, and worthiness to be the
Ruler on David’s throne (comp. Props. 83, 84, etc.). What changes would have resulted
had the Jews received Him, we cannot tell, seeing that God’s Plan was determined in view
of this foreseen rejection. The grace and mercy extended to Gentiles, as will be more
clearly stated hereafter, through the unbelief of the Jews, does not alter Christ’s Jewish
374 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 56.

attitude or lessen His being ‘‘ a minister of the circumcision.” When the nation fell and
the times of the Gentiles continued on, the Mosaic ritual was abrogated by the very force
of circumstances. And it is a curious and striking exhibition of Christ’s delicate feeling
toward His own specific mission to the Jewish people, that, what Paul afterward co
boldly proclaimed as no longer binding, Jesus only intimated in an indirect manner.
He respected and honored His mission.
Prop. 57.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 375

Proposition 57. This Kingdom was offered to the Jewish nation,

but the nation rejected tt.
That it was offered in good faith we have seen—the mission of
John, Jesus, and the disciples being confined to the nation. But
the nation, instead of repenting and receiving the Messiah, con-
spired through its representative men, the chief priests, scribes,
and elders, to put Him to death. The entire record of the Gospels
shows how He was persecuted and finally crucified, as John 1:11,
Luke 19:14, Matt. 16:21, Matt. 20:18, 19, etc. By this action
they said: ‘‘ We will not have this man to reign over us ;’’ by this
conduct they evinced how utterly unprepared, morally, they were
for a restored Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom under the Messiah.
If it be asked, Why this imposed condition of repentance? the answer is plain. Such
a Theocratic Kingdom under the Messiah, with the accompanying elevation of the Jewish
nation—as covenanted and predicted—cannot possibly be established without a suitable
moral preparation. An exaltation to such supremacy and honor, unless previously pre-
pared for it, would only have excited the pride, the selfishness, the arrogance, and am-
bition of the Jewish nation. The purity of the Kingdom intended, its design for bless-
ing, the character of its rulers, the Theocratic idea itself—all demanded hearty repent-
ance and true reformation. This feature will appear more evident when we see how
God is raising up a repentant people for this very purpose, viz. : to establish it upon a
basis of moral preparation in the persons of those who are associated with Him in gov-
ernment. Thus e.g. the account of Luke 9 : 60, which some denounce as “ cruelty,” and
which others (Barnes, etc.) explain that ‘* sentimentality’’ must give place to ‘‘ deci-
sion’’ and ‘‘ eternal consolations,’’ can be more readily explained in the light of this con-
ditioned repentance. The man was a disciple of Jesus, as evidenced by his asking per-
mission. Now, as the offer of the Kingdom, the greatest of all things, was thus con-
ditioned, and the preaching of this repentance nationally being very limited and urgent
(in order to make the nation inexcusable), it was of the highest moment and importance to
bring this testimony before the nation ; all other objects, for the time being, must give
place to this one, so essential, which could not be postponed. Hence, under the circum-
stances, the charge to preach the Kingdom—a style of preaching which speedily, as we
shall show—changed, the crisis having been passed.

Obs. 1. Nationally, through the nation’s highest officials and council,

the Kingdom was rejected on account of the rmposed condition, repentance,
although individual Jews repenting were received as believers. ‘The
Kingdom could not be erected, owing to its affiliation with the nation
itself, requiring not merely a few who believed, but a national moral
regeneration. The past history of the nation clearly taught’ the sad truth
that, without such a moral reformation, 7¢ was utterly unfitted to bear a
Theocratic rule. This it most painfully evidenced at the First Advent by
crucifying its own promised Messiah. This was, when fully appreciated,
a fearful crime. The great question with the Jew, after the Messiah was
killed, was this: How could he under such aggravating guilt, slaying the
covenanted David’s Son, be saved from his sin? This it was that caused,
under Peter’s exhibition of this guilt, that anguish of heart, bursting forth
376 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 57.

into the significant inquiry: ‘‘ Men and brethren, what shall we do?’’
What they were to do—this key of knowledge given in mercy—was com-
mitted to Peter, as well as the other key pertaining to the Gentiles.
The modern Reformed Jews deny that the fall of the Jewish nation resulted from
sinfulness. Weleave them to assign the reason for their dispersion, etc., in the following
resolution at a meeting held by Reformed Rabbins in Philadelphia, Pa. (quotedin The
Israelite Indeed, Feb. No., 1871) : ‘‘ Resolved, That the fall of the Jewish state had not its
cause in the sinfulness of Israel, but in the Divine purpose, manifested more and more
in history, tosend the members of the Hebrew race to all parts of the earth, for the ful-
filment of their high mission, to lead all nations to the true conception and worship of
God.” Now, aside from the New Test. declarations (which they, of course, do not re-
ceive, and yet which are verified in the literal fulfilment of its predictions in their actual
history), this is utterly opposed by Moses in his prophecies, by all the prophets, by the
repeated confessions of the ancient Jews, and even by modern Orthodox. Many prayers
of the Jews indicate the truthfulness of the same; and it is only a spirit of unbelief in
the Divine Record, a virtual abandonment of God’s own testimony and that of the nation
itself in the past, that can lead to such unscriptural and unhistorical resolutions. Rev.
Van Noorden (pastor Holland Pres. Ch., Chicago) has written some strictures on this un-
tenable resolution, and among other things shows ‘‘ that since the fall of Jerusalem the
Jews as a nation never have influenced the nations to forsake idolatry, nor taken any
active steps to lead the nations to the true conception and worship of God.” History
substantiates this, seeing that civilization, enlightenment, etc. came through the labors,
etc. of Christians, and not through Jews, however individuals of the race may have
aided in the same work. The entire resolution, therefore, is opposed both by Scripture
and history, and its framers were unable to substantiate it by a single quotation from
or reference to the Word of God.

Obs. 2. The leading reason assigned by the priests and Pharisees in

council (John 11 : 47, 48) for putting Jesus to death (whom they hated
for exposing their rottenness, and insisting upon repentance) was, that by
acknowledging Him as their King, they should bring the Roman power
upon themselves, which would destory ‘‘ both our place and nation.’’
Here certainly was lack T faith in a Theocratic King and Kingdom. And
on this very charge was He arraigned before Pilate (Luke 23 : 2, 3); thus
hatred causing them to choose Cesar, instead of ‘‘ Christ, a King.”’? Let
the reader reflect: their guilt was aggravated by a knowledge of the
covenanted Kingdom, of a covenanted Messiah in David’s line able to
protect against all earthly power, and hence their malignity was manifested
in causing the death of One who gave all the predicted evidences of
Messiahship, and in taking advantage of the very tender of this Kingdom
to them in procuring His condemnation. Their knowledge of the cove-
nants and prophets, their acquaintance with the works of Christ, made the
rejection the more deliberate and cruel. Knowing the claims of the pre-
dicted Messiah, knowing that if He ever came He should be truly a King
on David’s restored throne—this makes the charge produced by them and
their conduct in the matter the more dastardly and inexcusable. What
was offered in mercy and love, they make the basis of accusation and death,
This condition of repentance, as essential to the bestowment of a Theocracy im-
posed, is the key to the private nature of Christ’s miracles. Unbelievers ask why they
were not more conspicuous, etc. The design was to give sufficient evidence to satisfy
His claim to Messianic power and dignity ; hence the miracles performed in connection
with this preaching. If, however, on the other hand, He had publicly, like Moses, at
Jerusalem performed miracle after miracle of an astounding nature, he would have pre-
cipitated the nation, without being morally qualified, into an effort (as even in His re-
serve was adverted to, John 6 : 15) to make Him King by force, thus bringing on a re-
bellion against the Roman Government. The exhibition of the miraculous was graduated
by this condition of repentance. The delicacy of Jesus—foreknowing the result—in
Prop. 57.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 377

avoiding, by withdrawal and retirement, to bring the nation into revolt against and con-
flict with the Roman Empire, is most admirable, and serves to explain a number of
events in His life.

_ Obs. 3. Pressense (The Redeemer) has several chapters on “‘ The Prepara-

tion for Christianity,”’ and takes the position, as announced in his Preface :
‘“‘In my view, that preparation consisted solely in developing the desire of
salvation.’? We apprehend that here is a great mistake, as plain fact
proves. ‘Thousands before the Advent desired salvation, but did not
obtain it; few at the Advent entertained it so strongly that they were
willing to acquiesce in God’s mode of securing it, for the multitude re-
jected and crucified Christ, and by their very conduct showed that other
motives, other desires, were stronger than those alleged by Pressense. The
facts disprove the theory. If the nation had repented and received Jesus
as the Messiah, then, and only then, would it be true, but as it did not,
such a preparation is 7maginary.
See e.g. what Mosheim, Neander, Killen, Kurtz, and others say of the actual con-
dition of the Jews, sunken into degeneracy, divided into hostile parties, eager for Roman
patronage, etc. The simple Bible truth is this : the Word predicts the unsuccessful nature
of Christ’s tender of the Kingdom, the unbelief of the nation, that He shall be despised,
rejected, etc. The nation itself is suffering continued punishment for its unbelief. The
desire for salvation was only such as wicked men now possess, viz. : a willingness to be
saved in, and not from, their sins. A proper desire, excepting in a few, was not culti-
vated. Hence, many writers blunder when adverting to this subject, forgetting that
both Advents, the First and the Second, are represented as finding the people arrayed
against the Christ. For even at the time of the Sec. Advent, when Jesus comes again
‘“unto salvation,’ we find that the world, instead of desiring salvation, will be in open
hostility to the Messianic claims. Both Advents fall under the san:e Divine procedure,
and we must look deeper than this for the real preparation. The secret of the matter
lies in the Divine Purpose, foretold already by Moses, Deut. 33 : 21, who, instead of pre-
dicting a desire for salvation, prophesied the unbelief and rebellion of God’s chosen people
and their punishment until a period of trial had passed, and that, notwithstanding the
same, God would gather out a people who shall desire, and ultimately participate in,
this salvation. The Divine Purpose accommodated itself in the Plan of Redemption to
these foreseen exhibitions of national depravity. The times of the Gentiles were intro-
duced, not because of the desire of salvation previously fostered in the Jewish nation,
but because (as Paulin Rom. 11) of unbelief, the veil over their eyes, their fall. The
idea of there having been preparations going on and culminating at that period is in-
deed a correct one, as other writers have noticed (in language, facilities of intercourse,
general peace, etc.), for prophecy indicates this ; but it possesses a different aspect and
must be placed on other grounds. The error of some writers consists in this: having
no proper conception of another and coming dispensation here on the earth, in which
salvation is to be realized, they make the faith, hope, and earnests of salvation the salva-
tion itself, and under the influence of this misapprehension indulge themselves in cor-
responding laudatory flights, opposed alike to fact and the Word.

Obs. 4. This Kingdom was offered to the nation in good faith, i.e. it
would have been bestowed provided the nation had repented. The fore-
known result made no difference in the tender of it, so far as the free
agency of the nation is concerned; that result flowed from a voluntary
choice. The national unbelief did not change God’s faithfulness, Rom.
3:3. It would be derogatory to the mission of Christ to take any other
view of it, and the sincerity and desire of Jesus that the nation might
accept, is witnessed in His tears over Jerusalem, in His address to it, in
His unceasing labors, in sending out the twelve and the seventy, and in
His works of mercy and love. It follows, then, that the Jews had the
privilege accorded to them of accepting the Kingdom, and if the condition
378 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 57.

annexed to it had been complied with, then the Kingdom of David would
have been most gloriously re-established under the Messiah.
The question, How, then, would the atonement have been made by the shedding of
blood? has nothing whatever to do with the sincerity of this offer, for ‘‘ the manifold
wisdom of God” would have been equal to the emergency, either by antedating to some
other period, or by providing for it previously ; or in some other, to us unknown, way.
As it was, God’s purposes, His determinate counsel, are shaped by what was a foreseen
voluntary choice of the nation. God’s mercy was willing to bestow, but the nation’s
depravity prevented the gift. That the Kingdom would have been established had the
nation believed, is evident from Deut., ch, 32, 2 Chron. 7 : 12-22, Isa. 48 :18, Ps. 81 : 8-
16,.etc. Dealing with facts, we are not concerned with contingencies. Compare Ooster-
zee’s Civ. Dog., vol. 2, p. 523, and Augustine quoted by him, and Augustine and Gregory
the Great as quoted by Hagenbach, His. of Doc., vol. 1, p. 351.
In the programme of unbelief we find it asserted by the Duke of Somerset (Ch. Theol.
and Mod. Skep., p. 139).that ‘‘ the disbelief of the Jews in Jesus was indispensable to
the scheme of the atonement’’—language even incautiously used by some believers,
This is disproven by this tender of the Kingdom, by the prevailing tenor of the Word,
and by the guilt of the nation not being compromised or lessened through such a fiction.
It is unauthorized assumption. Paul’s argument in Romans proceeds on the supposition
that the nation had the power of choice, that it wilfully chose the evil, and that God in
mercy overruled its fall for the salvation of the Gentiles. They stumbled and fell, not
through necessity, and not because God’s Purpose required it, but solely through their
own unbelief ; and God’s Plan, as the Omniscient, embraced the same as a foreknown
result, and made provision accordingly. This feature also meets a Jewish objection.
Thus e.g. Levi (Disserts., vol. 1, p. 120) says: ‘‘ They (Christian Apologists) cannot
produce one single, clear, unequivocal prophecy of the Old Test. which foretells a
twofold coming of one and the same person as the Messiah,’’ etc. This arises simply
from the fact that, as this offer was to be made at the First Advent, the prophecies are
guardedly (see Prop. 55, Obs. 7, and Prop. 34) given, and at the same time sufficiently
distinctive to show that at the First Advent, as occurred, the Messiah would be de-
spised and rejected (Isa. 55, Dan. 9 : 26).

Obs. 5. Able writers make incautious assertions relative to this period.

Thuse.g. Oosterzee (Theol. New Test., p. 82) on this point says : ‘‘ The cove-
nant act of the Theocracy thus founded was the lawgiving at Sinai ; its seat
the Sanctuary ; i¢s end, not the rising of the Kingdom, by which it was
modified, but the destruction of the Israelitish state; its highest benefit,
finally, was the appearing of Him who put an end to the wall of separation
between Israel and the nations.’’ According to the express promises an-
nexed by Moses (Prop. 26) to Deut. 32, its end was not such as Oosterzee
states, for it was designed for blessing and not for such a destruction.
The end alleged by him was brought about, not by the tender of a Theocratic
Kingdom (much less by a Kingdom not then in existence), not by the
appearing of Christ in itself, but is invariably attributed to the nation’s
unbelief. If we do not accept of the solution given by revelation, and put
the fall of the nation where God places it, viz.: not in His purposing or
designing it, but in their own wnbelief, we introduce an antagonism into.«
the Divine Plan, inconsistent with the universal ideas of justice and love,
and invite, unnecessarily, the sneers of infidelity. Besides this, the end
contemplated has not yet come ; let the times of the Gentiles end, and let
this nation again be restored, and then will the Theocracy be restored, and
refute such fallacies.
Prop. 58.| THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 379

Proposition 58. Jesus, toward the close of His ministry,

preached that the Kingdom was not nigh.
If, indeed, the covenanted Davidic Kingdom is offered, and that
tender is rejected through unwillingness to repent, then it follows,
from the foreknowledge lodged in Jesus, that it is reasonable to
expect some such procedure. The statement in the Proposition is
abundantly confirmed. Just so soon as the representatives of the
nation met in council and conspired to put Jesus to death, then,
released from the first part of His mission, His style of preaching
also changed. Instead of proclaiming that the Kingdom was nigh
to the nation, He now directly intimates and declares that 7¢ was
not nigh. Matt. 21: 48, ‘‘The kingdom of God shall be taken from
you and given toa nation bringing forth the fruits thereof,’ is
already conclusive (as will be shown hereafter), confirmed as it is
by other passages.
Obs. 1. The importance of this point, so much overlooked by com-
mentators and theologians, will justify additional proof. Thus e.g. take
the parable of the marriage of the King’s son, Matt. 22 : 1-14, given just
after (Matt. 21:43), He declared that the Kingdom should be taken
from them, and we have: (1) The Jewish nation bidden but refusing the
invitation (showing the sincerity of the offer, etc.) ; (2) if the invitation
had been accepted, the marriage would have taken place ; but the invited
guests refusing, i¢ was postponed until other guests were furnished ; (3) the
marriage (i.c. the enthronement to the Kingdom, comp. Prop. 169), the
wedding (i.e. the inauguration blessings and privileges, the Kingdom
being likened to a feast, Prop. 169), were no longer nigh to these invited
ones ; (4) the marriage, the time when the guests are scrutinized, is (as
commentators inform us correctly) at the Sec. Advent of this King, hence
ostponed until that period. Again: the parable of the Great Supper,
uke 14 : 15-24, has also reference to this fact. It was suggested by the
saying, ‘‘ Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the Kingdom of Grod,’’ i.e. in
this 'Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom, for such was the meaning attached to
the phrase. Jesus,in reply, expressively shows how this Kingdom was
received. The persons (Jews) specially invited to this ‘‘ great supper’’
(i.e. to the blessings of this Kingdom) rejected the invitation, for “‘ they all
with one consent began to make excuse,’’ and other guests are to be
invited, urged to come and enjoy it, whilst ‘“‘none of those men which
were bidden shall taste of my supper,”’ i.e. 1¢ was no longer nigh to those
invited. The calling of other guests now (still going on) takes the place
of the first invitation—a new exigency and preparation being evolved—and
the supper, until these guests are obtained (Prop. 65) 7s postponed to the
Sec. Advent (Prop. 169).
380 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 58.

The critical student may perhaps ask what Gospel do we follow in its chronological
order. Our preference is Matthew (so Ebrard, Gosp. His., as Calvin, Bengel, etc.), where
Jesus declares His rejection shortly after the sending forth of the disciples to preach. But
we can (with Wieseler and others) take Luke, or even any of the others (as we shall show in
Prop. 187), with the same result. For this postponement of the Kingdom, so constantly
ignored by Christian Apologists, is a most powerful factor in the criticism, both of the
Gospel writings and the Gospel History. It conclusively proves that the great object of
the writers, in all of them, was to show—(1) That Jesus was the Messiah ; (2) why the
Messianic Kingdom was delayed ; when and through whom itshall be established. The
idea of a postponement (even contained in the references to a future coming of Himself
in glory, and which caused the question of the disciples in Matt. 24:3 respecting His
future coming), must have singularly impressed the disciples, owing to their utter
inability to reconcile it with His death. Without comment, they give us a complete his-
tory of the facts as they existed, and do not conceal the perplexity in which they were
involved, owing to their having allied to the First Advent promises which are only to be
realized at the Second.

Obs. 2. But we have more explicit announcements. Thus, Luke19 :41-

44, in which is found: (1) Jesus weeping over the city ; (2) the things
which belonged unto their peace, being rejected, were hid from them ; (3)
the evil results of their unbelief, in being given over to their enemies and
continuing under ther power; (4) this great evil brought upon them
because they appreciated not the offer made, because ‘‘ thou knewest not
the time of thy visitation.’’ Here, instead of a Kingdom, is presented a
direful threatening of fearful incoming evils. Again: in Matt. 23 : 37, 38,
we have: (1) the rejection of His message, evinced by the treatment of
those sent ; (2) Christ’s earnest desire that they might receive it ; (3) but
‘*they would not,’’ indicating a voluntary rejection ; (4) then ‘‘ the house
left desolate,’’ no restoration being granted ; (5) and Christ’s withdrawal
from them for a time; (6) so that, instead of a Aingdom coming then to
them, dispersion and the destruction of the city is determined, owing to
their unrepentant state.
It was in view of this rejection of the Messiah, this refusal to repent, that the sign of
Jonah was specified by Jesus in Matt. 12:38-41. Persons have sought for an analogy
between the sign of Jonah to that generation and that of the Son of man. Much that is
unsatisfactory (by believers, who refer it to death and the resurrection, forgetting that
Jonah was alive, etc.) and witless (by unbelievers, who ridicule it as a standing joke)
has been said and written. Many confess their utter inability to see where the analogy
is to be found. Thus e.g. a writer in The Spectator (and Littell’s Liv. Age) for 1872
(Art. ‘‘ Fred. Deu. Maurice”), after stating that Maurice “ admitted that he could not
understand the analogy between Jonah’s three days’ burial in the fish and our Lord’s
three days’ burial,” adds : ‘‘ He (Maurice) would not admit that he believed the Evange-
list to have made a mistake, and to have attributed a fanciful analogy of his own to his
Master.” Maurice, professing himself unable to explain, was correct in rejecting the
notion of ‘‘ a fanciful analogy’’ concocted by Matthew. The preaching of this Kingdom
on condition of repentance, and the refusal to repent, explains and enforces the anal-
ogy. ‘The simplicity of the analogy has caused it to be overlooked. To realize its force
we must place ourselves on Jewish ground in the position of the Scribes and Pharisees
who demanded a sign. The Kingdom was offered; a sign was required, by those
unwilling to repent, against (v. 41, 42) all reasonable evidence already afforded. Jesus
virtually and emphatically tells them that the only sign which they deserved is the sign of
unbelief. Jonah was three days and nights in the fish’s belly, owing to unbelief, so Jesus,
for the same period, was in the grave because of Jewish unbelief. The one was evidence
of unbelief, the other also, so that the declaration is equivalent to saying that the nation
would not repent but be the means of Christ’s death, This is confirmed by what imme-
diately follows.

Obs. 3. The evidence on this point is strong and cumulative, and there
are given even clearer exhibitions than.the preceding. In Luke 21 : 31 is
Prop. 58.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 381

something decisive, when apprehended in the light of the immediate con-

text. After describing the destruction of the temple (v. 6, 20), the Crys of
vengeance (v. 22, 23), the captivity and dispersion of the nation (v. 24),
the treading down of Jerusalem ‘‘ until the times of the Gentiles be ful-
filled’ (v. 24), the Advent of the Son of Man (vy. 27), the approach of our
redemption (v. 28), the signs of a coming deliverance (v. 28, 29, 30), the
Saviour adds : ‘ So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know
ye that the Aingdom of God is nigh at hand.’’ At the beginning of His
ministry, it was relatively nigh (as we have shown) ; the offer was simply
conditioned by repentance ; and being left to their choice, no long interval,
as here intimated, must take place before it is‘nigh to them. Now, how-
ever, since His death was actually contemplated by the representatives of
the nation, the offer is withdrawn, and the postponement of the Kingdom,
its not being nigh to them, 7s directly stated by an enumeration of certain
events which are previously to take place before it is nigh again. Let the
reader examine these events, and he will find that not one of them occurred
between the delivery of the prediction and the death of Christ ; hence
the Kingdom was not yet come. But more: none of them took place be-
tween their utterance and the day of Pentecost ; hence the Kingdom was
not established. This, in which all are agreed as to the non-occurrence of
the events, is all that is needed thus far in our argument.
But in this passage and context we have more than this: two things may well call
for consideration. (1) Let the reader reflect upon the Jewish idea of ‘‘ the Coming
One’’ and ‘‘ the world to come,” etc., and then notice that the questions of the disciples
respecting His coming and the end of this age imply the notion of the introduction of
the Messianic Kingdom. The reply indicates no such introduction, but a continued series
of events, long continued (for this passage and Matt. 24 and 25 and Mark 13 contain an
epitomized history of this dispensation down to the Sec. Advent), before the Kingdom
again, comes nigh. (2) Next, consider the events enumerated, and the destruction of
Jerusalem, which occurred thirty or forty years afterward ; the captivity and dispersion
of the Jews, the domination of the Gentiles over the city during the times of the Gentiles,
etc., are mentioned, all of which are still in the course of fulfilment, and consequently
(as we advoeate) the Kingdom (which could only again be nigh ‘“‘ when these thinys come
to pass’) is still in the future. Comp. some excellent remarks by Philo, Basilicus (Judge
Jones, of Philadelphia) in Essays on the Coming of the Kingdom of God (Literalist, vol. 3,
p. 32). Jones says: ‘‘Ifit should be said that by ‘ these things’ we must understand
some of these things, the answer is, that would be adding to Scripture, not expounding
it ; besides, it would not remove the difficulty, because we have no evidence that any of
these things came to pass before the commencement of the present dispensation. If it
should be said (as it sometimes is) that all these predictions relate to the destruction of
Jerusalem, the difficulty remains, for certainly the present dispensation commenced Jong
before that event. Not only had the Gospel been promulgated throughout the Roman
Empire, but almost the whole of the New Test. was written before that event, and
several of the apostles, among whom were James, Peter, and Paul, had suffered martyr-
dom. If itbe said that (v. 34 proves) these things must have been fulfilled within the
life time of the men then living, the answer is, that this verse must be interpreted so as
to be consistent with the facts of the case.’’ After mentioning the facts, he adds:
“* Besides, the Word translated generation signifies race in this place, as may be easily
proved, and it was so understood by Jerome, who must be allowed to be a competent
judge of the meaning of the Latin word generatio.’’
With this opinion agree Clarke and numerous other commentators, who read v. 34 :
“This nation shall not pass (i.e. be rooted out, etc.) till all these things be fulfilled.”
The idea being that the fulfilment is linked with the destiny of the nation, and that there-
fore, notwithstanding their scattering and dreadful persecutions, it would be preserved.
As this verse is frequently employed against us, it will be well, in view of the frequent use
made of the chapter containing it, to add some particulars to those given under another
heading. ‘To indicate the varieties of meanings attached to the passage, making it in full
agreement with our views, we give the following : Jerome applies it either to the human
382 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 58.

race or particularly to the Jewish ; Calovius, Mede, Dorner, Stier, Nast, Alford, Faber,
etc., to the Jewish nation ; Wordsworth, etc., to the literal Israel (as a race) and to the
Spiritual Israel (as the same); Origen, Chrysostom, Paulus, Lange, etc., to the believers
(as a race), as indicate in v, 33. Other interpretations are given, as e.g. that (so Elliott,
Barbour, Lord, etc.) it refers to the future generation then living, making it parallel
with Luke 21 : 31, 32, “ when ye shall see ;’’ Luke 17 : 34,‘'this night,’’ etc. Some (as
Byrant, etc.) think the key is found in vs. 33 of the preceding ch., in “‘ this generation
of vipers,” indicative of a continued unbelief. The reverse of this is given by others
(as Rutter, etc.), who make it “‘ the generation of the righteous,’’ referring to the perpe-
tuity of the faithful or of the church ; or (as Lange), ‘* the generation of Christians, as a
generation of those who wait for Christ never pass away.”’ (Lange’s view is a revival
of De Syra’s.) Piscator, Erasmus, etc. render generation by w@tas or age. Brookes
(Maranatha, p. 68) refers to quotations, showing that the word translated “‘ fulfilled ” is
often used to denote the beginning of an event without expressing its completion, so that
it would read, it retaining the limited idea of generation : *‘ This generation shall not pass
till ali these things (the predicted desolations of Israel, terminating with His Sec.
Coming) begin to be fulfilled.’’ (This is the opinion of Luther, Cunningham, Bush,
Van Oosterzee, Ebrard, and others.) Bickersteth and others refer the verse simply as
including the overthrow of the temple and Jerusalem. The meaning of the words
“oeneration’’ and ‘‘ fulfilled,’’ as given in Lexicons, in Commentaries, and in other
renderings, make such interpretations justifiable. Hodge (Sys. Div., vol. 3, p. 799) says:
‘' There is high authority for making ‘ generation’ refer to Israel as a people or race ;’’
the same is true of others. We cannot admit the limited notion of generation without
allowing (unless we adopt the idea of ‘‘ age’’ or ‘‘ beginning to be fulfilled ”’) the claims
of Rationalistic criticism, which asserts, truthfully, that these predictions were not ful-
filled within the bounds ofan ordinary generation. (Comp. Alford, Lange, Stier, Nast,
etc.; Brookes’s Muranatha, p. 67; Cumming’s Great Tribulation, pp. 157, 159 ; Proph.
Times, vol. 6, p. 76 and p. 205 ; Seiss’s Last Times, Ap. ; Literalist, vol. 3, p. 160 ; Lord’s
Lit. and Theol. Journal, July, 1854, p. 161, ete.

Obs. 4. Luke 19 : 11-27 forcibly demonstrates our Proposition. Jesus

uttered this parable *‘ because they thought that the Kingdom of God should
amimediately appear.’? In His reply there is no intimation (as is unjustly
inferred, comp. Prop. 110) that the Jews were mistaken in their idea of
the Kingdom, and that, if modern notions are correct, the Kingdom had
already come and was established. If this had been so, then the answer of
Jesus would be cruelly irrelevant ; but with the proper conception of the
Kingdom it is finely consistent and forcibly expressed. For there is (as
there could not be) no declaration that they were wrong in believing that
the Kingdom which they expected, the Messianic, was still in the future.
They were only mistaken in the opinion, carefully announced, ‘‘ that the
Kingdom of God should immediately appear.’’ Now the parable is given to
correct this belief in the immediate setting up of the Kingdom, to indicate
that 7¢ would not soon appear, but only after an undefined period of time
had elapsed. For He represents Himself as a nobleman, who, having a
right to the Kingdom, goes ‘‘ into a far country to receive’’ (to have His
title confirmed) *‘ for Himself a Kingdom, and to return.’’ During His
absence His servants “‘ occupy till I come.’’ Then after an interval of
time, not definitely stated, the period having come to enter upon His
reign, having received the Kingdom, He returns, judgment follows, and
those who rejected Him (saying, ‘‘ we will not have this man to reign
over us’’) are destroyed. Here we have: (1) the Jews thought that the
Kingdom would now appear ; (2) but i was not nigh, for (a) He would
leave, (0) they had refused His proffered reign, (c) those, however, who
were devoted to Him should “‘ oceupy’’ until He returned, (d) during His
absence there was no Kingdom, being gone to receive the power to
reign ; (3) He would return and then manifest His acquired power (Prop.
Prop. 58.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 383

83) in the establishment of His Kingdom. Thus we have the absence, and
then ‘‘ the appearing and Kingdom’’ of Christ.
This parable first seriously directed the attention of Greswell (Work on Parables, vol.
4, p. 419-514) to the Millenary dispensation, and confirmed his faith in the Primitive
Church view of the Kingdom to be set up at Christ’s return. He justly remarked that it
was impossible to explain it “‘ satisfactorily and consistently upon any other principle than
that of a reference to the Millenary dispensation,’’ ete. This is corroborated by the con-
tradictory statements of commentators and others, who spiritualize this Kingdom, and
have it existing either under Christ’s ministry or at His ascension. Thus e.g. Barnes,
loci, after having repeatedly told us that the Kingdom had already come, that multitudes
pressed into it, etc., flatly contradicts his former bold inferences by saying that “ the
reign of the Messiah should immediately commence, He spake the parable to correct
that expectation.”” But how reconcile it with his own statements? Thus: ‘‘ By the
nobleman is undoubtedly represented the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ; by His
going into a far country is denoted His going to heaven, to the right hand of the
Father, before He should fully sel up the Kingdom and establish His reign among men.’’
Lisco (On the Parables, p. 398) correctly observes ‘‘ that this Kingdom should be imme-
diately, without any further delay, set up, against which the intimation in the parable is
directed, that it should necessarily be a long time before the return of the nobleman,”
but vitiates the force of it by putting into the parable what it does not, even by implica-
tion, teach, viz: ‘‘ He (Jesus) will give full manifestation of it (the Kingdom) from
heaven.’’ Numerous illustrations of this character could be given, but these will suffice
to show how men, under a false theory of the Kingdom, labor to reconcile this parable
with a spiritualistic conception by introducing that which, on its face and intent, it
utterly repudiates. Attention might be called to other passages, especially Luke 17:
20-37 (see Prop. 110), but as these will be brought up in connection with other Proposi-
tions, this proof must, for the present, content us. For, taking these together, and ob-
serving their uniform testimony, they already suffice to establish our Proposition. ‘

Obs. 5. It is worthy of notice, that Christ only openly predicted His

sufferings and death toward the close of His ministry, Matt. 20 : 17-20,
John 12 : 32-34, ete. This was designedly done, and accords with our
position. The Kingdom was offered according to the promise made to the
Fathers. Being a minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises,
this tender, embracing the most precious of the promises, was necessarily
included. When He was rejected, and efforts were made to destroy Him,
then He was free to unfold what God had farther purposed in view of, and
to overrule, this rejection.
The critical student will also notice another peculiarity, viz.: that before it was fully
determined by the chief men of the nation to kill Jesus, He was far more free in com-
municating in private than in His public discourses. Judge Jones (‘‘ Philo-Basilicus,’’
Essays, Literalist, vol. 3, p. 62-64) has noticed this, and assigns some excellent reasons
for His observing such a distinction. The main one has already been given by us. To
strangers, as to the woman of Samaria, the Centurion, Zaccheus, He revealed from the
first more concerning the future purposes of God pertaining to the rejection of the Jews
and the calling of the Gentiles, thun He did to His own disciples before the conspiracy
of the Jews, thus evincing both His Divine foreknowledge and His wonderful tact in
keeping His disciples in the most favorable position and mental condition to preach the
offer of the Kingdom. This entire procedure, as related in the Gospels, is one of those
unintentional but most forcible evidences of divine inspiration. A narration which so
carefully preserves the most delicate arrangements, without any violation of propriety
and character in the actors of a complicated drama like this, can only be accounted for
on the basis already assumed, Prop. 5. The sincerity of Jesus is evidenced (Matt. 23 : 37,
Luke 19 : 42, ete.), the covenanted relationship of the nation is preserved, the fact of its
failure to repent is so represented that the foreknowledge of God is vindicated, the con-
tingency of the offer on repentance (Rom. 9 : 31-33, and 10 : 8,10, 21, and 11 : 7, 23, ete.)
is made manifest, the Purpose of God is made in consideration (Gal. 3:8, Acts 2 : 23,
etc.) of all the foreseencircumstances as they actually arose, the faithfulness of God
(Rom. 3:3, 4) is preserved, the necessity (to raise seed unto Abraham) of calling and
384 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 58.

engrafting the Gentiles is shown—these and various other. features involved are all se
clearly and distinctly given, without any conflict or antagonism, that they stamp the
book containing them as the Word of God. The principles and interests involved,
although pertaining to the highest and noblest known to man, are carefully guarded with
incomparable simplicity.

Obs. 6. This change of preaching in Jesus has been noticed by Renan

and others, and they wrongfully attribute it to a change of plan respecting
the Kingdom, forced upon Him by attending circumstances. That is,
seeing that He could not secure the throne and Kingdom over the Jewish
nation, He concluded to erect a more spiritual Kingdom. Such an
opinion cannot be legitimately inferred, and it overlooks the most positive
proof that Christ, instead of altering His view of the Kingdom, His
rightful claim to it, His intention to restore the Theocratic-Davidic
throne, only postponed its execution until the lapse of a determined period
of time. Renan and his class ¢ofally ignore the abundance of Scripture
assigning the reasons for postponement, just as if they had no existence,
Such a mode of procedure, a revival of Porphyry’s (Art. on, M’Clint. and Strong's
Cyclop.), unjust to the Word and discreditable to honest reasoning, which forbids the
Scriptures to testify in its own behalf, is becoming very prevalent. The position of
Jesus, in view of the foreknown rejection of the Kingdom, was peculiar. To Him the
progress of events, the history of the future was fully known ; hence down to the very
moment of His proposed arrest by the representatives of the Jewish nation, His lan-
guage, impelled by regard due to His mission, respecting the Kingdom is guarded, and if we
desire to appreciate it, to attain to a correct apprehension of it, we must keep in mind the
nature of that Kingdom, as covenanted and predicied, its offer to the nation, its rejection
by those who had the controlling influence, its postponement until a Seed—the elect,
chosen ones—of Abraham is gathered out, and its final re-establishment at the Sec.
Advent. Then the attitude and words of Jesus stand out with new propriety and force.
This, and this alone, will render radiant with hope many a passage which otherwise
would remain dark.

Obs. %. The notion entertained by some, that only temporal blessings

and rewards were offered to the Jews under the Levitical economy, is also
shown (as before noticed), by the tender of this Kingdom and its postpone-
ment, to be erroneous. In the very nature of the case, temporal blessings
are largely annexed to it (for did not the curse greatly deprive us of them,
and if Redemption is completed, will it 2o¢ restore them ?) ; but besides
these, there are special and inexpressible great spiritual ones connected
with them. This, as we advance, will become more and more appar-
ent. The Theocratic rule brings God Himself into national relation-
ship as its earthly Ruler, and this relationship znswres present and fut-
ure blessings, both temporal and spiritual. If the reader will but reflect
upon the Kingdom offered to them—the same still held in abeyance—upon
the events requisite for its re-establishment (as e.g. the resurrection, the
presence of God, etc.), upon the imagery used to represent its blessings
(as e.g, a feast, marriage, etc.), that were included in the covenants to be
ultimately realized by the elect, he will at once perceive that the 'Che-
ocratic ordering necessarily embraces both the highest temporal and spiritual
blessings to which Redemption, in its fullest, widest reach, extends. The
earnests indicate it; the fruition, under the coming Messianic reign,
realizes it.
Obs. 8. In view of this foreknown change in the preaching of Jesus
resulting from a postponement of the Kingdom, Christ did not pudlicly
Prop, 58.] THE THEOORATIC KINGDOM. 385

assume in His personal ministry the title of ‘‘ the Christ’’ until after His
betrayal, Mark 14:62. After the death of John the Baptist, which
already foreshadowed His own rejection and the nation’s refusal of the
tender, of the Kingdom, He strictly charged His disciples to tell no man
that He was ‘‘ the Christ.’? The intimations publicly given were inferen-
tial, and might, as He Himself asserted, be adduced from His works.
New this, to many an unaccountable feature (owing to their making the
phrase ‘‘ the Christ’’ a doctrinal one instead of regarding it, as it is, His
kingly title, comp. Prop. 205), is in accord with our position ; for knowing
His rejection as “ the Christ,’’ in that the nation refused to obey the con-
dition annexed to the obtaining of the Kingdom, it would only have af-
forded the greater facilities to His enemies to accuse Him as a rebel,
etc., to the Roman power.
One of the best writers on this point is Judge Jones, in his Noles on Scripture (as e.g.
on Matt. 16 :20 and 23 :8, etc.), and in his Essays (Philo-Basilicus) attached to vol. 3
of the Literalist. The Judge, with his fine scholarship, theological learning, and eminent
legal abilities, was well calculated to see and bring out points unnoticed by the large
class of expositors. Among other things he notices the remarkable change in the
phraseology as seen in Acts and the Epistles when compared with the Gospels, and
justly argues that, as the name of Jesus, the title of Son of man, was designedly given at
one period, and the titles of Christ and Messiah were kept in the background, so also
after the death and ascension of Jesus the title of Christ is purposely more prominently
exhibited. The former procedure is based on the fact of the offer and rejection of the
Kingdom ; the latter is founded on the fact that this same Jesus, dead, buried, and cru-
cified, is nevertheless ‘‘ the Christ,’’ and that the covenanted promises will yet be realized
through Him. The very title implies faith and hope in the fulfilment of the covenants.

Obs. 9. Lee (An Inquiry into the Nature of Prophecy), Hatfield (Amer.
Presby. Quart. Review, Nos. April and July, 1864), and others have asserted
that fhe prophets predicted only one Advent (the First), and that a second
personal Advent was unknown to them, or that they had ‘‘ no distinct
perception of a Sec. Advent, or any thought of such an event, is by no
means certain,’’ ete. (comp. Shimeall’s J Will Come Again, Ap. Note D,
p- 182). This falling back to the Jewish objection (Prop. 57, Obs. 4,
note 1) is owing to an overlooking of the conditions that, in view of the
foreknown future, were imposed upon prophecy.
This attitude of the prophets, in not more accurately discriminating (Prop. 34) in
respect to the mission of Jesus at His First Advent in offering the Kingdom to the
nation, is the very one required by the sincerity of the tender, the free agency of the
nation, the rejection of the Kingdom, and its postponement. To have distinctively an-
nounced the two Advents, with the interval between, and with the results of each, would
have materially interfered with the course of events. Yet now both the wonderful fore-
knowledge of God and the wisdom of the Almighty, in the prophetic announcements,
are strilcingly exhibited. Now it is no longer a matter of difficulty to discriminate ; the
fulfilments at the First Advent teach us what to apply to it and what to refer to the
Second. Both Advents are plainly delineated—one of humiliation, suffering and death,
and exaltation ; the other, one of triumph, vengeance, dominion, andglory. The Primi-
tive Church view gives us the key to this peculiar prophetic style, and this very delinea-
tion, now so perplexing to Jewish Rabbis and to unbelievers, is evidence, if we will
receive it, of Divine inspiration.
386 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 59.

Proposition 59. This Kingdom of God, offered to the Jewish

nation, lest the purpose of God fail, is to be given to others
who are adopted.
This Kingdom is incorporated by covenant promise with the seed
of Abraham ; that seed is chosen, but refusing the Kingdom on the
condition annexed to it, now, that the Divine Purpose revealed in
the covenants may not fail in its accomplishment through the un-
belief and depravity of the nation, another seed must be raised up
unto Abraham, to whom the Kingdom, in a peculiar sense (as will
be explained hereafter), is to be given.
Obs. 1. In Matt. 21, after the chief priests and scribes and elders
manifested their opposition to Him, and after He had told (v. 31) them,
“* Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and the harlots go into the
Kingdom of God before you’’ (i.e. in view of their repentance and faith,
they became heirs of the Kingdom), then He gives the parable of the
wicked husbandmen, who not only rejected and killed the servants, but
finally even the heir (v. 33-46). When the Jews answered Christ’s question
concerning what the lord of the vineyard would do in such a case, He
accepts of their reply (condemnatory of themselves), and shows that He
(the Stone) has been rejected, and adds: “‘ therefore (i.e. on account of
their refusing to receive Him), J say unto you, the Kingdom of God shall be
taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.’
Now let the reader carefully consider : (1) The Kingdom of God taken from
them. This Kingdom belonged exclusively to them (comp. Props. 24, 29,
31, 49, 54,55). It was theirs by covenant relationship ; but, having made
themselves unworthy of it, the tender was withdrawn, and it was to be
given to others. (2) The Kingdom was to be given to a nation, a people,
who, by the fruits resulting from obedience through faith, should show
themselves worthy of it.

Obs. 2. Additionally, in this declaration of Jesus, we haye—(1) the

Kingdom which is taken from them is one, which, it is taken for granted,
that the Jews comprehended, viz. the: covenanted Kingdom, the only King-
dom that they were acquainted with, thus corroborating our position.
They well understood its force and propriety, and appreciated its applica-
tion to themselves, saying, ‘‘ God forbid.’’ (2) They expected to receive
this Kingdom solely in virtue of their national relationship without
observing the condition of repentance annexed to the offer. (3) They were
not to receive the Kingdom within their reach, appertaining to them,
owing to their great wickedness in rejecting and even killing, as a
culmination of rebellion, the Heir Himself. (4) Another people was to
receive it. This at once opens some interesting questions, which, if we
Prop. 59.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 387

desire to appreciate the Divine Purpose and to prevent its assuming the
changeable aspect of human plans diverted and altered by contingencies,
demand on our part due consideration. We now merely suggest them,
leaving following Propositions to bring them out in detail. 'The Kingdom
of God is expressly covenanted to the seed of Abraham (but to the faithful,
obedient seed) ;now how can the covenanted promises respecting the
Kingdom in ¢his line be carried out into realization when the nation
embracing that seed is rejected? Is this rejection final and perpetual, or
is it removable and temporary? Can the nation or people who are to
specially receive what the Jewish nation ¢hen lost by its non-repent-
ance, obtain it without any reference to the Abrahamic and Davidic
covenants, i.e. without, in some way, becoming, by adoption, or engrafting,
or incorporation, the seed of Abraham ? Remember that God confirmed his
promises by oath, and that He is faithful—not given to variableness or
change—and, therefore, unless these questions can be satisfactorily and
consistently answered, so that the promise still runs in the covenanted
Abrahamic line, there would be asad and unwarranted deficiency somewhere.

Obs. 3. This already teaches us that to preserve the solemnly pledged

faithfulness of God, this people, to whom the Kingdom is to be given,
must, in the very nature of the case, stand closely related to the Jewish
race. They cannot be gathered out or selected, as multitudes now vainly
imagine. and foolishly boast, without any regard whatever to the old
covenanted line. They must be, if God is sincere and mindful of His oath,
adopted as Abraham’s seed (comp. Props. 29, 30, etc.).

Obs. 4. John the Baptist had already foreshown that the wisdom and
power of God would be amply sufficient to carry out His own covenanted
Purpose, even if the nation would reject Christ. When the Pharisees and
Sadducees also came to his baptism, after denouncing them with his
prophetical spirit as ‘‘ a generation of vipers,’’ and urging them to repent-
ance, he (Matt. 3: 9) adds: ‘‘ And think not to say within yourselves, we
have Abraham to our Father ; for I say unto you, that God is able of these
stones to raise up children unto Abraham.’’ Here are several suggestive
ideas that we ought, by all means, to keep in mind: (1) that standing in
the covenant relationship (being ‘‘ children of the Kingdom’’) as the mere
natural offspring or descendants of Abraham without repentance and
obedience is not sufficient. To insure the Kingdom in their case, both
are required ; for the Theocratic ordering calls for moral preparation (e.g.
Rom. 2 : 28, 29) as well as for union with the Fathers to whom the cove-
nant was given. (2) That God is abundantly able to raise up children
unto Abraham, so that, if necessity required it, they could be raised up
even from stones. (3) That God would perform so miraculous a creative
act rather than leave His covenant promises unfulfilled. (4) But even
when this would be done, the covenant relationship would be sustained in
their being, by adoption, the children of Abraham. (5) Hence, the
promises are recognized as given to Abraham, and to inherit with
Abraham it is requisite to come into covenant relationship with him.
This evinces how carefully the covenant relationship is constantly guarded, and that
the current views respecting it being immaterial, whether we are related to Abraham or
not, are sadly defective. It also has become fashionable for recent commentators, as a
concession to rationalistic criticism, to make ‘‘ these stones’? to mean ‘*the Romans’’
388 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 59.

or ‘‘ the hard hearts of the heathen,” “ for a stone has manifestly no life 7’ just as if the
power of God which gave life to the dust of the earth could not bestow life to “ these
stones’? present. This implies doubt concerning God’s power, and is unworthy of a
believer. :

Obs. 5. The reader will observe that this removal of the Kingdom is a
national one. (It necessarily is such because identified with the nation.)
Various writers have fallen into gross mistakes on this point, and quote
the passages relating to it as ifall the Jews that ever lived had forfeited
and lost their right.to the Kingdom. The fact is, that the believing
portion who had died will yet receive it, the believing portion who now
accept of it will likewise obtain it, and the Gentiles who by faith are
engrafted will also receive it. This will be plainly proven, as we proceed
in the argument.
Obs. 6. Another mistake into which many fall must be corrected, viz.:
that the Kingdom being taken from them, it will never be given to the
nation again. Now here we must ask the indulgence of the reader, for a
number of things which serve to explain this remarkable language are
reserved for separate propositions, and, therefore, no decided and satis-
factory explanation can be presented before passing over these. ‘This
much, by way of preliminary, may be stated : (1) that those ¢hen addressed,
the nation as existing down to the present day, cannot (excepting in-
dividual believers) inherit the Kingdom in the higher sense (intimated by
giving) of Kingship and priesthood, co-heirship with Christ ; (2) that
the nation, as such, by its wickedness, forfeited the high position of rulership
with Christ, which individual believers will receive from Him at its
ultimate re-establishment ; (3) but this does not prevent the final restora-
tion of the nation to its covenanted position in order to secure (a) the
establishment of the Theocratic-Davidic throne and Kingdom, and (0) the
special bestowal of this Kingdom to this very nation gathered out; (4)
hence, Jesus, whilst directly asserting the forfeiture of a high privilege, does
not add, as many suppose, that the nation itself shall never again enjoy the
blessings of the Theocratic Kingdom, but in a subordinated position ; (5)
for this Scripture must be interpreted, not tsolated, but in connection
with others relating to the same subject.
Obs. %. This removal of the Kingdom from the nation on account of
sinfulness, and its contemplated bestowal upon individual believers (as
rulers in it) rebuts the argument of the Duke of Somerset (Ck. Theol. and
Mod. Skep., ch. 18), in that he attempts to affirm that ‘‘ the book of Acts
bears false witness against a Christian apostle,’’ owing to Paul’s language
to the Jews at Rome, when some of them refused to believe in the King-
dom under Jesus Christ as he expounded it to them out of the law and
prophets. But we see (Acts 28 : 17-31) the accuracy of the writer of Acts
and the exceeding propriety and delicacy of Paul’s representations, con-
trasting the same with the covenanted relationship of the Jews to this
Kingdom, to the language of Jesus, the Master, respecting their rejection
of it and its bestowal upon others, and to the apostolic desire that His
brethren after the flesh might also inherit—in the higher sense—this
Kingdom. There is a beautiful and most delicate consistency in Paul’s
conduct ; for, giving the Jews the precedence (for the reasons given by us),
after an appeal to the Scriptures during a whole day, he honorably, as his
 Prop. 59.| THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 389

character of apostleship demanded, referred them, because of their

unbelief, to what had previously been predicted of them, and then turned
to the Gentiles. ‘There was no deception in the case, but an open, frank
statement of the real facts as they existed. According to the Duke (who
totally misapprehends the nature of the Kingdom preached) Paul ought to
have told the Jews that they were mistaken concerning the Kingdom, that
Christ had established another one, a spiritual one, etc., and not pretend
that he was in unison with them in the hope of the same Kingdom when.
really he was im opposition to them. Paul could not do this, simply because
it would have made his message discordant, instead of its being, as it is, in
happy correspondence with the truth (comp. Props. 44, 70, 71, 72, 74).
The Duke’s reasoning has force only if we adopt the prevailing modern views of the
Kingdom. if Paul entertained the spiritualistic notion of the Kingdom, then, as the
Duke observes, neither his conduct nor speech can be commended. But if Paul believed
in the Kingdom, as covenanted and indicated in our argument, then he is not open to
the Duke’s strictures and corrections. The objector in the charge of “ dishonesty,’’ forgets
that the death of Jesus only confirms the covenant promises (Prop. 50); that the kingdom
was not the disputed point, but whether Jesus was ‘“‘ the Christ” through whom the King-
dom should eventually appear ; that the giving of the Kingdom to others does not change
the covenants respecting it or its nature ; that, therefore, Christianity is not a “ subversion
of the Jewish religion,’’ but an elevation of it (the typical, non-essential elements being
necessarily removed), showing how the covenants, the Theocratic ordering, the presence
of God, ete. can and will be secured. The Duke’s reasoning, consequently, has force only
with such who place Paul in a wrong position.

Obs. 8. The Kingdom had come nigh to the nation (in the tender of it,
in the person of the Messiah, and in covenant: relationship leading to the
restrictive preaching), and the nation, therefore, must have sustained a
peculiar, special relation to it, or else it could not have been taken from
them. ‘To be taken from them is indicative of the nation’s having a
elaim upon it (as we have all along demonstrated). Now, preliminary to
following Propositions (93-104) it may be well for the reader to notice in
this connection that what was taken from them could not be ‘‘ the
church,”’ or ‘‘ the Christian dispensation,’’ or ‘‘ God’s reign in the heart,”’
or ‘‘the Gospel,’’ or ‘‘ spiritual reign’’ (see usual meanings given to
Kingdom, Prop. 3), so prevalently defined fo de the Kingdom of God.
For none of these things were taken from the Jews as can be abundantly
shown ; for they, in this respect, stand precisely upon the same footing as
the Gentiles. This dispensation was commenced at Jerusalem, the Gospel
was first preached to the Jews, and for some time the Church largely
embraced Jews as believers. It was by express command that the Gospel
should first be offered to the Jews, Luke 24 : 47, Acts 13 : 46, Acts 3 : 19,
21, etc. The gospel with its blessings is just as freely offered to the Jews,
and the privileges of the Church just as graciously extended to them as to
the Gentiles. Hence it follows: that the Kingdom of God taken from
them is not the gospel, or admission into the Church, or enjoyment of
Church blessings, or the privileges of this dispensation, because none of
these things were taken from them. What they lost is the Kingdom itself,
just as covenanted, and not the after provisionary appointments to still
secure tie Kingdom in the future. Is it not surprising that so plain a
feature is so much ignored ?*

* Let the reader observe the inconclusive and inconsistent interpretations of numerous
commentators (as e.g. Lange, Barnes, Scott, etc., loci.), for it was not taken from the
 390 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 59
Obs. 9. This taking away of the Kingdom from the nation to whom it
belonged as a covenanted right, and thus giving it to others, serves to
explain the phraseology of Luke 11 : 20, ‘‘ the Kingdom of God has come
upon you.’’ The offer and the taking it away shows that the nation was
indeed nigh to it, if it had only known the day of its gracious visitation.
So also the phrase, ‘‘ the Aingdom of God is among (or within) you.’’ Luke
17 : 21 indicates the same fact, for as many crities have noticed the word
rendered ‘‘among,’? may mean ‘‘ within,’’ * and, therefore, in strict ac-
cordance with the circumstance that the Jewish nation is an elect (Prop.
24) nation, and that the Kingdom is a covenanted (Prop. 49) one, and
that, in view of this, was ‘‘ within’’ it, connected and identified with it
(through the Theocratic-Davidic throne and Kingdom, Prop. 31), and
hence, tendered among all the nations of the earth, ¢o this nation alone
(Props. 54, 55). The phrase ‘‘ children of the Kingdom cast out’’ likewise
indicates this same relationship, implies that they stood in close connection
with the Kingdom, that they rejected it, and that it was withdrawn from
them. For such phraseology cannot be used respecting the Gentiles, all
the wicked, but only of those who, in some special manner, stand related
to the Kingdom by promise or otherwise.

Obs. 10. Two things additional are suggested by the words of Jesus.
(1) What unspeakable honor, power, and glory would have resulted to the
Jewish nation, if it had accepted the simple but necessary Theocratic
condition of repentance annexed to the offer of the Kingdom. Instead of
the fearful judgments of God, the overthrow and dispersion of the nation,
the terrible persecution of centuries, the Jong and bitter Gentile domina-
tion treading down the beloved city, etc., it would have taken rank as the
rst of the nations of the world, and it would have been exalted as the
centre of Theocratic influence, power, and dominion. 'This is seen by what
will occur when the saints inherit the Kingdom, and by what will even yet
take place when ‘‘ the times of the Gentiles’’ are ended, and the nation is
restored. (2) The mercy extended to the Gentiles; the grace of God
tendering the first place in this Kingdom (i.e. its kingship and priesthood)
to those who were not in covenanted relationship, but who now, through
the unbelief and fall of the nation, are brought into it through repentance
and faith. What a prize grace offers to us Gentiles !

Obs. 11. There is a remarkable agreement between this taking away of

the Kingdom from the nation and giving it to others, and the predictions
relating to this matter. Thus e.g. when this Kingdom was offered to the
Jews, its proclamation was heralded by “‘ the time is fulfilled.’’ In this,
as numerous writers have noticed, there is an evident allusion to the
seventy weeks of Daniel (ch. 9 : 20-27). Having seen the result of this

Jews to be believers, the peculiar people of God, true members of the N. Test. Church,
ete., as evidenced by the facts presented. This only proves the correctness of our posi-
tion, viz.: that that which is taken from the then existing nations, is a peculiar, distine-
tive honor and privilege—that of special rulership—which now will be bestowed upon
believers gathered out of all nations.
* Jones (Hssays by Philo-Basilicus, p. 16 and 17, foot-note), after tracing the usage of the
word, says: ‘‘ The word properly signifies within, and the question is, within what?
The true answer is, within the Jewish nation, which Was the elect.” (Comp. Prop. 110.)
Prop. 59.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 391

offer, we find it also foreshown in this very prediction ; for instead of a

Kingdom and great glory described as pertaining to the nation, we have
the Messiah cut off, the destruction of the city, desolations determined
‘““even until the consummation,’’ or for a certain period of time. Thus
do the facts, as they exist to-day, tally with the previously given pre-
dictions.
392 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 60.

Proposition 60. This Kingdom of God is given, not to nations,

but to one nation. |
This is distinctly stated, ‘‘a nation,’ Matt. 21:43. It necessa-
rily follows from our Scriptural propositions, and corroborates
them. It is a logical sequence from the premises laid down. For,
so long as one nation is chosen from among all others (Prop. 24),
and the Kingdom is covenanted by oath to that nation (Prop. 49), it
is impossible for other nations, in their national capacity, to be
thus elected. It would bea violating of the most solemnly given
covenants and assurances.
Obs. 1. Notice: the Kingdom is promised to the natural believing
descendants of Abraham, and as the nation, then existing when the
Kingdom was offered, refused to repent in order to receive it, God must
now—to carry out His purpose—raise up a nation unto Abraham, i.e. a
nation in some way stil related to him. If a Gentile nation or nations
(as many suppose) were chosen in place of the Jewish, this would ignore
all the past assurances given, and overthrow the multiplied predictions of
the prophets. It would nullify God’s covenants, and make it appear that
He undertook a Plan which, owing to human depravity, He was unable to
perform. It would Jower the power of the Divine administration, and
make God subject to change. Gentile nations cannot as nations be sub-
stituted for the one elect Jewish nation (as we have already abundantly
shown). The importance, therefore, of tracing His chosen nation, and
ascertaining how it becomes—to insure covenanted relationship—incor-
porated with the elect nation, the Abrahamic people, cannot be over-
estimated. Upon this largely depends our estimation of the covenants,
the faithfulness of God, the continued election of the Jewish nation, the
design of the Church, the nature of the Kingdom, and the inspiration
and unity of the Word.
Therefore we cannot receive the idea advanced by Oosterzee (see Prop. 57, Obs. 5),
that Jesus at His First Advent ‘‘ put an end to the wall of separation between Israel and
the nations.”” Multitudes assert the same, misapprehending the nature and intent of the
call of the Gentiles, as will fully appear in the course of our argument, satisfactory
Scriptural reasons being assigned for every step taken.

Obs. 2. In the consideration of this matter it is requisite for the reader

to keep in mind what has been proven (see Props. 24, 30, 49, 50, etc.), that
the wall of partition between the Jewish nation, as such, and Gentile
nations, as such, 27s not removed but only between believers of all nations
and the Jewish nation. ‘This is essential to a proper understanding of the
truth, and is a feature clearly taught as already shown, over against the
inferences of De Colanges (Ancient City), and many others.
Prop. 60.] THE THEOOCRATIC KINGDOM. 393

Obs. 3. The entire tenor of the Old and New Tests. makes the Abrahamic
and Davidic covenants subsisting and continuous (Prop. 51); and the
Divine Purpose in reference to salvation and the Kingdom is inseparably
(Prop. 50) identified with them. It follows, then, as a matter of moral
necessity, that this nation or people must come in wader these covenants.
If the Divine forbearance toward the Jewish nation ceased for a time,
owing to the rejection of the Messiah, God must now, in a way consistent
with His own promises and faithfulness, raise up a people for Abraham.
Jesus, in accordance with what was predicted (as e.g. Deut: 32 : 21), simply
states the fact of such a calling, without any explanation as ¢o the manner
in which it would be accomplished, leaving it for the future to interpret
His meaning. We canuot be too guarded in strictly following the plain
narrative of the Word and i accepting of its teachings on this point,
seeing that the Plan is of God’s, not man’s, devising.

Obs. 4. God does not change His Plan of having one nation (comp. e.g.
1 Pet. 2 : 9) identified with Abraham, in which is lodged the fowndation of
that Kingdom destined to attain world-wide dominion, and to bring all
nations directly under its sway. ‘To do this would be indicative of weak-
ness in the formation of His Purpose (as announced and supported by
oath), and in the power of His Divine administration (to carry into effect
that which is promised). Therefore, let it be repeated as something
specially worthy of attention, that, in view of the Divine character,
attributes, and pledges given, we may rest assured that any change which
may occur (dispensational or otherwise) will not affect the original design
contemplated and covenanted, relative to the Kingdom, in its ultimate
fulfilment.
Obs. 5. The original choice of one nation, and the continued selection
of ‘‘a nation,’? in some way identified with Abraham, enables us to
appreciate the reason why God confined the acceptance of the Kingdom to
one nation and ultimately gives it to one people. It was not merely (as
Kurtz, Neander and others) to preserve the purity of religion, to per-
petuate it, to make known the true God, etc., but the selection of a nation
was made to be the nucleus of the Messianic Aingdom (comp. what was
said under the Davidic covenant) ; (a) in the rulers or co-heirs with the
Mexsiah selected out of nations forming the believing elect, who compose
with Jesus a select body having the supremacy ; (0) that afterward the
nation itself might be incorporated (according to promise through the
Davidic throne and Kingdom) in it, thus becoming the entering wedge or
the fulcrum of universal dominion because of its Theocratic nature ; (c)
that in this way (owing to the foreseen depravity of man making such a
foretold provision necessary), the highest and noblest of all earthly relations
(viz. : that of nationality) 1s seized, appropriated, and through it (exhibited
under direct Messianic rule), when all things are ready for 1ts manifesta-
tion, the conversion and exaltation of the greatest number will be ac-
complished in the briefest time. For under such an ordering, a certain
number \saved (i.e. ‘ta nation’’) is secured to provide for the requisite
establishment of a stable Theocratic government which cannot be moved
by (as in the past) the outbreaks of depravity. The number of the elect
completed, then the Kingdom is manifested, by which and its intro-
ductory judgments the conversion of the world in a speedy manner is
394 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 60.

insured. From this we infer, that the Proposition contains a Plan

adopted by the wisdom of God, by which not only the required number
of the elect is obtained in the soonest manner, but that it contains within
itself the elements by which ‘‘ the sure mercies of David,’’ and all the
covenanted promises, will be realized in the briefest time compatible with
the free agency of man.

Obs. 6. It is extremely satisfactory to find that nowhere in the Scriptures

does the now prevailing view, that the Gentile nations, as nations, are
called, find the least support. ‘This is precisely what the covenanted
Word requires. This one nation to whom the Kingdom is to be given,
which shall inherit it, is composed of individuals owt of all nations. 'To
no one Gentile nation is the Kingdom offered as zt was to the Jewish, viz. :
that on their national repentance the Kingdom of God would be estab-
lished among or within it. This could not be done without doing violence
to pledged covenants, seeing that the Theocratic-Davidic throne and
Kingdom pertains nationally to the Jewish nation. But God can tender
this Kingdom, on certain conditions, to individuals of all nations ; and
therefore all nations are invited in their individual capacity to receive the
gospel and by the obedience of faith secure, through believing ones, the
blessings of the Kingdom ; i.e. in the persons thus believing ‘‘ a nation’’
will be gathered to whom the Kingdom will be given.
The proof will be adduced, and the manner of incorporating this nation in the Abra-
hamic line will be presented, as we progress in the argument. Attention is merely called
to the matter now, so that the proclamation of the Gospel to all nations, including the
Jews, may not be mistaken for the bestowal of the Kingdom to a people to be chosen
out of all nations according to the foreknown and declared will of God. But compara-
tively few families in their entirety have accepted of the Gospel, so that we need not ex-
pect entire towns, cities, and nations to receive it. It will remain true down to the end
of this dispensation, that ‘‘ many are called but few chosen ;” these few, in their grand ag-
gregate, forming this chosen “holy nation.”” For we must bear in mind that God also
forekuows, which He has plainly predicted, that no Gentile nation, as such, will receive
the gospel, which is evidenced by the fact that at the very close of the dispensation the
nations of the earth (Rev. 19, etc.) will be arrayed against the Messiah. God’s Plan is
made and carried on in view of this very foreseen depravity of nations, and hence it is
not His purpose to make all nations this ‘‘ peculiar people,” but to gather them out of
the nations. We must therefore distinguish between ‘‘ the Gospel of the Kingdom’’
being given to all nations, the result of the Gospel in individual believers, the people to
whom the Kingdom is bestowed, and the Kingdom itself and the giving of the Kingdom
toa nation. The former is done that the latter may be realized.

Obs. %. It is proper to remind the reader that this bestowal of a King-

dom to “‘a nation’’ that is to be gathered does not result from Gentile
nations being better than the Jewish nation ; this is evinced by their
possessing a common depravity, that justification is accorded to both Jew
and Gentile on precisely the same grounds, and that the Gentiles, like the
Jews, will ultimately be found arrayed against the grace of God in Christ.
It arises solely from the mercy and favor of God, who, out of the Jewish
and Gentile nations alike, is ready and willing to accept of believers in
Christ to form that nation to whom the Kingdom is to be given. This
gives us the true standard by which to judge of the harsh and unjust
Opinions and proceedings of Gentile nations toward the Jewish nation,
just as if they were better than the latter, and not entirely dependent on
grace for the call to the Kingdom, .
PRop. 60.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 395

Obs. 8. It may be added, that this feature throws light upon the question
of nationalized churches as representative of the Kingdom of God. Such
certainly do not enter into the Divine Plan, seeing that since the Jews as a
nation were for a time rejected, it is only part of that Plan to gather out of
the nations ‘‘a peculiar people,’’ and not to exalt any Gentile nation to
the Theocratic position which the Jewish nation alone by covenant privilege
possess ;and which union of Church and State shall de only, in the way
contemplated by God, exhibited when this ‘‘ peculiar people’’ or ‘‘ nation’’
has been gathered out. In other words, individual persons, and not nations,
are chosen ; after the establishment of the Kingdom, then, as we shall see,
all nations will also come under its dominion and blessings.
Hence we need not wonder at the lamentable corruptions and failures of State
churches, as well as others, in establishing what was wrongfully thought to be the King-
dom of God, as e.g. was done in the Constantinian period (which every historian, ex-
cepting Roman Catholic, informs us resulted in injury to the Church, both in doctrine
and practice). We need not be surprised that, at the close of this dispensation, the
nations most highly favored with the preaching of the Gospel shall be severely punished
as the enemies (Rev. 19, etc.), either directly or indirectly, of the Christ. The secular
governments of the earth, of whatever form and however they may result from expedi-
ency, moral and civil necessity, etc., are not chosen by God, out of which and in which to
develop the Messianic Kingdom ; they all lack the great essential, fundamental feature,
viz. : the Theocratic; they all, while underthe Divine Sovereignty and control, have not
God acting in their behalf as an earthly Ruler ; long ago that choice was made, and it is
inseparably connected with the Theocratic-Davidic throne and Kingdom. The only national
election is that of the Jewish nation, and with that election, as we shall see, the King-
dom of God is fully blended. This at once removes many wild and untenable theories
advanced concerning the union of Church and State in Gentile nations, and also the pre-
dictions of fallible men respecting the nationalized glory of Gentile nations thus distin-
guished by such a union. God does not recognize, either in Daniel or Rev., the alleged
and professed conversion of the Roman Empire, for down to the Sec. Advent it retains
its bestial character. God looks at nations from a standpoint very different from that
assumed by their eulogizers (comp. Prop. 164).
396 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 61.

Proposrrion 61. The Kingdom which by promise exclusively

belonged to the Jewish nation, the rightful seed of Abraham,
was now to be given to an engrafted people.
It has been shown that this kingdom belongs by promise and
covenant to the seed of Abraham (Props. 29, 49); now, as the
promises of God are sure (Props. 47, 52), this people, this very na-
tion, must be engrafted or incorporated with this elected seed of
Abraham. This is indispensable, for othewise God’s oath-bound
word would fail in its fulfilment. Rather than have so precious a
word to fail, God is able, as we have seen, to raise up children unto
Abraham even, if necessary, from the stones (Matt. 3:9); but in-
stead of resorting to miraculous intervention to produce such a
result, God raises up a seed unto Abraham owt of the Gentiles by
engrafting them through faith in the Christ, and accounting them
as the children of Abraham by virtue of their Abrahamic justifying
faith.
Obs. 1. The plan of adoption is simple : Abraham was justified by faith,
the election was bestowed upon him in virtue of that faith, and hence
those who believe in the promised seed being also justified by faith, are
brought into living union with Christ (‘‘the King of the Jews’’), and
through Him become the adopted children of Abraham who was of like
faith. Hence the apostle in Gal. 3 tells us (v. 7) ‘‘ Anow ye therefore, that
they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.” But why
become the children of Abraham? Because, as he shows, verses 14-18,
the promises and inheritance are given through him, and we must be
related to Abraham in order to receive and inherit the same. Therefore he
goes on and insists that this very essential relationship is established in
and through Jesus Christ, and (v. 28, 29) adds: ‘‘for ye are all one in
Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs
according to promise.’’ 'Thus then (ch. 2 : 5) receiving ‘‘ the adoption of
sons,’’ because united and identified with Christ, who is the chief inheritor
under the Abrahamic covenant, we become co-heirs with Him. This
marvellously simple arrangement, introducing mercy and grace to us
Gentiles, preserves the covenanted promises intact and confirms them.
Hon. Vance, in a lecture (Baltimore, Md., reported in The Sun, March, 1874), justly
says : ‘‘ Every Christian to-day is a graft upon the stock of the Jewish Church, and each
Christian perpetuates the Jew.” On the other hand, e.g., Hodge (Sys. Div., vol. 3, p.
810) does not discriminate, but has the wall of partition broken down between nations in-
stead of, as Paul, between believers in Christ. If it be objected that we have the most
comprehensive language, such as the world reconciled in Christ and kindred expressions,
the answer is plain: such a reconciliation and the reception of the Gospel by all men
has not yet been witnessed—it requiring time to be exemplified practically—but will be
in the future, through the instrumentality of this very Kingdom inherited by believers
(comp. e.g. Prop. 176). ‘
Prop. 61.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 397
Obs. 2. This Proposition and the decided Scriptural proof sustaining it,
removes at once that painfully loose and inconsistent theological writing,
so exceedingly prevalent since the days of the mystical schoolmen, which
makes no account of our virtually becoming the children of Abraham.
Having lost the true force of the covenants, consequently totally mis-
apprehending the nature of the Kingdom and of the covenant renewed in
the blood of Jesus, and substituting another and widely different Kingdom
for the covenanted one, and utterly ignoring the plainly revealed post-
ponement of the Kingdom,—multitudes (see e. g. Prop. 67, Obs. 3, Prop. 54,
Obs. 4, 5, etc.) see no necessity for our becoming the seed of Abraham in
order to inherit. With many it seems to be the proper thing, to be as far
removed as possible from a Jewish standpoint, and to this feeling much and
precious truth is sacrificed. All passages bearing on the subject are merely
regarded and interpreted as representative or figurative and not real. But
we see a deep and solid reason for this process of becoming grafted into
this elect, covenanted nation. Paul (Rom. chs. 9, 10, and 11) argues
directly that the election runs only in a certain line of Abraham’s seed, in
that of Isaac (comp. Props. 49 and 50) the child of promise, and that after
the manifested unrighteousness of the nation, ‘‘ except the Lord of Sabaoth
had left us a seed we had been as Sodom,”’ ete. ; that i believers there is
no difference between Jew and Gentile, both being equally heirs of the
promise ; that Gentiles by their faith are accounted as believing Jews and
also of the election, because ‘‘if some of the branches be broken off, and
thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them
partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree ; boast not against the
branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.’’
Here then it is decisively stated that Gentile believers are grafted in upon
the Jewish olive tree, the root of which remaining untouched, owing to the
elective purpose of God, this also bears these engrafted ones. ‘The personal
interest in the covenants is thus clearly specified, and the manner in which
it 1s obtained, by adoption, is equally stated in precise language. This
language, too, is addressed to Gentiles, reminding them of the distinctive
relationship they sustained to the Jewish elect nation. While the natural
descendants of Abraham were included in the covenant relationship, as
evinced by the covenants only given to them, by the Theocratic govern-
ment instituted only among and over them, yet only the believing and
faithful portion of those natural descendants were to realize the ultimate
blessing of that Kingdom of kings and priests promised to faith and
obedience. Now it is with this belfeving body of the Abrahamic line that
believing Gentiles are incorporated, thus coming under the same covenant
promises and blessings.
Fausset (Com. Dan. 7 : 27) justly remarks : ‘‘ The saints are gathered out of Jews and
Gentiles, but the stock of the Church is Jewish (Rom. 9:24 and 11 :24) ; God’s faithfulness
to this election Church is thus virtually faithfulness to Israel, and a pledge of their future
national blessing. Christ confirms this fact, while withholding the date (Acts1 : 6, 7).”
Comp. with this Prop. 63, and observe the numerous con¢essions to be found in various
commentaries on Rom. ch. 11 and Gal. ch. 3.

Obs. 3. We cannot too strongly insist upon this necessary engrafting of

Gentile believers, so that by virtue of a real relationship, they, being
regarded by God Himself as of the seedof Abraham, may inherit. For,
it has become a great and radical defect in many, if not nearly all, of our
398 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 61.

systems of Theology to overlook the reason why a seed must be raised up

unto Abraham, and to proceed in their elucidations of the subject, as if
Abraham and the Jews had very little to do with the matter. In treatises
on Justification by Faith (by which we become engrafted) we find, from
beginning to end, no allusion whatever to the Patriarchs and the cove-
nants, just as if the present dispensation was separate, unconnected, and
independent of all others. This is a serious, fundamental blunder,
violating unity, and making the election and covenants of little value.
Let such writers consider the exceeding plain and reiterated language of
Scripture on this point. That the Gentile believer must become an adopted
member of the elected nation is stated in words (Eph. chs. 2 and 3) like
these : that the Gentiles who were in time past “ aliens from the com-
monewealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise,’ ‘* who
sometime were afar off are now made nigh by the blood of Christ,”’ so that
in believing and appropriating that blood by faith, ‘‘ ye are no more
strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and of the
household of G'od,’’ etc., so ‘* that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and
of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.’”
Why does the apostle tell this to Gentile believers, if it was not to show
them clearly into what they had been grafted, viz.: into that elected Jewish
nation to which was covenanted the promises? Moreover, such 1s the
peculiarity and distinctiveness of this relationship, or, as the apostle calls
it, ‘* fellowship,’’ that the revealment of its adoption and manner of pro-
cedure is called ‘‘a mystery.’’ For it was a question to be decided, how
this could be done without changing or lowering covenants given to this
Jewish nation.
Alas! multitudes of Gentiles do not regard it in this light. They think it was a very
simple process, viz. : to ignore or set aside oath-bound covenants, and give the blessings
spiritualized to Gentiles without any reference to the Jews. When such utterances as
‘salvation is of the Jews’’ (John 4 : 22), ‘‘ other sheep I have, which are not of this fold ;
them also must / bring, and they shall hear my voice ; and there shall be one fold and one
Shepherd ’*’ (John 10 : 16), etc., are given, they are interpreted in such a manner as to lose
their native, inherent force. Learned men gravely inform us that about all the meaning
that can be attached to them is, that as the Jews were depositories of truth and religion,
so the same was handed down to us through them, and Gentiles receive it and become in
turn the depositories. Others, however, go so far as to object to the use of such lan-
guage. Thus e.g. Renan (Life of Jesus, p. 215, footnote), with his usual destructive crit-
icism in behalt of his lauded religion of humanity, objects to the phrase ‘‘ salvation is of
the Jews, "as expressing a thought which ‘‘ appears to have been interpolated.’’ Our
entire argument shows that it is essential and just the language that ought to be em.
ployed. The vitai necessity, owing to oath-bound covenants, given to Abraham and David,
of every Gentile, who desires to secure the covenanted promises sealed by the blood of
Christ, in becoming a child of Abraham is entirely passed over as if it had never existed,
by such writers. They also endeavor to make a difference between Paul and the other
apostles, extending even to an antagonism, because Paul lays more stress on the doctrine
of *‘ justification by faith,’’ forgetting that this very feature ought to be prominent in
Paul’s case, because specially appointed an apostle to the Gentiles, and faith was the grand
instrumentality by which the Gentiles were engrafted and adopted.

Obs. 4. Men ridicule as ‘ carnal,’’ “‘ fleshly,’’ etc., that we Gentile

believers, in virtue of our union with Christ, are grafted in and become
members of the Jewish elect nation, virtwally becoming believing Jews.
Overlooking the covenants exclusively given to the Jews (Rom. 9 : 4),
forgetting that the Kingdom with its ultimate blessings is only tendered
to the true Israel, i.e. to the believing and obedient natural descendants
(and engrafted and adopted Gentiles,) of Abraham, our opponents point us,
 LAVERNE COLLEGE LIDNANT,
LAVERNE, CALIFORNIA
Prop. 61.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 399

in order to sustain their rejection of such a Jewish connection, to Rom.

2 228-29: “For he is not a Jew, which is, one outwardly ; neither is that
circumersion which vs outward in the flesh ; but he is a Jew, which is one
inwardly ; and circwmeision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in
the letter ; whose praise is not of men but of God.’’ Aside from the expres-
sion that we must become ‘‘ Jews inwardly,”’ thus confirming our position
(for what, excepting this covenanted relationship, could have induced Paul
to use this peculiar phraseology, viz. : that, in some way, we must become
Jews ?), we apprehend, from the very concessions made by many of our
opponents, that the expression ‘‘for he is not a Jew who is one out-
wardly’’ has no reference, as is generally supposed, ¢o birth or descent from
Abraham. This is evidenced by the contrast or antithesis ‘‘ but he is «
Jew, which is one inwardly ;”’ the latter indicating the state of the heart,
viz.: being faithful and obedient,—the former ‘‘ outwardly’? has also
reference to the heart, that it was not right because such an one contented
himself with external or outward conformance to the law.
It only teaches what is elsewhere taught, that not all the natural descendants of
Abraham will receive the promises (just as now, not all who are outwardly Christians but
those who are also inwardly such, shall inherit the Kingdom), though covenanted to
them and incorporated with them as a nation, because they are conditioned, so far as indi-
vidual members of the nation, are concerned, by heartfelt faith and obedience. Indeed,
to make the passage refer to birth or descent would make it inconsistent with the previous
dealings of God with the Jewish nation, which was so directly and positively chosen
because of its line of descent. To the nation, as a nation, this, as will be seen more clearly
as we advance, natural descent is of inestimable value, for to it belongs the Theocratic cr-
dering ; to the individual Jew it was, as Paul argues in Romans, of great advantage, be-
cause of his personal contact with the covenants, but even this advantage (just as now, in
church membership and church privileges) could, through unbelief, be rendered unavailable
and condemnatory, rendering his circumcision, the outward sign of his peculiar relation-
ship, of no profit, not being accompanied by a proper heart observance. Another pas-
sage, Rom. 9 : 6, *‘ They are not all Israel which are of Israel,” is employed by some as if
it discarded the natural descendants. Butthis is contradictory to the plain fact that for
many centuries the promises, etc.,were confined to those natural descendants and to the
few Gentiles adopted ; and tothe additional fact that even now they pertain to them,
making it necessary for Gentiles to be grafted in and adopted. The reader will cbserve
that the name is a national one, for all have a right to the name who are descended from
Israel, but only insofar as they also imbibe the faith and spirit of him who was first
called Israel, for the apostle argues that some, through their conduct, make void their
interest in the name. Those who are loyal to the name retain it ; those who are not can-
not be counted among them.

Obs. 5. This necessary engrafting, this vital connection through

Christ with the Jewish elect nation (as the seed of Abraham to whom the
promises are given) gives the key to the word “ J/srael,’’ applied even now
to all true believers. This word has not two meanings, one applicable to
the Jews and the other to the Gentiles, such as men in their wisdom attach
to it, but only one meaning which God has given to it. Given originally
to Jacob, it was only applicable (e.g. Rom. 9 : 6) in its original full mean-
ing to his believing descendants who had part and lot in the covenanted
blessings ; and, therefore, in view of this connection the word is in a
general way (as e.g. Rom. 9 : 4, 27, and 11 : 7, 25, etc.) applied to these
descendants (including even all the natural descendants because to them
were the promises committed,) to whom belonged the covenants, (and to
those who were adopted into the nation). Therefore, it is applicable only,
so far as the Gentiles are concerned, to such as are grafted in and thus,
becoming members of the covenanted line, are reckoned as ‘‘ ¢he Israel,”’
400 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 61.

can entertain ‘‘ the hope of Israel,'’ and will inherit with “‘ the Israel of
God.’? Being thus incorporated with ‘‘ the commonwealth of Israel’’—the
Israel to whom pertain the covenants, —they virtually become Jews, and the
distinctive title by which the believing line of Jews was favored, rightfully
also belongs tothem. ‘he very name ‘‘ /sraed’’ is a reminder to us of such
an adoption and election. .
The name “‘ Israel’’ means, as critics have informed us, “ Who prevails with God,”’
or ‘‘ A Prince of God.” and is significant of much more than being one whom God favors,
viz. : that the one favored is in the covenanted line. Thus e.g. the name is given to
Christ (Isa. 49 : 3), because pre-eminently applicable to him as one who prevails, as one
who is a Prince, as the Seed in Israel’s line, as the one through whom Israel is saved ; it
is bestowed upon all believers because they prevail, are exalted in the covenanted line ;
and it is given to the natural descendants of Jacob as expressive of their covenanted
position. Fully admitting that the resemblance of names does not necessarily imply
identity of ideas, yet if the name continues to have the same idea connected with it
throughout revelation, and if no change is directly asserted, we may, consistently,
maintain the identity, especially in so weighty a doctrine as the election, adoption
pertaining to the Kingdom. The name ‘ Israel ” applies to the Jewish nation, to the one
line of Abraham’s descendants, and also to those adopted into it. Hence it fully belongs,
by right, to all who are engrafted, and is thus employed. All who are the sons of
Abraham, whether Jews believing or believing Gentiles grafted in, are Jsrael. This
simple application should prevent the misapplying of the word, as if the present Israel
was something separate and distinct from the Jewish stock. We recommend to the
reader’s notice the following remark from the leading Post-Millenarian of the day. Dr.
Brown (Com. Rom. 11, note 8) says :‘‘ Those who think that in all the evangelical proph-
ecies of the Old Test. the terms ‘ Jacob,’ ‘ Israel,’ etc., are to be understood solely of
the Christian Church, would appear to read the Old Test. differently from the apostle, who,
from the use of those very terms in Old Test. prophecy, draws arguments to prove that
God has mercy in store for the natural Israel (v. 26, 27).” Such a rebuke from such a
source, to the prevailing spiritualizing of the terms, and exclusive application to Gentiles,
etc., is worthy of attention, and aids to refute some of his reasoning in Ch. Sec, Coming.

Obs. 6. This necessarily becoming ‘‘ a child of Abraham’’ in order to

inherit the promises, is unaccountable to those who overlook the covenants
by which it is demanded. Thus e.g. Clarke (Jen Religions, p. 403), who
regards Abraham’s life and influence alone from a historic point, remarks :
*‘ the most curious fact about this Jewish people is, that every one of them
is a child of Abraham ’’ which ‘‘ ancestral pride’? ‘“‘ has never been the
case with any other nation.’? The reason is evident: the covenant
relationship demanded such a descent, for it is only the children of
Abraham, natural and adopted, that can obtain the promises. This was
felt and acknowledged from the express terms of the covenant ; and that
covenant instead of being rescinded, annulled, or altered remains to-day
in full force.
It is, therefore, a matter of surprise that Knapp (Ch. Theol., p. 350) should assert that
‘‘ far better promises are given in these prophets to the heathen than to the Jews,’’ when
the facts are that they are the same blessings covenanted to the Jews and obtained by the
Gentiles only on the condition of being engrafted and thus coming under the blessed
reign of ‘‘the King of the Jews.” This will be more clearly seen when we come to prove
the establishment of the Kingdom in accordance with the terms of the covenant given to
the Jewish nation, and observe the conspicuous position assigned to the Jewish elect nation in |
it. Knapp’s judgment is based on his view of the present dispensation as final, and in
the fact that now the Gentiles believe and receive the blessings of the Gospel more freely
than the Jews ; but this is only taking a very limited and partial view of God’s Plan in the
incorporation of Gentile believers, and in the ever-continued, because covenanted, pre-
eminence of the Jewish nation. For we must never forget the declaration, 2 Sam,
7:24: ‘* Kor Thou hast confirmed to Thyself Thy people Israel to be a people unto Thee
forever: and Thou, Lord, art become their God.”
PRopP. 62.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 401

Proposition 62. This people, to whom the Kingdom is to be

given, gathered out of the nations, becomes the elect nation.
This cannot be otherwise, owing to their incorporation with the
elect Jewish nation as the seed of Abraham by virtue of their faith
in, and union with, Christ. To keep up this elect the Gentiles are
engrafted, and hence are called, on account of their identification
with the elected people of God, ‘‘ the elect according to the fore-
knowledge of God”’ (1 Pet. 1:1, 2), ‘‘a@ chosen generation” (2:9,
10) ‘‘ which in time past were not a people, but are now the people
of God”? (comp. Eph. 1; 1 Thess.1:4; Col. 3:12; Rom. 9, etc.).
lf we take the language and promises applied to this elect people,
they are identical with those originally given to the line of elec-
tion, and summed up in the expressions ‘‘a@ royal priesthood, a
holy nation,’ etc. (comp. Ex. 19:5, 6; Deut. 10: 15, etc.).
The certainty of being engrafted, and thus becoming of “ the elect,” is not found in
a process of reasoning, or in a mere connection with the Church, or in observance of re-
ligious rites, but is alone found in a Christian consciousness of acceptance, resulting
from justification by faith in a personal Saviour, an appropriation of the Messiah which
is evidenced by the accompanying fruits of the Spirit. To this self-consciousness, sup-
ported by a fruitage, the Scriptures constantly appeal ; to this reality, affording a satis-
factory assurance of salvation, believers in successive generations have continually re-
ferred ; and it alone can afford a soul-satisfying proof, inspiring love, hope, joy, and
peace. Personal, individual experience on this point is essential to happiness, for
then is verified such declarations as ‘‘ J know in whom I have believed,” ‘“‘ I am known of
mine,’ ete. Comp. Dr. Sprecher's Groundwork of Theol., where this is admirably pre-
sented and urged.

Obs. 1. The term ‘‘ elect ’’ is used with reference to their being ‘‘ chosen’’
for this kingdom. 2 Pet. 1:10 exhorts brethren ‘‘¢o make your calling
and election sure,’? and adds that by so doing they shall enter ‘‘ the ever-
lasting Kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.’’ How make tt
sure? (1) The Jews are elect (Prop. 24, etc.) ; (2) since their national fall
(as a punishment for sin) the Gentiles are invited to become, by faith, the
seed of Abraham that shall inherit the promises ; (3) by thus becoming the
seed of Abraham they enter into the covenanted line and also become the
elect ; (4) it is by faith in Christ, in whom as the predicted David’s Son are
centered “‘ exceeding great and precious promises,’’ that they become the
elect ; (5) hence, to make our call as Gentiles to become children of Abra-
ham, and our election to the promised Kingdom sure, we must live a life
of faith in Christ. In the very nature of the case, the foreknowledge of
God is thus manifested ‘‘ having predestinated us unto the adoption of chil-
dren by Jesus Christ’ (Eph. 1: 5) in order that the covenanted inheritance
may be obtained by ‘‘ the elect of God’ (Col. 3:12; James 2 :5, etc.).
Before God took the Israelites to Canaan He first provided a sufficient number of peo-
ple, even under great trial and sorrow, who should be able to occupy the land, drive out
402 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRoP. 62.

their adversaries, and enjoy their imparted possession. So now God has promised a rich
inheritance, even the whole earth, to the saints under a Theocratic ordering, which they
are to realize in a peculiar, exalted way ; but before this inheritance is given God is en-
gaged in gathering oul this people, even under trial, temptation, and tribulation ; and
when the chosen, elected number is complete (known only to Him), then the possession
will be received, the adversaries will be judged and overthrown by them as associated in
Rulership with the Lord Christ.
This will enable us to discriminate between Auberlen and Fairbairn. The latter (On
Proph., Ap. K, p. 510), takes Auberlen to task for making the saints of Dan. 7 : 18-22
“< the people of Israel,” calling it ‘‘ an unwarranted license,” etc. Now that Auberlen is
right as to the phrase itself, there can be no doubt, seeing that the saints, including the
engrafted Gentiles, are truly the seed of Abraham, incorporated among the elect, and ac-
counted ‘‘ the people of Israel.” So also a writer (Proph. Fimes, Oct., 1870, Art. 1, p. 148)
observes that “‘ the saints of Daniel are Jews, and not Gentile Christians,’’ under the idea
that Daniel’s vision only relates to the Jews when speaking of the saints, The latter is
true, but it includes Gentile believers who are incorporated as Jews, and to whom, as we
shall hereafter show, the Kingdom is in an especial manner given. We know of no
‘“¢ Gentile Christians” separate and distinct from the Jewish election, and hence Daniel
is correct in speaking of the saints relating to the future, without the least intimation of
a change from the Jewish to a Gentile standpoint.

Obs. 2. This doctrine of the Kingdom in its covenanted aspect gives us

the key to the doctrine of election. The language referring to election is
based (1) on the Divine Purpose relating to this Theocratic Kingdom ;
(2) on the Plan embraced in that Purpose, of gathering out a people,—whose
character, etc., is predetermined—to whom it can be entrusted ; (3) on the
acceptance of the conditions by persons through which they come into the
line of that purpose. The election then (a) is, so far as God is concerned,
pre-ordained ; such a people will be gathered (as even Moses predicted) for
suchaKingdom of kings and priests to be established, and, as God changes
not, it will most assuredly be carried into execution ; (b) on the part of
man, he comes in the line of the predestinated order, or elect, or chosen,
just so soon as he accords or falls in with the determined process of engraft-
ing through faith in Jesus Christ.
Hence, in view of the conflicting and mystical opinions on this point, Dr. Auberlen
(Div. Rev., p. 232) justly observes that the doctrine of predestination sprung out of a
misapprehension and erroneous interpretation of the history of the Kingdom of God on
earth, transferring what only belonged to such a Kingdom “‘ to eternal religious relation-
ships,’ etc. The term “ elect’’ has then an ulterior reference to the fact (which will
appear hereafter) that after this number is completed, who are to be associated with
Christ in the higher Theocratic positions, no others can or will be added. They alone form
that chosen body counted worthy of co-heirship with Christ, and hence even the common
ordinary meaning of the word as given e.g. by Macnight (Prelim. Essays, essay 4, 8. 40, to
his Epistles), signifying ‘‘ the most excellent, chief, the most precious,” among other
things of the same kind, because excellence is the reason why some things are chosen
preferably to others, etc. (illustrated by “ the elect captains” Ex. 15 : 3 ; ‘‘ the elect an-
gels” 1 Tim. 5 ; 21 the “ elect lady” and “ elect sister” of 2 John 1:13, etc.), may be
aptly retained. ‘‘ The times of the Gentiles” are indeed preordained, but only in view
of this foreordained number of the elect. The foreknowledge of God comprehended the
delay in gathering out, and determines the end accordingly.

Obs. 3. The believing Gentile, becoming through his faith a ‘‘ Jew in-
wardly,’’ is elected or chosen in the place of ‘ the children of the King-.
dom’’ (Matt. 8:11, 12), who, through unbelief, are cut off from the nation-
ally covenanted Kingdom. Therefore, these chosen ones, becoming such
through adoption, “‘ shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down
with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob (to whom the covenant was given) in
the Kingdom of heaven,’’ etc.
PROP. 62.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 403

Lincoln (Lects. on Epis. of St. John, p. 80) rejects the idea of ‘‘ adoption,” making it
to mean ‘‘ son-placing’’—a son’s place, saying, ‘‘He (God) has taken children, but He
does not adopt them,’’ for He makes them such by “‘ actually communicating His own
nature and life ;’ “it is not by adoption, but that itis by the actual impartation of God’s
own life,” in resurrection life, ete. While we fully acknowledge the impartation of the
divine in resurrection and glorification, yet the word “ adoption’’ (which includes this
result) is used in the Scriptures as applicable to a believer now being one accepted, and
destined for divine glory (Eph. 1:4,5;Rom.8:15;comp. with Gal. 3:26 ; John
1:12 5;1John3:1, 2). Thehigherevidence and realization is in res. power (Rom.
8 : 23), and is given to those thus recognized (Gal. 4 : 5, 6).
404 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 63.

Propvosition 63. Lhe present elect, to whom the Kingdom will be

given, is the continuation of the previous election, chiefly in
another engrafted people. °
This follows from what has preceded, and is thus thrown into a
Proposition to impress it upon the mind. The previous, and the
present, election is founded on the promises and oath to Abraham.
Obs. 1. Both elect are the seed, the children of Abraham; both sets of
branches are on the same stock, on the same root, on the same olive tree ;
both constitute the same Israel of God, the members of the same body,
fellow-citizens of the same commonwealth ; doth are ‘‘Jews inwardly’’
(Rom. 2:29), and of the true ‘‘ circwmeision’’ (Phil. 3:3), forming the
same *‘ peculiar people,’’ ‘‘ holy nation,’’ and ‘‘ royal priesthood ;’’ both
are interested in the same promises, covenants, and kingdom ; doth inherit
and realize the same blessings at the same time. From these and other
considerations, involving identity, we find this election a continwous one,
by which the faithfulness of God shall be exhibited to the Patriarchs, to
their obedient descendants, and to the engrafted believers taken from other
nations.
This meets the objection of Williamson (Letters to a Millenarian), which rests upon an
entire misapprehension of Millenarian teaching. No Millenarian makes the Jewish
nation, as such, an heir of the Kingdom ; all, without exception, make the believing Jew
in the elect Abrahamic line (hence identified with, and included in, the nation), and the
believing Gentile (engrafted by faith), in their totality the heir. We carefully distinguish
between the heir and the subjects (Props. 124, 128, 153, etc.). Besides the nation itself,
before restored and securing its covenanted supremacy, must be penitent and converted
in order to obtain its distinguished position among the nations of the earth. The nation,
as such, is brought into nearness with the Theocratic Kingdom, as already explained ; as
a nation it can abuse, pervert, and reject it, as already shown ; but as a nation it can and
will (as we will prove in its place) be restored, God foreseeing the same, as predicted,
and hence forming His determinate Purpose in view of it. But this nation, thus restored
to high Theocratic privileges,as covenanted and predicted, is only exalted because it
stands associated with the immortal rulers, e.g. the twelve apostles, ete. We receive
with him the same heirs, only that we insist upon their being Abraham’s seed, conse-
quently engrafted and adopted as such, in view of the elect covenanted relationship of
the nation, in which the Theocracy is based fundamentally.

Obs. 2. This continuous election of the same body is manifested not only
in the predictions of the prophets, in the reigning with the twelve ‘tribes,
in participating with the Patriarchs in the blessings of the Kingdom, etc.,
but it is surprisingly represented even in the description of the New Jeru-
salem, which has the names of ‘* the twelve tribes of the children of Israel”?
(Rev. 21 : 12), showing that only those who are the children of Abraham
have the privilege of constant association therewith.’ It is remarkably
delineated as a filling up a predetermined number (Rev. 7 : 4-9) in each
one of the twelve tribes, and after that chosen number is taken out (as we
PRop. 63.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 405

shall show inthe proper place), then comes in the multitude, which cor-
responds with God’s Plan.’
1 This may serve to explain James’ epistle addressed “ to the twelve tribes which are scat-
tered abroad,’’ or ‘‘ which are in, or of, the dispersion.” Critics find it difficult, in view
of the contents of the epistle and its being addressed to believers, to reconcile this pas-
sage with the literal twelve tribes. Yet two opinions prevail, viz. : that James wrote to
believing Jews (Beza, Grotius, etc.), or that he addressed all Jews (Lardner, etc). But
if we keep in view the engrafting and adoption, the continuous election and incorpora-
tion, James forcibly employs this phraseology to designate believers, and their being the
elect people of God, who also were scattered or dispersed abroad among the nations.
2 We may only add, if somewhat premature in the argument, that the election has not
merely reference to the Kingdomitself, but to a certain position—one of distinguished,
pre-eminent honor and dignity, viz.: Kingship and priesthood, in that Kingdom.
Hence arises the eaceeding preciousness of this election, bringing to us the glory of asso-
ciated Rulership with Christ in His Theocratic dominion. ‘‘ The Plymouth Brethren”
define (Art. ‘* Plymouth Brethrenism,” Brit. Quarterly, Oct. 1873) ‘the Church of God,” or,
as they prefer to call it, “ the Assembly of God:’’ ‘* it is the actual living unity with Christ,
and with each other, of those who, since Christ’s resurrection, are formed into this unity
by the Holy Ghost.”” This definition excludes the Old Test. saints, which is erroneous
and derogatory to those saints, who also are saved through Christ. The apostles do not
call the Church a new thing or a mystery, but that Gentiles could be introduced and put
on the same ground (‘‘fellow heirs,’’ Eph. 3 : 6) with the Old Test. members. The same
glory awaits both ; both inherit with Abraham ; both form the Church purchased by His
blood ; both look for and enter the same city, etc. This error is found in many of their
works.

Obs. 3. This engrafting and continued election confirms what has

already been said respecting ‘‘ the wall of partition’’ being broken down, not
between the Jewish nation and Gentile nations (Pressense, Karly Days of
Christianity, p. 292), but, between Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ
(comp. Props. 24, 30, 49, 50, etc.).
The election is not removed from the Jewish nation, the seed of Abraham, for it con-
tinues, as has been proven, unbroken (comp. Rom. 11 : 28, 29, 26, 25, 23). No Gentile
nation has been chosen in place of the Jewish, for such a procedure would violate and
vitiate the solemnly given covenants. Even the covenanted Davidic throne and King-
dom, the Messiah’s special inheritance as David’s Son, indicates the continued necessity
of such election. That God’s purposes may not be defeated in erecting the contem-
plated Theocratic dominion with the elect nation for its basis, He continues the elec-
tion in incorporating Gentiles. For the accomplishment of His Purpose He requires a
certain determined number (known only to Him), and as the chosen nation in its mem-
bership made itself unworthy through the baseness of its depravity (in rejecting the
Messiah), and but few remain “* Jews inwardly,’’ the true Israel of God, it becomes nec-
essary to raise up a seed identified with that nation ; this is done by calling all Gentiles to
repentance and faith, and choosing individuals out of the nations, who, by virtue of their
repentance and faith, are adopted and become the elect. By this adoption, no distinc-
tion exists between them and the believing natural descendants of Abraham, and hence
that distinction which once arose between them asa barrier, called ‘‘ the wall of par-
tition,’’ is removed between such believers. This election is something very different,
as will be seen as the argument progresses, from the reception of the Gospel and the en-
joyment of the blessings of the Kingdom in the future under the Messianic reign by the
nations of the earth. These elect are then in the actual enjoyment of Rulership, ete.
The offer now is indeed freely made to all, but all, as yet, do not accept of the same.
The Gospel is freely preached to both Jew and Gentile, and by faith they become one
in Christ Jesus, the wall of separation being broken down between them because of
faith. Hence Oosterzee (Theol. N. Test.) is wrong when he says, ‘‘the wall of separa-
tion between Israel and the Gentile world is already fallen,’’ which is true only as to the
call, but not as to election, the latter being the result of faith.

Obs. 4. In various works, the theory is advocated that the Christian

Church is so entirely new in its institution, etc., that it is no continuation
406 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRopP. 63.

of the old order. Thus e.g. Alex. Campbell (Sérictures, Ap. to Debate on
Baptism, p. 225), says: ‘‘the Jews were the typical congregation or
church of God, but Christians are the real congregation or church of God.”
This, however, is hostile to the entire tenor of the Divine Plan as unfolded,
and antagonistic to the covenants and election. The reply to this has
already been given. It would be surpassing strange indeed to require
engrafting upon a mere ‘“‘ typical ’’ stock or olive-tree, and to promise us
an inheritance with previous ‘‘ typical’? members of the church. Admit-
ting that there is a newness in the arrangement by which Gentiles are em-
braced on the principle of faith, thus causing, through the defection of the
Jews and the sacrifice of Jesus, a change in ordinances, etc., yet the
expressive language by which it is carefully guarded, warns us to regard
the past and the present church of God as one grand, continuous reality in
the progress of the fulfilment of covenanted blessings.

Obs. 5. The quite early church view, as seen in the writings of the
Fathers, made no such wnjust discrimination between the ancient and
modern elect. Both were regarded in the same light and as belonging to
the same body, and such persons as Barnabas, Ireneus, Justin Martyr, and
others pointedly traced the election of believers to their being grafted into
the elect Jewish nation, i.e. that portion of the natural seed of Abraham
which also believed and rendered obedience, and thus becoming, through
adoption, members of the elect nation. We have already quoted language
of theirs, illustrative of this feature, under previous Propositions. It ma
be added, that so identified, through faith in Jesus, did they feel them-
selves with the Patriarchs to whom the covenants were given, that (as e.g.
Lactantius, Div. Insti., B. 4, ch. 10), they called them ‘‘ our ancestors,”
and vividly expressed the hope, in virtue of being adopted as their seed, of
finally inheriting with them.

Obs. 6. While in relation to ‘‘ the times of the Gentiles’? and their call-
ing, this might be named, as some do, a ‘‘ Gentile dispensation,’’ yet it is
a phrase not strictly correct, because it implies that the Jews were not also
called and eligible to the Kingdom, that the Gentiles stood in a position in-
dependent of the Jews (i.e. were not grafted in, etc.), and that there is an
unjust (to the Jews) discrimination in behalf of the Gentiles. Hence, care-
ful writers avoid the phrase.

Obs. 7. This adoption and continued election, materially aids in throw-

ing light upon the difficult question, why it was that the apostles and first
Christians, with their faith and hope in Jesus Christ, continued faithful
Jews, attending the religious services in the temple and synagogue ; and
that we have no distinctive utterance from the apostles, even when in coun-
cil together considering the admission and circumcision of the Gentiles,
respecting the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law, etc., excepting by
“Paul afterward. The views entertained respecting virtual adoption, incor-
poration, and election caused them to occupy such a posture.
The opinions generally expressed concerning this are various, such as, that it was an
accommodation, provisional, temporary concession, necessary transition state, lack of
knowledge, and even inconsistency. But we see in it a deeper reason: the Jewish
nation was the elect nation, and until God showed clearly, by the destruction of the tem-
ple and dispersion of the nation, that it was for a time rejected (there being no commen-
PRop. 63.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 407
surate repentance for its contracted guilt), it was right and proper for Jews to observe
the institutions nationally connected with the nation. When these were abrogated by
the manifested judgments befalling the nation—and for which Paul forewarned and pre-
pared the Jews in Hebrews—the same reason existed no longer. It was then the cove-
nanted relationship that the nation, asa nation, sustained to the Kingdom of God, that
influenced believing Jews to manifest a regard for everything nationally connected. With
their ideas of the covenants, inseparably connected, as they yet are, with the nation in
the Theocratic relationship instituted, and allied with the restoration of the Davidic
throne and Kingdom inseparably identified with the nation, it would have been prema-
ture in them to have turned away from the nation thus favored, until they were clearly
taught, both by inspiration and the providence of God, that the nation, as such, had in-
deed fallen, and that others, even Gentiles, were engrafted. This clinging so tenaciously
and persistently to the nation (as e.g. see even statement of Sulpitius Severus, Mosheim’s
Eccl. His., vol. 1, p. 138, footnote 2) is evidence—the highest—of their faith in this very
election, incorporation, adoption, and that salvation is truly identified with the Jewish
nation. ‘This very feature which multitudes deem so defective in early Christianity, and
which infidels scoffingly deride, is honorable to those believers. Distinguishing between
those who made circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic ritual essential, and those
who, discarding the same as superseded by faith in Jesus, etc., still held to a union
made requisite by covenanted relation, we observe a logical consistency. Even Gibbon
(Decl. and Fall, vol. 2, p. 14) observes this feature : “ The Gentile converts, who by a
spiritual adoption had been associated to the hope of Israel, were likewise confounded under
the garb and appearance of Jews 3” and in a note adds: “ An obscure passage in Sucto-
nius (in Claud. c. 25) may seem to offer a proof how strangely the Jews and Christians
ot Rome were confounded with each other.’’ This is explained by the simple fact that
so long as the Early Church clung to the literal beliet of the Abrahamic and Davidic cov-
enants, there was much that was common te both (however they disagreed respecting the
Mosaic ritual being still binding), but as the Gentile believers drifted from this belief, an
antagonism sprung up and continued.
408 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 64,

Proposition 64. The Kingdom being given to the elect only, any
adoption into that elect portion must be revealed by express
Divine Revelation.
No addition to, or continuation of, that elect portion to whom
the Kingdom is alone promised (by way of inheritance), can be
made without direction from God Himself.
Obs. 1. It has already been shown (Prop. 30), how God, in order to vin-
dicate His foreknowledge and purpose, revealed that Gentiles should par-
ticipate in the blessings of the Kingdom. But the manner in which they
should be introduced, was left unexplained. ‘The indefinite nature of the
predictions (as e.g. by Moses in Deut. 32) are now, in the light of fulfil-
ment, become definite. But it was not so in the days of Jesus and His dis-
ciples ; something was to be added to show how this incorporation could be
effected, for with the special election of the one nation, it would have been
presumptuous for any one to have joined others with it without due
authority from God. Hence we find Jesus before His death promising the
keys of the Kingdom of heaven to Peter, i.e. the authoritative knowledge
by which that Kingdom could be gained. Owing to the excessive sinful-
ness of the nation in rejecting and killing the Messiah, the one key con-
cerning the Jews (Acts 2 : 38), was given to Peter on the day of Pentecost,
while ¢he other key pertaining to the Gentiles was given to him later by
special revelation (Acts 10 : 1-48).
Comp. my Art. “ The Keys,’’ in Evang. Review, vol. 20, p. 269 and 341. Our line of
argument disproves the utterly unfounded assertion of Lord Bolingbroke, that the Gospel
was only for the Jews, and that Paul was the first one who saw it necessary to extend it to
the Gentiles, which he did, corruptingit, etc. The Key of Knowledge was first given to
Peter, and from him extended to the others. It is amazing, 1n the light of the predic-
tions of Jesus and the fulfilment in Peter (next Obs.), that Reuss (His, Ch. Theol., p.
259), can say, after placing the call of the Gentiles prior to the conversion of the Centu-
rion of Cesarea by“ a simple (?) chronological arrangement :’ ‘* To some obscure Cyreni-
cians and men of Cyprus, friends of the illustrious proto-martyr, justly belongs then the
honor of having been the first to break down the barrier which limited the word of God
within the sphere of the Israelitish nationality.’’ We, however, are content to leave
this ‘‘ honor’’ with Peter, to whom it more “‘ justly belongs.” Reuss unintentionally
belittles Peter (making him weak and foolish) and the other apostles, by making these
unknown (for he cannot even name them) preachers persons of far greater enlightenment
than the apostles themselves, adding : “in their case, no visions, ecstasies, or celestial
voices were needed to enable them to receive the positive and repeated assurances of
the Saviour. ’

Obs. 2. This doctrine of the election of the Jewish nation, is one so

clearly taught that it was deeply rooted in the minds of the Jews. The
result was that no addition could be made to it or allowed without an
extraordinary Divine revelation. Hence we read (Acts 11) that when
‘* the apostles and brethren that were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had
Prop. 64.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 409

also received the word of God,’’ they contended with Peter in consequence
of his thus encouraging the Gentiles. Peter rehearsed the whole matter ;
what vision he had seen ; what directions he had received ; what results
had followed ; how God had acknowledged the validity of such an engraft-
ing of Gentile believers by the bestowal of the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
This was satisfactory ; for ‘“‘ when they heard these things, they held their
peace, and glorified God, saying: Then hath God also to the Gentiles
granted repentance unto life.’’ On a later occasion when the dispute was
again raised by a few respecting the conversion of the Gentiles under Paul
and Barnabas, Peter interfered, showing how the Gentiles through him
heard the Gospel and believed, the Holy Ghost testifying to the same.
‘Phen Paul and Barnabas increased the force of the testimony by relating
what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through
them. The result of the discussion is announced by James (Acts
15 : 13-21), in which we have distinctively three things presented : (1) The
election and incorporation of the Gentiles, ‘‘ Simeon hath declared how God
at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His
name ;”’ (2) the identification of this elect people with them (the Jews) in
the covenanted Kingdom, ‘‘ And to this agree the words of the prophets, as
it is written, ‘after this’ (viz. : after this people are gathered out) ‘ J will
return and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down ;
and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up,’ ’’—both elect
enjoying this restored Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom ; (3) the blessings that
would follow this restoration, ‘* that the residue of men,’’ etc.
The comments of various commentators are exceedingly unsatisfactory (as also of
writers, e.g. Hengstenberg’s Christ, B. 3, p. 233, etc.), simply because they forget to place
themselves in the Jewish position, ignore the necessity of adoption and incorporation,
and misapprehend the nature of the Messianic Kingdom. Even Olshausen, generally
good in noticing the intent of passages, is here weak and uninstructive, while such com-
mentators as Barnes (loci) flatly contradict their own Church-Kingdom theory by admit-
ting a line of reasoning which is fatal to it. For Barnes admits (1) that this has refer-
ence to Messianic time ; (2) that these times, thus described, are identified with a Jewish
restoration to great prosperity and blessings, etc. But the Messianic times and King-
dom cannot be thus established, as predicted, because no such prosperity, no such res-
toration came upon the Jews at the First Advent ; instead of such a fulfilment history
records the sad fate of the nation. It is true that Barnes and others endeavor to shield
their view under the ever-convenient but pitiful subterfuge of making this prediction
emblematical of the favor of God and of other blessings than those specified.
The entire history of the election of Gentile believers indicates, from the jealousy with
which it was regarded and the divine proofs that had to be necessarily attached to it,
that in the minds of the apostles and believing Jews it was connected and blended with
their own national election ; it was regarded as a virtual engrafting and adoption as the
seed of Abraham, to whom the covenants and promises belonged. If it be asked why
such a revelation was necessary, owing to a previous admission of Gentiles as proselytes,
the answer is, that the former system of admission being abrogated, and the Abrahamic
covenant being renewed and pertaining exclusively to the faithful portion of the Jews, it
was requisite, if the Gentiles were to be adopted, etc., to show how this could be ac-
complished.

Obs. 3. Various authors of eminence have unjustly accused the apostles,

the
and especially Peter, of being ‘‘ too Jewish’’ in their views respecting
call of the Gentiles. But in the light of the covenants and the election,
how, we ask, could they be otherwise? It will not answer, as some defend-
ers ot Christianity, to assume that this ‘‘ Jewish exclusiveness’’ was merely
‘‘a husk” enveloping something else ; for we find this alleged ‘‘ husk’’ an
important and indispensable element even down to the present day. Recent
 410 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRrop. 64.

Christian writers may, rather sarcastically, remark that Peter thought that
“* the Gentiles must be brought, as it were, over the bridge of Judaism into
the Kingdom of God.’’ But Peter had no right to think otherwise wntil
God revealed the matter to him how Gentiles could be engrafted and also
become of the elect people without observing the rites and ceremonies of
Judaism. In this whole affair, the apostles sustained the very attitude
required by our Propositions concerning the covenants and election.
The criticisms of some writers on Peter are of such a-nature that it almost seems as
if they thought the keys were given to themselves instead of being presented to Peter.
It will not answer to say, as some do, that salvation is just as necessary to the Gentile
as it is to the Jew, and hence that no difference is made, no engrafting takes place, etc.
Admitting that both need salvation, the question to be constantly kept before us is how
God Himself arranges and carries out His Divine Purpose of Salvation. The objection,
if it is to be regarded as such, might with equal propriety be alleged against preceding
dispensations (as e.g. the choice of the Jewish nation, its Theocratic relationship, etc.),
and even against this one, seeing what little provision has been made for the salvation
of the heathen of past centuries, although they also needed salvation. A Christian cannot
thus object, because God, who is all-wise and merciful, undoubtedly selects the best
methods by which (in the briefest time, consistent with man’s moral freedom and His
own Purposes), to attain to the ultimate Redemption of the world with the least loss and
with the greatest honor to His moral government. Hence we, unable to grasp the in-
numerable details and principles underlying a Divine Plan only partially unfolded,
should not set ourselves up as judges and arbiters of the matter, but simply receive the
mode indicated by the Word itself. Such writers as Froude (Short Studies, p. 239),
when they proclaim ‘‘ the narrow littleness of ‘ the peculiar people,’ ” of course do not
regard the covenanted Theocratic relationship, etc., but seek after objections to gratify
their own ‘‘ high-mindedness.”

Obs. 4. The pronouncing, by Paul, of this election of Gentile believers

as “‘ a mystery,’’—something, which, in view of the elected position of the
Jews, was unexplained and to human reason inexplicable,—confirms our
line of reasoning. That which made ‘‘ the mystery,’’ was the sole and
exclusive promise given to the seed of Abraham ; the solving of ‘‘ the mys-
tery,’’ was the making known how the Gentiles could be incorporated with
the elect nation.

Obs. 5. Even the intimations given by Jesus, before his death, could
not break in the minds of the disciples the force of this exclusive promise,
until it was also shown how the Gentiles could become the seed of Abraham
without observing the rites, etc., of a previously ordained proselytism. In
the nature of the case, it could not be otherwise, and it increases our ad-
miration of the correct knowledge and attitude assumed by the disciples.
Let us briefly survey one of those intimations as given in Matt. 12 : 14-22. Here we
have—(1) the Pharisees holding a council, and consulting to destroy Him ; (2) when Jesus
knew it, He withdrew from thence, and “‘ charged them (the people that followed) that
they should not make Him known,” in order that two things ‘‘ might be fulfilled : (a)
His submissiveness to suffering and death, and (b) in view of His rejection by the nation
and the nation’s fall, the call and election of Gentiles. But in this, as in others, the man-
ner of incorporation is passed by, it being left for future revealment. Some writers (as
e.g. Potter, Hreedom and Fellowship in Relig., p. 207), assign to Paul, and not to Peter, the
calling of the Gentiles ; but this is opposed to the divine statements (Obs. 1 and 2). It
is confounding Paul’s special apostleship to the Gentiles with the call, and it is setting
up a claim for Paul which he never assumed.

Obs. 6. Dr. Reuss (His. Ch. Theol., p. 151) adduces as proof that the
Kingdom itself changed its nature and became spiritual, the removal of
Prop. 64.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 411

exclusiveness in the call of the Gentiles. But this is a strange and most
erroneous inference. Paul tells us in Rom. ch. 11, Jesus declares in Matt.
21: 43, other passages assert, that the calling of the Gentiles resulted, 2o¢
from a change in the Kingdom (God forbid), but, from the posture of the
Jewish nation, viz. : its deliberate rejection of the King and tendered King-
dom. ‘To argue that the Kingdom itself was changed to accommodate it to
the Gentiles, is to violate the covenants, to annul God’s oath to David, to
make the Gentiles another separate and superior elect nation, in brief, to
override the important and scripturally sustained reasons given in preced-
ing Propositions. Reuss’ position (which only illustrates that of multi-
tudes) is opposed to the teaching of the prophets (Prop. 35), who,
although announcing the conversion of the Gentiles, never intimate the
slightest change in the Kingdom, but constantly refer to it as the restored
Theocratic-Davidic. It is hostile to the express declarations of the apostles,
who, when in council to consider the relationship of the Gentiles, announce
that it is not im conflict with the still future restoration of the fallen taber-
nacle of David. It is contradictory to the entire tenor of the Word, which
only predicts and promises one Kingdom, the restored Davidic, for the
elect to inherit. The theories which require for their support a present
existing Davidic Kingdom, must, of necessity, not only advocate a change,
although it is an ignoring of the most precise covenants, but seek in its be-
half the lame apologies already so abundantly presented.
This subject of the election and the call of the Gentiles, with the engrafting on the
principle of faith, fully accounts why Paul enters so largely into the matter of, and lays
so much stress on, the doctrine of justification through faith. The contrast between his
writings and that of the other apostles in this particular is so great that some have con-
cluded it—erroneously—to be “ another Gospel.’’ But the key is to be found in his
being specially appointed as the apostle of the Gentiles. His very mission made this a
very significant and highly important topic, and consequently, in faithfulness to his
calling, he enlarges upon it.
412 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 65.

Proposition 65. Before this Kingdom can be given to this eect

people, they must first be gathered out.
The nature of the Kingdom as covenanted, and the rejection of
the Kingdom by the chosen nation (making such a gathering requi-
site), requires such an arrangement. The introduction of the faith
principle, by which Abraham was justified before circumcision took
place, to raise up children to Abraham, merely produces “‘ the
heirs,’? who inherit the Kingdom. The elect are ‘the guests,”’
who are first all invited and furnished before the marriage feast
takes place. The Kingdom is not given—in the sense of being
actually realized—to them one by one as gathered, but when all are
gathered.
Obs. 1. This final gathering of all the elect ‘‘ from one end of heaven to
the other,’’ at the period of inheriting the Kingdom, is mentioned, e.g.
Matt. 24 : 31 ; Mark 13 : 27 ; 2 Thess. 2 : 1, etc.
It is a query, whether in such passages as Matt. 24:31 there is not a reference to
the Jewish nation. The elect nation, after a time of punishment, is also to be gathered
out of all nations. Jesus was speaking to Jews who believed their nation to be the
chosen, elect one, and His language would necessarily lead them to apply it to the gath-
ering of the nation as predicted by the prophets. The special point made by the Sav-
iour is, that such a gathering can only take place after the period of tribulation has run
its allotted course (comp. Props. 111-114). This includes, however, as other passages
teach, the gathering out of those also who are incorporated—who are deemed worthy of a
Theocratic position in the Kingdom. Bonet, in his address, Christianity and the Gospel,
before the Evang. Alliance for 1873, defines even the word ‘‘ saint’’ to mean “ set
apart.’’

Obs. 2. This Kingdom is promised to the direct faithful seed of Abra-

ham, and it is incorporated with the Jewish nation through the adopted
and amalgamated Theocratic-Davidic throne and Kingdom. It 1s likewise
promised to the engrafted seed, but necessarily subject to the same incor-
poration. Hence, until this seed is openly manifested in its nationally
engrafted character with the Jewish elect nation (a restoration of the nation
being tmperative to fulfil covenants), the Kingdom as promised and pre-
dicted cannot be established.
Therefore, in view of this, a petition occurring in the Burial Service of the Church
of England has often arrested the attention of the writer, viz. : ‘‘ That it may please
Thee, of Thy gracious goodness, shortly to accomplish the number of Thine Elect, and to
hasten Thy Kingdom.” Not keeping in view the design for which the election is made,
viz. : to qualify men for the future divine administration of the restored Theocratic
Kingdom, Fairbairn (On Proph., p. 268) applies things to the restored Jewish nation in
its un-theocratic form (i.e. without the Davidic covenant literally realized in a personal
reign of the Messiah, David’s Son), which only refer to the elect saints, viz.: that por-
tion accounted worthy to rule in the Theocratic Kingdom when the restoration is
effected. The Jewish nation in the flesh is subordinate to these firstborn glorified rulers,
Prop. 65.] THE TIHEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 413

and while the latter come in the elect covenanted line, yet they are superior to the for-
mer in honor, station, and privileges. The reader’s indulgence is asked, for it is yet too
early in our argument to give more than these hints. Compare Props, 118, 153, and 154.

Obs. 3. In view of the Kingdom being thus future, it is reasonable to

expect such futurity to be specified in connection with the election. This
is done in various places, as e.g. 2 Pet. 1 : 10, 11, the election is stated and
faithfulness enjoined that an entrance may be secured hereafter into the
Kingdom. In 1 Pet. 1: 2-13, the elect are mentioned, and they are
pointed to the future, even to the revelation of Christ, for their inheritance.
So in Eph. 1 : 4, these chosen ones are directed to the futwre gathering for
their inheritance. The Word does not contradict itself. Therefore this
futurity of the Kingdom is the basis of the numerous exhortations to obtain
it, to walk worthily of it, to look, seek, and pray for it.

Obs. 4. God for a time leaving the nation first bidden, and treating the
Jews as individuals (i.e. not in their national relationship), now invites
both Jews and Gentiles to become this people of faith, and through Peter,
to whom this knowledge was imparted, the relation of these elect to the
Kingdom, in the age to come, is fully and explicitly stated. There isa
fitness in this, that the apostle selected to indicate this election should also
refer the Kingdom to the future for manifestation and realization. In
addition to the passages quoted from him, the reader may turn to his ser-
mon. Acts 3 : 19-26, where the eye of faith is directed to the cominy again
of Jesus and the accompanying ‘‘ restitution of all things.’’? In no place is
it asserted, that the promised covenanted Kingdom was already in posses-
sion of the elect, for such a statement would Je palpably contradictory to
the most sacred portions of Holy Writ, viz. : to the covenants.

Obs. 5. This Kingdom is to be given to all of the elected nation, both

believing Jews of natural descent and engrafted Gentiles, to all believers,
therefore, that have ever lived ; and it will be bestowed upon both at the
same time, including the Patriarchs, ancient worthies, faithful Jews, and
believing adopted Gentiles. One portion of the elect cannot inherit before
the other portion ; doth stand precisely upon the same footing and obtain
through the identical election and covenants the same inheritance. (The
rejection by the nation of the tender, does not change the nature of it,
other guests are invited and participate instead of those previously urged,
and now under a cloud for their refusal.) In reference to one portion of
these elect, Paul informs us (Heb. 11 : 39, 40), after enumerating a long
list of worthies, ‘‘ these all received not the promise’ ‘‘ that they without
us should not be made perfect.’? None of the present saints, (viz. : of this
dispensation,) have inherited the Kingdom, for the inheriting is placed in
the future, as e.g. Matt. 25:34. The Kingdom is promised to both,
forming the one elect body, but those things which belong to the actual
realization of the Kingdom, such as inheriting, receiving the crown, reign-
ing, etc., are all, as the reader will find by a comparison of passages, related
to the future. The saints, the elect of this and previous dispensations, are
represented as waiting for the Kingdom (comp, Rev. 6: 9-11; Luke
18:7, 8;2 Thess. 1 : 5-10 ; Rom. 8 : 23, etc.).
Whatever the intermediate state may be, whether in Hades simply (as some assert), or
in Paradise in Hades (as others claim), or in the third heaven (as some announce),
414 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 65.
etc., one thing is clearly demonstrable, viz.: that the inheriting of the Kingdom, the
receiving of the crown, the obtaininy of the distinctive reward as allied with covenanted
promises, are all still future, always linked with the future resurrection of the just or
allied with the Sec. Advent of Jesus Christ. The Bible is explicit on this point, and the
covenants absolutely require this to preserve the requisite unity. Let the reader compare
what is said on the intermediate state, Prop. 136.

Obs. 6. This Kingdom is to be given at a specified appointed time known

to God. Without now discussing the predictions, we only refer to the fact
that before *‘ the Kingdom, and dominion, and the greatness of the Kingdom
under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most
High’’( Dan. 7), a certain period of time must first elapse, certain events
must first transpire, and then the Kingdom is bestowed. It is given to this
people at a particular time or era. ‘The parable of the talents (“‘ after a
long time,’’ etc.), and of the tares and wheat, the delineation of 2 Thess. 2,
and of other passages, illustrate this same truth.

Obs. 7. In comparing Scripture, it will be found that this period of time

is stated to be at the era of the Sec. Advent, when this Kingdom will be
bestowed upon the elect, Matt. 25 : 34 ; Luke 12 : 32 ; 2 Thess. 1 : 5-10,
etc. Hence the elect are represented as ‘‘ called’’ (1 Thess. 2:12) to this
Kingdom, to ‘‘a patient waiting for Christ’ (2 Thess. 3:5), and ‘‘ His
appearing and Kingdom’? (2 Tim. 4:1) are united ;—they are ex-
horted to endure trials that (2 Thess. 1 : 5) ‘‘ ye may be counted worthy
of the Kingdom of God.’’ To these might be added numerous passages,
which will appear as we proceed ; in the meantime, the reader is reminded
that this accurately corresponds with what has preceded and what follows in
our argument.
We only remind the reader, as an indication of a Divine Purpose and Providence, that
as the larger number of the elect, the great mass, are taken out of the Gentiles, the time
chosen for this call of the Gentiles was signally opportune. Thus e.g. the change from
the Hebrew to the Hellenistic language was one of the providential movements prepara-
tory to this calling, and facilitated the same. The time specified in the Obs. and the
delay of the Kingdom, until the number of the elect is completed, has been noticed by
many able writers. Thus e.g. Olshausen (Com, Acts 1 : 6-8), remarks, in connection with
referring ‘‘ the times of refreshing and restitution’’ to the personal Sec. Advent of Jesus :
““The conversion of men, therefore, and the diffusion of faith in Christ, are the con-
ditions of the speedy approach of that blessed time—a thought which occurs again in 2
Pet. 3 : 9.”

Obs. 8. It may be added, that this future Kingdom covenanted to the

elect nation, and which the elect, including the promised Seed, are to
inherit, is explicitly called Christ’s Kingdom. This ought to be so, if our
position is correct, and has already been foreshown under Prop. 45, etc.
The Kingdom at the Sec. Advent is distinctively called ‘‘ His Kingdom,”’
ase.g. 2 ‘Tim. 4:15; Matt. 13 : 41 ; Luke 22 : 30; 2 Pet. 1:11, etc. We
are gravely told (comp. Prop. 159) by a multitude that Christ at the end
of this dispensation at His Sec. Advent, will deliver up ‘‘ His Kingdom,”’
so that, if we are to receive their theory, o such distinctive Kingdom is to
exist after the Advent for the elect to inherit. But this notion is to be
rejected as utterly untenable and contradictory to the entire tenor of the
Word, which locates the Messianic Kingdom at the Sec. Advent (comp.
Prop. 159).
Prop. 65.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 415

Obs. 9. In studying the subject of the Kingdom, we must not be misled

by a striking peculiarity of Scripture, viz. : that things still future, owing
to their certainty, are spoken of as present. The style of prediction and
promise, dealing largely of objects ot faith and hope, contains this feature
as has been noticed by many writers. Thus the Kingdom of God, the
great object of faith and hope, being sure, founded on the Word and oath
of the Almighty, is in view of its certainty spoken of as present, being re-
ceived, etc. (comp. Prop. 109), as e.g. in Heb. 12 : 22-28 ; Rom. 8: 30;
Rey. 1 : 6, 9, etc. To take such passages, given through the intensity of
faith and hope, and make them contradictory and inconsistent with the
general analogy of the Word, is certainly both unwise and unnecessary.
The illustrations given by Macnight in his Prelim. Essays on the Epistles (Essay 4,
s. 12, from the Greek, Matt. 3:10 ; Mark 9 : 31 ;1 Cor. 15 :2, 12 ; James 5:3 ;2 Pet.
3:11, 12), prove that, as he says, ‘‘ the present tense is often put for the future, to show
that the thing spoken of shall as certainly happen as if it were already present.’’ He
(as well as many commentators) overlooks this feature in his exegetical comments on
various passages. The illustrations can be greatly increased indicative of the sentiment
of Rom. 4:17, He ‘‘ calleth those things which be not as though they were,’’ as in Rom.
8: 30 “ them He also glorified,” in 1 Pet. 1 : 9 (seeconnection), Luke 1 : 51-53 ; Isa. 9 : 6,
many of the Psls., etc. Justin Martyr, long ago, in his First Apology, assigns the reason
for this mode of expression, ‘‘ The things which He absolutely knows will take place,
He predicts as if already they had taken place.’’ This feature heightens the Divine in
the Word, making it to speak in the largeness and fulness of the Spirit, as e.g. in that
Divine Purpose portrayed in the declaration that Jesus is ‘‘ the Lamb slain from the foun-
dation of the world’’ (Rev. 13: 8). Soalso Neander in several places shows how the
apostles spoke of the future as present, although he forgets his own admissions in com-
menting on several passages. Thus e.g. speaking of the author of Hebrews (His. Plant.
Ch. Ch., vol. 2, p. 5), he instanzes ch. 10: 22, ch. 12 : 23, and ch. 12 : 28, as evidence
that ‘‘ to Christians the future is by faith already become a present.’’ And (p. 13), “ by
means of faith a vital connection is formed
between the Present and the Future. By
means of faith, according to the doctrine of this epistle, the Future becomes in some
measure a Present to the mind, although this Present has a necessary bearing to a more
perfect development, a consummation in the Future.”’

Obs. 10. The reader need scarcely be reminded, that in all the elect ones,
both ancient and modern, who are to enjoy the Kingdom of God, certain
moral qualifications are necessary as a prerequisite. The natural and
engrafted seed of Abraham must all be of faith and obedience. 'The decisive
argument in Romans and Hebrews evinces this; for while the seed of
Abraham is chosen, not every individual is thus favored ; while the nation
is elected to a Theocratic position, not every member of it will be saved ;
it is only the faithful portion of Abraham’s seed that is commended and
that will be exalted. This has been so ably represented by various writers
(as Noel, McNeill, Bickersteth, Bonar, etc.), that it only requires brief
mention.
It may be added : this requires more than mere knowledge, viz. : the practical recep-
tion of the truth and a heartfelt obedience to the same, lest we fall into the “‘ delusion”
specified by Dorner (His. Prot. Theol., vol. 1, p. 19), of receiving the truth merely by the
mind and not by the mind and heart—the latter alone leading to a personal appropriation
of Christ, influencing heart and life In the Obs. ancient and modern saints are pur-
posely placed in the same position, for there is much written at the present day respect-
ing the inferiority of Old Test. saints, grounded on their being justified by works, the
law, etc. This is certainly a misapprehension, seeing that the apostles hold up the be-
lievers of former dispensations as pre-eminent patterns of faith (their works being the result
of faith) and that their lives evinced, in obedience to God’s requirements, the strongest
faith. They were justified by faith, and not by the law, and not by their works, how-
ever, the law might drive to faith, and the works might evidence the purity and strength
416 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 65.

of faith. Hence, as faith introduces the blessing of Redemption through Abraham, and
all his seed are of faith, we cannot receive the disparaging remarks of eminent writers in
this direction. Thus, to illustrate, Reuss (His. Ch. Theol., p. 290), says, alluding to con-
version and its moral results : ‘‘ The new relation of which we have spoken was evi-
dently an individual relation between the believing man and his God. Now we must
remember that such a relation had no existence in the religious sphere of Judaism, which
was a purely and essentially national institution, the members of which had rights and
duties only as belonging to the great whole.” This is simply overlooking the distinctive
Theocratic element connected with this nationality, which bound the individual member
to his Sovereign Ruler. The tendency, indeed, constantly was to ignore this Theocratic
feature, but God insisted upon its retention as alone honorable to Himself as the Theo-
cratic King.

Obs. 11. The Kingdom thus given to these elect ones does not remove the
election of the Jewish nation as a nation. ‘This, aside from the covenants
and the Theocratic ordering allied with the nation, is seen from the fact,
that this seed gathered out is virtually regarded as part and parcel of the
nation (is a continuation of the election, Prop. 63), and when the nation
is nationally restored will be so recognized in the inheriting with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. Again, let any one compare Deut. ch, 32, Rom. ch. 11,
together with various predictions relating to this elect Jewish nation, and
he will find the following succinctly stated : (1) The Jews an elect nation
(Prop. 24); (2) this nation can render itself unworthy of the Kingdom by
disobedience ; (3) by its own conduct it will bring upon itself terrible evils
and a temporary. rejection as a nation ; (4) the Theocratic rulership will
be, for a time, withdrawn ; (5) during such a period of rejection, God still
continues His work of gathering out of it, and out of the Gentiles, the
elect ; (6) but the nation itself, for a time under the most severe tribula-
tions, will, owing to this very election (being ’‘ beloved for the Father’s
sakes’’), again—as the covenant to be fulfilled demands—0e restored to the
favor of God. This nation, therefore, now under trial, is still the chosen
nation, and this will be manifested in due time (see Props. 111 to 114).
Hence the preference (Luke 24:47; Rom. 1: 16; Acts 3:25, 26;
Rom. 2:10; Acts 13 : 46, and 19 : 21), showed to this nation even after
the day of Pentecost in preaching the Gospel—a preference based only
upon this election, the Jews being, by virtue of their relationship to Abra-
ham, ‘‘ the children of the Kingdom,’’ and the descendants of those who
once enjoyed this Kingdom in its initiatory, incipient form. The natural
seed must not, therefore, be ignored; and only upon their refusal to
accept of the proffered gospel of the Kingdom were the apostles, and even
Paul, authorized to seek after the engrafted ones. One of the darkest pages
in the history of Christianity is that which records the tendering of insult,
wrong, and death instead of the precious message of hope and peace to
this covenant favored people.
This already gives us the clue to the literal fulfilment of the covenant promises, con-
firmed as they are by the oath of God, and therefore unconditional. Thus e.g. the prom-
ise of making Abraham’s seed a mighty nation (which has specially excited the ridicule
of infidels in comparing the feeble Kingdom of Israel with the mighty empires of the
earth) will be realized when this elect nation will all be gathered and stand associated
with the restored Theocratic Kingdom. It does not require much reason to see, that
when God's Plan is carried out and openly manifested, it will exceed the highest eulo-
gies that the Prophets have given, and most amply vindicate God’s Word. Let all the
seed of Abraham be brought together at the appointed time, and language fails to ex-
press the might and grandeur of the nation. The world will be astonished at the sublime
manifestation.
Prop. 65.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 417
Waldegrave (New Test. Millenarianism, Lect. 3) entirely misapprehends this election of
the Jewish nation, holding that the continuance of the election bv the engrafting of the
Gentiles forbids any future special manifestation of God’s favor to the Jewish nation, as
e.g. to bestow upon it pre-eminence over Gentile nations. Much that Waldegrave says
we can cordially adopt, excepting his extreme in this direction, seeing that he does not
discriminate between the pre-eminence of those who inherit the Kingdom (i.e. the saints
as rulers) and that of the nation restored among and over the nations by virtue of its cov-
enanted position and relationship with these glorified saints, the seed of Abraham.
This engrafting process, we also hold, gives ‘‘ a perfect equality between Jew and Gen-
tile,’’ and it is likewise correct to assert, as he does, that *‘ the believing Gentile, though
uncircumcised, is much more really a child of Abraham than the circumcised Jew who
does not believe.’’ The reason for this has been fully assigned in previous Props., but
this does not, by any means, necessitate his hasty and inconclusive deductions, which
make the Davidic covenant and numerous prophecies inoperative and unfulfilled.

Obs. 12. ‘These elect, now gathered out, are in the various denominations
of Christians. The diversity, even of doctrine and practice, does not inter-
fere with the possession of the living engrafting principle of faith. The
former arises incidentally from the liberty allowed to humanity, which,
through infirmity, results in doubt and even error being, more or less, mixed
with apprehensions of the truth ; the latter, however, in the eyes of a just
and merciful God, compensates, if followed by corresponding fruit in evi-
dence of its sincerity, for the weakness exhibited in the former. The one
could not have been obviated without largely infringing man’s moral
agency ; faeother cannot be negatived without interfering with the Divine
Will itself.
The reader is reminded that while many professors are rejected and few are chosen,
it is also true that out of those saved some are but barely saved, as by fire, and cannot
expect to enjoy that honor of position that others realize in the coming Kingdom (comp.
Prop. 135). Prosperity, too, is no sign of God’s special favor, for Heb. 12 : 5-12 ;
James 1:12; Rev. 3:19, etc., clearly teach that trial, adversity, etc., are often but
‘tokens of God’s love toward His elect. With Paul (Col. 1 : 24), they fill up the measure
of Christ’s sufferings, for being designed as co-heirs, co-rulers with Christ, it is essential
that they become in all things Christ-like, imitating Him and cultivating His spirit, which
can only be done by being tested and tried, as Jesus Himself was afflicted, so that they
may partake of His glory. Enduring temptation and trial is indicative of a proper ap-
prehension of Christ, of the Spirit and truth abiding with us, of our being truly the
children of God, of our being the elect. But while enduring, under trial, fighting the
good fight of faith, it is not for us to sit in judgment over others who may be struggling
and tried as we are ; it is sufficient to realize in our own experience God’s leadings and
to enjoy the sweet consciousness of His favor in the fulfilment of promises pertaining to
the present life.

Obs. 13. This elect people are charged with folly by others, because
they trust in covenanted promises, and in the Seed by whom they shall be
fulfilled. ‘This was predicted many centuries ago, Deut. 32:21, and is
pointedly referred to in 1 Cor. 1 : 25-28.

Obs. 14. Many claim, some arrogantly, that they alone are these elected
ones and all others, outside of their organization or doctrinal position, are
excluded. This is simply presumption ; for it ever remains true what is
stated in Matt. 7 : 21-23,etc. Profession is not God’s judgment ; and
these elect will be made manifest when the Judge comcth.
Julius Miiller (quoted by Dr. Sprecher in The Luth. Evangelist, 1877) forcibly ob-
serves : “‘ As an inalienable acquisition—derived by the Protestant Church out of the
sad decay of its orthodox theology, especially in the latter part of the seventeenth cen-
418 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 65.

tury and after, out of the Pietistic and Moravian reactions, and out of the revival of liv-
ing faith in the present century—we must regard the conviction that the faith which
saves does not consist in the adoption of a series of articuli fundameniales primarii, but in an
absolute and truthful surrender of one’s self to the personal Saviour ; a surrender of which the
simplest child is capable. Although this conviction may in the next few years have to
sustain violent attacks and be branded as heresy—the attacks have, indeed, already be-
gun—yet it is so deeply rooted in the Divine Word and in the fundamental religious
sentiment of the Reformers, that we cannot but have confidence in its final triumph.”

Obs. 15. The Kingdom with its attendant blessings, being the same ten-
dered to both Jew and Gentile believer, at once removes the objection
urged against the Bible in the following extract. One of the advocates of
**the Absolute Religion’’ (quoted by Birks, p. 413 in The Bible and Mod.
Thought), speaking of the Old and New Tests., says: ‘‘ One offers only an
earthly recompense, the other makes immortality a motive to the Divine
life.’ ‘‘ If Christianity and Judaism be not the same thing, there must
be hostility between the Old and the New Testaments, for the Jewish form
claims to be eternal. To an unprejudiced man, this hostility is very
obvious. It may indeed be said, Christianity came not to destroy the Law
and the Prophets but to fulfil them ; and the answer is plain, their fulfil-
ment was their destruction.’’ Our line of argument clearly shows a funda-
mental union and vital connection between the two: it also proves the per-
petual election of a seed and the ultimate fulfilment in that Abrahamic seed
of all that has been covenanted, promised, and predicted in the Old and
New Tests. The prevailing view, which introduces the antagonism and
hostility alluded to by its transmutations of covenant and promise, is alone
chargeable with suggesting the objection.
Prop. 66.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 419

Proposrrion 66. The Kingdom that was nigh at one time (viz. :
at the First Advent) to the Jewish nation, is now removed te
the close of its tribulation, and of “the times of the Gentiles.”
This can be distinctly inferred from what preceded (as e.g. Props.
58, 59, 65), especially since that Kingdom is now linked in the New
Test. with the Sec. Advent of Christ.

Obs. 1. Let us again refer to Luke 21 : 31, in which it is stated ‘‘ when

ye sce these things come to pass, know ye that the Kingdom of God is nigh
at hand.’? Now among “‘ these things’’ which are first to happen are the
Jewish tribulation and ‘‘ the times of the Gentiles’’ (v. 24), and when these
come to pass, and Jerusalem is no longer under Gentile dominion, and the
Advent (v. 27) of the Saviour is witnessed, then the Kingdom will be
established. So long as ‘‘ the city of the great King,’’ and so long as His
land, His by inheritance (Prop. 116), as David’s Son, is wander Gentile
dominion, it is simply tpossible for the Kingdom to exist ; and tt ts folly
to argue, With the light of the Davidic covenant and prophetic announce-
ments relating to it, that the Messianic Kingdom has been set up. This
Jewish tribulation, these times of the Gentiles, this gathering out of an
elect, the nonfulfilment of “‘ these things,’’—these, and a multitude (in
following Propositions), of considerations, show that it is thus postponed.
Efforts are made to break the force of our reasoning by interpreting Luke in a manner
inconsistent both with the context and the facts of history. Thus e.g. Barnes (Com.
loci), while reluctantly admitting an ulterior reference to the Sec. Advent in Luke’s dis-
course, endeavors to make “ the redemption’’ (v. 28), in order to agree with his Church-
Kingdom theory, to consist in a deliverance from Jewish persecution, forgetting that the
Church was soon after given over to far more severe series of persecutions under the
Roman emperors. If this was all that the Saviour meant, how could they rejoice in such
a deliverance when greater trials were impending? It is an utter perversion of the pas-
sage. But they involve themselves in still greater absurdities, for they tell us that the
Kingdom of v. 31 is the Church, although it is spoken of as not established, but only
‘nigh at hand,’’ when they know fuil well that the Ch. Church was founded before the
destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the nation, and that the Gospel was pro-
claimed throughout the Roman Empire. The inconsistency of many of this class is the
more glaring, since, when we turn to their comments on Matt. 24 : 33, on the same para-
ble, they allow that it has a decided reference to the period of the Sec. Advent. Some
give it a double meaning, making it to refer to deliverance at the destruction of Jerusa-
lem and also to deliverance at the coming again of the Son of man. This only indicates
weakness. Again, Prof. E. W. Hengstenberg (The Jews and the Ch. Church, p. 66), weak-
ens the force of Christ’s own prediction by asserting : ‘‘ The treading down of Jerusalein
by the heathen has already twice ceased —once under Constantine, and once in the time
of the Crusades, when a Christian (?) Kingdom existed at Jerusalem.’’ This (1) invali-
dates the continuous treading down of Jerusalem until certain ‘‘ times of the Gentiles’’
are fulfilled ; (2) it makes the ‘‘ times of the Gentiles’ to be an exact equivalent of ‘‘ the
times of the heathen,’’ which it is not, for in its breader meaning it denotes all nations
who are not of the Jewish race or of the observances of the Jewish religion. It has ref-
erence to nations other than the Jewish ; (3) it makes the phrase expressive of nations
who do not profess Christianity, which was not its meaning when uttered by Jesus ; (4)
420 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 66.
it does not preserve the relationship of the Jews to the city, which the overthrow and
subsequent restoration makes necessary ; (5) it substitutes a nation, the Roman under
Constantine, and in its divided form at the Crusades, as if it were an exact equivalent of
the Jewish nation ; (6) it forgets that under Constantine and the Crusades the Jews were
badly treated, and had no power in and over the city ; (7) it overlooks the fact that the
very power which held the city at the times designated is delineated as ‘‘ a beast’’ even
down to the end, as e.g. the fourth beast power in Dan. 2 and 7 ; (8) to make out such a
cessation, linked as it is with the dispersion and restoration of the Jewish nation, is to
pervert a standing proof of inspiration.

Obs. 2. The proof on this point is abundant. Thus e.g. the Kingdom is
associated with the period of ‘‘ restitution’’ (Prop. 144), ‘‘ regeneration’’
(Prop. 145), ‘‘ revelation of Jesus Christ ’’ (Props. 138, 139), ‘‘ the Judge-
ship’ of Jesus (Props. 132, 133), ‘‘ the new heavens and new earth’’
(Props. 148, 151), the reign of the saints (Prop. 154), the overthrow of
Antichrist (Prop. 160), the Pre-Millennial personal Advent (Prop. 120),
etc., etc.

Obs. 3. *‘ The house 1s left desolate’ until He comes again, when its
fallen, desolate condition will be removed. One of the most decided and
expressive passages is that of Matt. 24 : 29, where, after delineating the
Jewish tribulation running down through an allotted ‘‘ times of the Gen-
tiles’? we come to the language ‘‘ immediately after the tribulation’’ (not
before, but after it) certain events such as the open Advent of the Son of
Man and the gathering of the elect, will take place, which in many places
(as e.g. Matt. 25, Dan. 7, 2 Thess. 5, etc.) are associated with the setting
up of the Kingdom. Such a portraiture of the course of events is in har-
mony with the general and uniform testimony of the Prophets, who almost
invariably contrast this Kingdom with «a previously endured tribulation by
the Jewish nation which has finally ended through special Divine interpo-
sition (as e.g. Zech. 14, etc.), and the nation enjoys the blessedness of
covenants fully and gloriously realized.’ With this Prop. must be united
such Props. as 58, 88, ete.
1 The student is reminded, in this connection, of a suggestion advanced by several
writers. Thus e.g. Frazer (Key to Proph., p. 80), quoting Rom. 11 : 30-32, adds: ‘‘ To
make the parallel exact, it is meet that the Jews should remain in unbelief as long as the
Gentiles did. The Gentiles remained excluded from the ordinances of the true religion
for 2000 years, from the call of Abraham to the coming of Christ. The Jews must remain
in unbelief for the same period.’ He quotes Hos. 6: 2, making “the day’’ as 2 Pet. 3:8,
a thousand years. This would give an approximative idea of the duration of the Jewish
tribulation and of the relative nighness of the Kingdom. And yet, for aught we know,
the time may be shortened or lengthened as best suits the Divine pleasure.
Prop. 67.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 421

Proposition 67. The Kingdom could not therefore have been set
up at that time, viz.: at the first Advent.
This is apparently from Propositions 56, 57, 58, 59, etc. The
Kingdom being one with the Davidic throne and kingdom, it was
impossible because of the rejection and punishment of the nation
for a certain time, to establish it. ‘*‘ The tabernacle of David’’
remains fallen down; the nation, invited nationally, refused the
invitation because of the imposed condition of repentance, and now
other ‘‘ guests’? must be furnished before ‘‘ the feast’ is enjoyed.
The ‘‘ nation’’ is not yet gathered ; one by one the elect are received.
and adopted, but the time of manifestation has not yet arrived;
the ‘‘ nation’’ as a nation is not yet exhibited in its nationalized
form.
Obs. 1. In Matt. 12 : 28 (Luke 11 : 20), when the Jews had taken counsel
to kill Jesus, He cast out a devil and was accused by the Jews of perform-
ing miracles through the power of Satan. In self-defence, showing: that
this very power was necessary to Him who would establish the Kingdom,
He says: ‘‘ But of I cast out devils by the Spirit of God’’ (Luke: ‘‘ the
finger of God’’), ‘‘ then the Kingdom of God is come unto you’? (Luke
‘anon you,’’) i.e. it was tendered to them on condition of repentance and
Christ’s miraculous power evinced the ability to verify the offer of it.
Then the Jews sought a sign ; Jesus in reply severely rebukes them, and
condemns that existing generation, declaring that their last state is worse
than the first, i.e. instead of repenting in their already fallen condition and
rendering themselves worthy of the Kingdom they became worse until the
judgments of God (comp. Barnes loc’) were fearfully poured out upon
them. How dreadfully was this verified. This indicates that, in the con-
dition of the nation as it then existed and increased in wickedness, it was
impossible for the Kingdom to be set up as covenanted. The nation is not
morally prepared for the blessed Theocratic ordering. The Kingdom is
offered to them in virtue of their election ; it has come ‘‘ unto or upon
them’’ both in the tender and in the manifested power and person of the
Messiah ; it pertains to them because of their covenanted relationship ; it
is conditioned only by a repentance of the nation, and this being rejected
by the representative, ruling men of the nation, Jesus censures them and
predicts their continued and increasing fall; hence, as the Kingdom was
to be taken from them (i.e. the offer of its establishment at that time was
withdrawn, and the pre-eminent positidn assigned to the elec: in that King-
dom was to be given to others), and as it was to be given to others who
were not yet gathered, it follows that our Proposition is correct.
Obs. 2. But this taking away of the Kingdom from the nation (then un-
worthy), and the giving of it to others (in a special sense, i.e. as inheritors
422 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. (Prop. 67.

as will appear in the course of our argument), must not be pressed, as the
reader has already been warned, to the extent that the Kingdom will never
again be established with this Jewish nation restored to God’s favor. For
this would nullify God’s covenants and oath, and vitiate Christ’s inheri-
tance. This is directly predicted : (1) The continued Jewish tribulation
owing to sinfulness, and (2) the final restoration of the nation, after the
period of trial, to national greatness. Leaving the proof for another
Proposition, we, in this connection, direct attention to Hzek. ch. 16, which
describes the first, intermediate, and final position of this elect nation.
Here we have (1) the great goodness of God toward Jerusalem ; (2) her
monstrous sinfulness even exceeding Sodom’s ; (3) ber grievous punish-
ment ; (4) vet it is added : ‘‘ nevertheless I will remember my covenant with
thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting
covenant.’’? ‘Thus, in virtue of God’s covenant with that nation, we are
cautioned not to draw the erroneous conclusion that the exceeding and un-
paralleled wickedness of killing even the Heir, will forever withdraw God’s
covenanted blessings from the nation.
Multitudes, however, contend that God does not remember His covenant ; theologians,
unmindful of the express covenant relationship of this people, write—under the influ-
ence of the Church-Kingdom theory—as if the covenants were of such a nature that they
could be annulled, modified, or altered. Illustrative of this election, remaining perpet-
ual notwithstanding sinfulness and subsequent punishment, we have a striking declara-
tion in 1 Kings 11:39. When the Kingdom of Israel was rent from the house of David,
God emphatically says : ‘‘ And I will for this afflict the seed of David, but not forever.”
For sinfulness ten tribes (with consequent evils) are taken away, but it will not be forever ;
the twelve tribes will again as the seed of Abraham be reunited. Jarchi, on this verse,
says : ‘‘ when the Messiah comes, the Kingdom shall be restored to the house of David.’’
The reader can readily recall prophecies which predict this very removal cf a former sep-
aration and an abiding union. To the student the writer only suggests, that those ten
tribes can be restored by God either literally or if necessary by a process of engrafting
somewhat similar to what is witnessed in the present elect ones. It is foolishness to limit
the power of God, for either the nucleus of those ten tribes is somewhere preserved, or
else such a nucleus can be formed through the exertion of the Divine pleasure. It is yet
premature in our argument to meet the objections of Second Adventists (in periodicals
and books), and others (as Williamson, see Lord’s Journal for Oct. 1853, First Art.), who
contend that the Jews are not in any sense ‘‘ the lawful heirs of the Abrahamic cove-
nant’’ and will never again be restored to their former Theocratic position.

Obs. 3. The Kingdom could not be set up, because it required (accord-
ing to the Theocratic ordering and the Davidic covenant accepting and in-
corporating it) @ nation, and that one the Jewish nation (to whom alone it
is covenanted), before it could be re-established in a most glorious form
under the Messiah. Nationally rejected for a time—yet to continue the
seed of Abraham recourse is had to adopting individuals out of all nations
—until the repeal of this rejection and of the punishment pertaining to it,
it is simply impossible to fulfil the covenant promises as written. To
spiritualize those covenants as some do—to make them conditional as
others do—to ignore them as many do, ts to make the most sacred of all the
Divine Record unreliable, and the oath of God, as well as the faith of believ-
ing Jews, of little value. If the covenants teach any truth clearly, it is this :
that the Jewish nation and the Kingdom are inseparably connected ;—that
the one cannot possibly exist without the other. It follows, therefore, that
during the period of national rejection and punishment (i.e. during ‘‘ the
times of the Gentiles,”’ and ‘‘ the treading down of Jerusalem’’), imposed
on account of sinfulness, the Kingdom cannot be in existence.
Prop. 67.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 423

Obs. 4. The Kingdom being thus postponed, no Theocracy was estab-

lished. Men, indeed, claim this for the church, but this is a grave mistake
and misleading. Let the reader refer to our Propositions on the Theocracy
and he will see that the leading essential element, that which constituted a
Theocracy, was the fact that God condescended to act as an earthly Ruler.
Now it is self-evident that no such distinctive feature was inaugurated at
the First Advent. It is true, as Lange (Com. Heb. 1 : 5-14, Doct. 8) says,
that ‘‘ the Christocracy is the fully unfolded, world-embracing form of the
Theocracy’’ but only at His Sec. Advent when He is manifested as the
Theocratic-Davidic King. The Theocratic-monarchy in its covenanted
form—not spiritualized but real as predicted—must be exhibited defore
the Kingdom can be manifested.
424 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 68.

Proposition 68. This Kingdom ts then essentially a Jewish

Kingdom.
This follows from the Abrahamic, Sinaitic, and Davidic cove-
nants ; this is uniformly taught by the Prophets in associating and
identifying the Kingdom with the nationality of the Jews ; this
again is confirmed by the election of the Jewish nation, the oneness
of the Kingdom, the preaching of John, Jesus, and the disciples,
the renewed covenant, the offer of the Kingdom, the engrafting of
Gentiles, the rejection of the nation only until the times of the
Gentiles are ended, the postponement of the Kingdom, etc. The
whole tenor and analogy of Scripture sustain this position ; and
it is but a weak, unsatisfactory, inconsistent procedure to deny
what is so plainly the burden of Holy Writ.
Such a denial can only rest in a destructive criticism and arbitrary handling of the
most precious covenanted promises contained in the Bible. It can only be sustained by a
system of interpretation which constantly, with singular rashness, asserts that the plain
grammatical meaning of the covenants and predictions cannot possibly be maintained.
Doctrines are summarily disposed of by bestowing upon them the epithet ‘‘ Jewish ,’’
and learned men suppose that the doctrines contained in our faith receive their condem-
nation by being designated ‘‘ Jewish.’’ It is a favorite phrase with some writers, and
scornfully emphasized, and judging from the frequency with which it is used, it is re.
garded as one of the most effectual means to bring our doctrines into disrepute with unre-
flecting and unscholarly persons. Let us briefly refer to the reasons for employing this
phrase against us, and show how inexcusable and uncharitable such an exhibition of
intended ‘‘ sarcasm’’ is in those who profess the name of Christian. It is evidently in-
tended to indicate that our doctrines are erroneous, thus making ‘‘ Jewish’’ or
‘‘ Judaic’’ an equivalent to “‘ error.” Yet these same writers profess to believe much
that is ‘‘ Jewish.’’ They believe what Jews said and wrote, they profess that ‘‘ salva-
tion is of the Jews,” that Jesus and the apostles were Jews, that we Gentiles are en-
grafted upon the Jewish stock, etc. Why then institute a comparison which, if it has
any logical force, must be antagonistic to their own faith and hope, founded so largely
upon what is ‘‘ Jewish”? It is used by way of reproach, to stigmatize our views as if
they were antichristian, ete. How unjust this is, will appear, if such writers only con-
sider how largely they themselves are indebted to a Jewish source for many of the most
precious articles of their own faith. Gratitude, to say nothing of other motives, ought
to restrain such a usage of terms. It is employed to hold others up to ridicule, to irri-
tate, etc. But this, in the eyes of the intelligent and of the humble Biblical student, re-
coils upon its authors, seeing that it seriously reflects upon their own appreciation of
indebtedness to Jews for the sublime and saving truths of Christianity. If any doctrine
of ours is erroneous and as such stands related to errors of the Jews (as Pharisees, etc.),
let the fact be demonstrated by proper argument, instead of seeking refuge in terms which
are so general and include so much that is noble and excellent.

Obs. 1. It is a standing proposition, even among some who profess to

be defenders of Christianity, that, as Renan (Life of Christ, p. 373), ex-
presses it, ‘‘ the general progress of Christianity has been ¢o separate more
and more from Judaism,’’ and the inference is drawn that the wider such a
separation is made, the better for true religion. verything distinctively
Prop. 68.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 425

Jewish is to be sacrificed, giving place toa substituted Gentileism. This

is especially true of the leading doctrine of the Kingdom ; the Jewish view
1s denounced, and a wide departure substituted as better adapted to the
wisdom, standing, etc., of Gentiles.
‘This will be met in succeeding propositions. Briefly let us trace the rise and prog-
ress of this rejection of ‘‘ Jewish conceptions,’’ this scornful usingof the term ‘* Jew-
ish,” (or as Ruge calls it, ‘‘Asiatisamus’’). The apostolic, and immediate succeeding,
church was (as we shall show Props. 69-75) intensely Jewish in its conceptions. The
reproach of being Jewish belongs to a period later than that distinguished for its pure
Chiliasm (comp. candid remarks of Neander, Ch. His., vol 1, p. 294, etc.). The univer-
sality and unity of teaching prohibited the usage of the word in any other than a respect-
ful sense. But when the general Millenarian views were attacked by Origen and others,
this state of things changed. Origen (L. 2, c. 12) says: ‘*Those who deny the Mil-
lennium are those who interpret the sayings of the Prophets by a trope,’’ those who main-
tain the Mill. ‘*‘ disciples of the letter,’’ who interpret ‘‘ Judaico-sensu, after the manner
of the Jews.’’ From this arose the reproach, often reiterated, thus expressed by Jerome
(Hieron. in Es. 1. 18 in Proem. p. 477 Ed. Bend.--quoted by Prof. Bush, Mill. p. 16) ‘‘ It
we understand Revelation literally, we must juduize,’’ etc. This usage was accelerated by
(1) the adoption and extension of the spiritualistic Interpretation ; (2) the rise and prog-
ress of the Papacy ; (3) the fall, conduct, and dispersion of the Jewish nation ; (4) the
persecution of the Jews. In the course of time such was the bitterness against the Jews,
that everything “ Jewish’’ was despised. Of course when Bishops (even e.g. Cyril of
Alexandria, see Socrates His. LEccl., vii. 13), persecuted Jews it was easy to discard
** Jewish forms.’’ A variety of prejudices excited and fostered this anti-Jewish spirit,
which continued unchecked for many centuries. In more modern times, out of a host
unduly biased, Semler may be adduced as materially strengthening the movement by
which everything objectionable is to be discarded under the cry of ‘‘ Jewish notions.’’
He even undermined the authority of Scripture under the plea of its Jewish character,
making it local and temporary (Hagenbach, His. of Doc., vol. 2, p. 386), so that Tholuck
well remarked that ‘‘ he carried the torch which kindled the conflagration.’’ Thousands
of volumes are filled with its spirit, and at times it becomes simply outrageous, as e.g.
in The Lyceum (a Free Religionist periodical designed for the young, in Jan. No. 1875)
says : ‘‘ We detest the thought of an old Jewish God living in this age of the world.’’
Muititudes, however, who have imbibed this prejudice against ‘‘ Jewish conceptions,’’
could never be brought to utter anything so disgusting as the Lyceum’s blasphemies.
Yet men of ability venture into this direction of disparagement, as e.g. Beecher (as re-
ported in Cin. Daily Gazette, Nov. 11th, 1874), who spoke slightingly of the Patriarchs ‘‘ as
compared with the manhood we now have,’’ etc. Comment is unnecessary to such en-
dorsement of Parkerism, etc.

Obs. 2. It is fully admitted by able writers, of all classes, that the Script-
ures, taken 77 their literal aspect, do expressly teach a Jewish Kingdom ;
but our opponents contend that this literal rendering is to be discarded
for
a spiritual or mystical one, mainly on the ground that the literal has not
been verified. But we cannot, dare not thus receive the Word of God.
This Jewish form is decidedly in our fayor ; we accept of it gratefully, and
with it of the reproach heaped upon it. For it is Jewish, based on Jewish
coyenants, the Jewish Scriptures, the Jewish Prophets and Apostles, the
Jewish nationality connected with the Theocratic ordering, and the Jewish
Son of Man in descent and office. We would not abate this, if we could,
believing it to be indispensable in order to preserve the true doctrine of the
Kingdom, and the unity of Purpose in its establishment. The time too, if
we are to credit recent utterances, has gone by when sober reasoning based
on Scripture is to be set aside by charges of doctrine being “‘ too Jewish.”’
Able works, showing the intimate connection of the Old and New Tests.,
acknowledging and pressing our indebtedness to that which is ‘‘ Jewish,”’
are paving the way for such a result among the pious thoughtful. The
 426 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 68.

masses, indeed, will not be reached, but the scholarly, if also devout, can-
not overlook it.
We accept of the intended reproach given by Herbert Spencer (The Study of Sociol-
ogy), When he designates the New Test., by the significant phrase ‘* The Jewish New
Testament.” We rejoice in its Jewish cast as a matter logivally essential to secure cove-
nanted blessings. But when Sara S. Hennell (Christianity and Infidelity) declares, that the
Gospel of Christ was ‘‘ a noble outburst of Jewish fanaticism,” which our times are out-
growing, it is only too evident that she never studied its connection with a covenanted
Divine Purpose, and its continued vital relationship to ‘ the Hope of Israel.’’ The Essays
and Reviews, repeating the rationalistic ideas of others, utterly discards everything dis-
tinctly Jewish under the word ‘‘ Judaism,” and as part of its religious scheme gives us a
““ Christianity without Judaism,” the result of which is to sever Christianity as much as
possible from the Old Test. Mansel in the Bampton Lectures (p. 287) remarks, ‘‘ Mr.
Powell in his zeal for ‘ Christianity without Judaism,’ seems at times to forget that Juda-
ism, as well as Christianity, was a revelation from God.” Powell, however, would soften
this objection by the low estimate he takes of revelation. His contempt for “‘ Judaical
origin,’’ *‘ the Judaical school,’ and ‘‘ Judaical Theology,’’ includes of course the very
foundations of the Kingdom, the covenants and related predictions. For he opposes
not merely that which God designed to be temporary under this term, but the oath-bound
promises of God upon which Christianity (as provisionary, etc.) itself rests. Let the
reader consider the precise promises of the Jewish covenants and the Jewish predictions,
all uniting in a glorious Messianic Kingdom under the reign of a personal Son of David
on a restored Theocratic throne with a Jewish supremacy, overthrow of enemies, irresist-
ible power, vast dominion, etc., and it is utterly impossible, without a total perversion of
the covenants and prophecies, to separate the Jewish cast from Christianity which is
designed to prepare ‘‘ heirs’ to inherit these promises and this Kingdom with Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. It is folly to ignore, or to deny, this Jewish relationship, and in place
of it attempt to make out a fulfilment of these things in the past history of a fighting,
struggling Church,

Obs. 3. It is certainly strange that the old prejudice, originally urged by

Celsus against the Jews as in no special and favorable relationship to God,
should beso deeply rooted in the minds of many at the present day so that
everything that can be even remotely reduced to a so-called ‘‘ Jewish
form’’ or ‘‘ Jewish husk’’ excites a degree of bitterness and hostility,
which, to say the least, indicates something akin to the Gentile ‘‘ high-
mindedness,’’ against which we are cautioned by Paul (Rom. 11).
In tracing (see note 1) this prejudice, the old monkish and popish view had much to
do with its extension. To account for its prevalence in more recent times, we must also
look to the results flowing from the fashion revived by Voltaire and others, viz. : of at-
tacking Christianity through Judaism. In resisting such attacks even good men went too
far, separating Christianity from the Jews, making the former something independent
of the latter, and, in the midst of a misjudged zeal, manifesting contempt toward every-
thing “Jewish.’’” The rule of Jerome, quoted under Prop. 23, seems to have been their
guide in the controversy. To-day we have books (e.g. Renan, etc.), circulated, which
proclaim that Jesus entertained respecting the Kingdom “‘ Jewish expectations,’’ that
deceived Himself and His immediate followers ; works in reply apologetically admit
“ the Jewish forms’’ either as a necessary accommodation, or as a transition excrescence,
or as something only to be apprehended in a very spiritual sense. Our position is such,
that we are not driven to that alject apologetical tone, which, to the triumph and delight
of unbelievers, must either admit the ignorance of the disciples or deny the express
words of Revelation, or engraft another and different meaning upon the grammatical
sense. We cordially accept of these ‘‘ Jewish expectations” (as found in the Bible), and
show (1) their logical connection with a consecutive Plan, (2) why they have not yet been
fulfilled, (3) when they will be realized, (4) and what provision is made for their ultimate
verification. Surely the time is passed with the intelligent ‘‘ to” (so Paley justly said)
** wound Christianity through the sides of Judaism.’’
The charge of Celsus against the early Christians that they deserted the ancient Jewish
doctrine (the exact reverse of unbelieving objection of the present day), is a misappre-
hension of the truth, as clearly shown by various writers. But is not this specification
Prop. 68.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 427
virtually correct when urged against those who reject the grammatical sense of the cove-
nants, Abrahamic and Davidic ? The main doctrines, which, by way of pre-eminence, are
Jewish, pertaining to the Jewish nation as such, cannot safely be excluded without en-
tailing, to a greater or less extent, such an accusation. Chiliasm alone refutes it by a
practical faith and hope.

Obs. 4. The doctrine of the Kingdom, arising from the covenants, must,
in the nature of the case, be essentially Jewish, being covenanted to a Jew-
ish people (and engrafted ones, the seed of Abraham), and standing related
to a Jewish throne and Kingdom (the incorporated Theocratic-Davidic).
Hence we are prepared to accept of the statement of Shedd (His. Ch.
Doc.), that our views were of Jewish origin (discarding his wngenerous
reference to Cerinthus, with which compare the candor of Neander, or the
Reply of Shimeall), in a sense however different from his own; also, of
Mosheim (Com. de Rebus Chris., p. 721), that they were derived from the
Jewish views of the Kingdom ; or, of Walch (His. of Her., vol. 2, p. 143),
that they are of Biblical origin, sustained by the Apoc., and explained by
Jewish opinions. A multitude of writers, either honestly or in scorn,
attribute to it (viz. : our doctrine of the Kingdom) a Jewish origin (as e.g.
Prop. Bush in Millennium ;—Dr. Hodge in Sys. Div., vol. 3, makes it an
objection, so also many of our Reviews, books written in opposition to us,
etc.), and this is asserted by way of evidence to indicate weakness, but we
receive as corroborative of real strength and unity. 'The most learned the-
ologians (as we shall quote hereafter) are beginning to see this, and
acknowledge our doctrine to be a legitimate outgrowth from that which
preceded it,
Rev. Dr. Sprecher, translator of Dr. Dorner, informed me that Dorner fully admits
Chiliasm to be a legitimate historical reality, and not merely derived from Jewish con-
ceptions that are to be discarded. Many begin to occupy a similar position. Even un-
belief (as e.g. Potter in The Genius of Christianity and Hree Religion) declares ‘‘ Christian-
ity to be developed Judaism,”’ basing it upon the fact that the link between Jesus and
the Hebrew people is found in “the Messianic idea,” as given in “the Jewish prophets
and literature.”’

Obs. 5. The Lord Jesus Christ is to-day as much “‘ the King of the
Jews’’ as He was when the superscription was placed upon the cross,
This title pre-eminently belongs to Him as the covenanted Davidic Son, as
the promised Theocratic King, and we hail its association with the cross,
inasmuch as it proclaims the assurance that the malignity of His enemies,
resulting in His death, cannot and will not remove Mis rightful claim to
the position of Jewish King. ‘So long as we have such a King of Jewish
birth and the legal Heir of the Jewish throne and Kingdom, it is unbecom-
ing to employ the term ‘“‘ Jewish’’ in any other than a respectful sense,
Obs. 6. To illustrate, aside from the covenants and reasoning already
given, how intensely Jewish this Kingdom is, we refer (by way of anticipa-
tion) the reader to two or three particulars. (1) At the restoration of this
Jewish nation, while Gentile nations shall experience great blessedness, the
supremacy among all nations is accorded to the Jewish nation, as e.g. Micah
4.8, and 7 : 15-20; Zeph. 3 : 14-20 ; Zech. chs. 10, 12, 14, etc.: (comp.
Prop. 114). (2) Jerusalem shall be wonderfully exalted in that day, as e.g.
Zech. 8:3 ; Jer. 38:17 ; Joel 3:17 5 Isa. 24 : 23, etc.’ (3) The land itself
shall be highly honored, as e.g. Ezek. 36 : 34, 36 ; Isa, 51 : 3 ; Zech. 2:12;
428 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 68.

Isa. 60 : 15 and 62:4, etc. To separate these predictions from their con-
nection with the Jewish nation, is a destroying of their consistency and
force, for the same identical nation, Jerusalem, and Jand that was suffering
under Gentile dominion, is to.enjoy such honor and happiness. To apply
these predictions to another and mystical nation, city, and land is to make
the threats all ‘‘ Jewish’’ and the blessings all of a Gentile nature ;—which
procedure is a gross violation of the well-founded laws of language. Hence
we reject it as unwarranted, deceptive, a degradation of the election, and
as virtually making God unfaithful to oath-bound promises.’
1 Even Renan (Life of Jesus, p. 56) notices the predictions in this style: ‘‘ that one
day Jerusalem would be the Capital of the whole world, and that the human race would
become Jewish,”’ etc. The last remark he no doubt founds on the Jewish supremacy and
Theocratic rule of David’s Son, but it is not quite accurate seeing that Gentile nations
are predicted as continuously existing, acknowledging and enjoying the blessings of
such arule. Comp. Prop. 168.
2 The anti-Judaic spirit manifested by Neander, himself a Jew, has been noticed by
others. Thus e.g. the writer of the art. on ‘‘ Neander” (North Brit. Review, Feb. 1851),
observes : “ His phraseology, his ideas, his principles, bear no trace whatever of a Jew-
ish origin, if, indeed, the violence of the reaction be not the best proof that he was a
Jew. ‘This has told for good, by leading him always to exalt spirit above form, the in-
ward principle above the outward manifestation, the religion of the heart above ceremo-
nial worship. Jt has sometimes told for evil, by making him often confound spiritual Juda-
ism with formal Pharisaism.” To this we add: it told largely for evil, seeing that
moulded by his philosophy, it prevented him from observing the continued and ever-
abiding relationship that Christianity sustains to pure Judaism in its covenants and
prophecies. (Comp. Dr. Shaff’s remarks on Neander in His. Apos. Uhurch.) Multitudes
assume his position. On the other hand, eminent writers, who themselves advocate
Chiliasm, use expressions, which are liable to misapprehension. Thus e.g. Dr. Dorner
(Person of Christ, vol. 1, p. 408) says: “ Christian Chiliasm, so far from being derivable
from, may in part be more justly regarded as a polemic against, Judaism on the part of
Christianity. This, in particular, is its character, when it has apparently borrowed
most features from Judaism.’’ Dorner here evidently refers to one form of Judaism lim-
ited to circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic ritual (and Rabbinical traditions),
which Chiliasm unrelentingly opposed, and then to a broader form which embraced the
covenants and promises, adopted by Chiliasm. Now many persons make ‘ Judaism”
and “‘ Jewish” synonymous with the contracted form, and, prejudiced, are unable to ap-
preciate the higher form, and the depth and preciousness of its many promises. There
is a Judaism founded on the temporary provisions of the Mosaic economy and the tra-
ditions of the past, which is irreconcilable with our doctrine of the Kingdom ; and
there is a Judaism grounded upon the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, and the
promises to the nation, which is inseparably connected with our belief—indeed, is Sun-
damental to it. The Props. on the election 24, and 55-65, alone evidence this union.
 Prop. 69.] THE TIIEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 429

Proposrrion 69. The death of Jesus did not remove the notion
entertained by the disciples and apostles concerning the King-
dom.
It is asserted in numerous works that the death of Jesus caused
such an immediate revolution in the minds of the disciples that it
destroyed all their anticipations of the expected restored Davidic
Kingdom. This is done without due reflection, seeing that it is
opposed by the plainest statement.
Thus e.g. Barnes (Com. Acts 1 : 9), eager to set aside the Jewish faith in the Kingdom
of Israelas expressed by the disciples in Acts 1 : 6, affirms the following : ‘‘ If their Sav-
jour was in heaven, it settled the question about the nature of the Kingdom. It was clear
that it was not designed to be a temporal Kingdom.’’ Thus the ascension, and the
ignoring of the postponement, is made the basis for denying the grammatically expressed
fulfilment of covenant and prophecy, and for sustaining a spiritualizing system! That
the Messiah being now “ in heaven’’ does not ‘‘ settle the question about the nature of
the Kingdom” for Barnes, is self-evident from the singular variety of Kingdoms that he
has introduced, and which we quote under Prop. 3. Sara 8S. Hennell (Zhoughts in Aid
to Fuith), takes the ultra view that Jesus, ‘‘ the noble enthusiast,” influenced by deep
feeling aroused by prophecy and his surroundings, ambitiously undertook the mighty
project of establishing a Kingdom—‘‘ conceive the grandeur of it ; to bring down a reign
of righteousness on earth !’’—but he failed through his enemies, died ‘‘ a martyr’’ to his
ambition, and before his death taught his followers “‘ to fix all their hopes on heaven.’’ She
eulogizes the ‘‘ artistic beauty,’’ the ‘‘ nobleness’’ of Jesus while making him a mistaken
enthusiast, a fanatic and deceiver, and concludes as a deduction from her unhistorical por-
traiture of Him and her confessed ignorance of the facts of His life and their basis in the
covenants, that the origin of Christianity can be traced to natural causes, for ‘‘ there is
unfolded in one unbroken stream, the most marvellous, though strictly natural, chapter in
the world’s experience.” From temporal visions Jesus turned to spiritual, and His death
enforced the latter. But this does not satisfy some, for they see that the death of
Jesus did not remove the Jewish idea of the Kingdom, and hence they look around to find
another founder of Christianity and select the Apostle Paul. Thus e.g. Schlessinger
(The Historical Jesus of Nazareth), after exhibiting, more or less correctly, the Messianic
idea as it existed in the Jewish nation through the prophets, concludes, in view of the
New Test. testimony, that ‘‘ Jesus was nothing but a Jew,’’ the disciples being the same,
aud then, by the grossest perversion of Paul’s teachings, makes the Christian system to
originate with Paul, who boldly cut the new religion loose from its parent trunk, Judaism.
Weshall show again and again, by quoting Paul frequently, that he entertained fully and
completely the Jewish view of the Kingdom, and with all the other teachers, located its
establishment at the Sec. Advent. The death of Jesus made no change in the Kingdom
preached by His followers.

Obs. 1. It is true that the death of Jesus (notwithstanding the intima-

tions previously given, as seen in Props. 58, 66, etc.) must have placed
them in a perplexed attitude, and must, before His resurrection, have
appeared contradictory to their expectations. This much the record inti-
mates. The question how to reconcile this sad event with their continued
view of covenant and prophecy pressed them heavily. Not appreciating
the necessity (in more respects than one) of that death to seal the covenant
and make its fulfilment (as e.g. in the triumph over death) possible, the
430 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 69.

question would naturally arise, Zow can this Kingdom be established when
the King, David’s Son, Himself yields to death? Still the faith in the
wonderful words and works, clouded by this distressing event, was sus-
tained in a measure by the astonishing death itself and the things con-
nected therewith, while the resurrection, restoring the Messiah to them,
reconfirmed that faith in His ability, etc., to fulfil the covenants and
Prophets, so that it ever after shone forth with undiminished strength and
lustre.
Nast (Com. Matt. 16 : 21-28), following others, gives this as a reason, why Jesus pre-
dicted His own death and resurrection : ‘‘ This very announcement was intended to
strike at the root of their carnal Messianic expectations,” i.e. the same ‘‘ carnal’’ expec-
tations that they preached! Such a reason is purely imaginative, and derogatory to the
truth. If so designed (which we utterly deny) it signally failed with these inspired men,
seeing that even after His death they entertained them. Nast himself (Com. Matt.
11: 1-6, etc.) admits that the death itself did not remove them, for he undertakes to
correct the preachers that Jesus trained, and informs us that before and immediately
after the ascension the apostles had still very partial or meagre ideas of the Kingdom of
God.

Obs. 2. If writers are correct in their deductions of the effects of Christ’s

death in revolutionizing the minds of the disciples, then there ought to be
—if it was a result intended by Divine Providence—a distinct announce-
ment of the same in the New Test. We ought to find (1) that they had
been mistaken in their previous apprehensions of the Kingdom, and (2)
that the death of Jesus and events following indicated this tothem. But
nothing of this kind is found in the record, and we are not at liberty ¢o
anfer it.
We append a specimen of the contradictions in which those are involved, who main-
tain that Christ’s death removed an erroneous view of the Kingdom from the apostles’
minds. Thuse.g. Barnes, Vom. Acts 1:6 contends that ‘‘ the apostles had entertained
the common opinion of the Jews about the temporal dominion of the Messiah,” ete.
He then informs us that the death of Jesus was calculated to “effectually check and
change their opinions respecting the nature of the Kingdom,”’ etc. (He does not seem
to notice how, if the disciples were in error, this reflects upon the Master who then—if
Barnes is correct—sent them forth and allowed them to preach error.) In all this Barnes
overlooks his own comments in other places. Thus on Matt. 13 :11 ‘‘ because it is given
to you to know the mysteries of heaven but to them it is not given,’’ he professes that
to the disciples it was given to Icnow the truth respecting the Kingdom, but not to others.
How can his comment on the latter passage be true, if his comment on Acts 1:6 is
correct? Commentators, mich admired, afford many such palpable antagonisms, and
this largely detracts from their many excellences.

Obs. 3. For the present it is sufficient to produce a single passage which

amply proves our Proposition ; others will be added as we proceed. The
death of Jesus took place ; His resurrection occurred ; He remained after
His resurrection with those previously sent-forth preachers of the Kingdom
“* forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God”?
(Acts 1:3). It is exceedingly difficult to conceive, when the Kingdom was
the principal topic of conversation, that if these aposties were still ignorant
of the very nature of the Kingdom and Christ’s death was to be the
medium for their enlightenment, some decided information to remove the
alleged “* error’? was not granted to them during these forty days. The
tenor of the narrative shows that in ail their conversations respecting the
Kingdom nothing was said that changed the faith of the apostles. They
still held the belief that they had authoritatively preached. The proof is
PRop. 69.] THE THEOORATIO KINGDOM. 431

found in the question (v. 6), ‘‘Zord, wilt Thow at this time restore again
the Kingdom to Israel??? ‘This is admitted by all—very reluctantly indeed
by some commentators and writers'—to mean that they still believed ina
restoration of the Davidic throne and Kingdom under the reign of the
Messiah. ‘The reply of Jesus, as we already had occasion to observe, con-
eae their belief ; for instead of rejecting their idea of the nature of the
ingdom, He takes that for granted as substantially correct, and only
refers to the time when it should again be restored to Israel as something
reserved by the Father, thus meeting the question proposed which related
to the time.*
1 Aside from the unwilling concessions found in our anti-Millenarian commentaries,
it is sufficient to direct the reader to the statements of Brooks’ (El. of Proph. Inter., p.
62, etc.) showing that those who have no sympathy with our views are forced to admit
in this place a still believed in national restoration of the Jews. So e.g. ‘‘ Govinus the
Jesuit, in his comment on Acts 1 : 6, says that Cyprian, Jerome, Chrysostom, Theoph-
ilus, Alexandrinus, Augustine, Bede’’ understood it. Indeed, an interminable list might
be produced, but are unnecessary, as we give many under various propositions.
2 Fairbairn (On Proph., p. 183), presses this passage beyond its intent, when he makes
it an absolute measure of the future “ condition of the church as regards her knowledge
of coming epochs in her history,” which ‘‘ could not be annulled by any subsequent in-
formation on the subject.” This is certainly a bold assertion, in the face of additional
communications being afterward given relating to epochs of time, when he himself, a
few sentences on, is forced to acknowledge that the Apocalypse does give us an idea of
intervals of time, etc. Agreeing with Fairbairn that the exact day and hour is un-
known, and that we can only approximatively know the periods of ultimate fulfilment,
yet we firmly believe, from the information imparted and the signs given, that this ap-
proximation is more ‘‘ than probable grounds of expectation.’’ This, after all, Fairbairn
virtually admits, for on p. 182 is the remark, ‘‘ He gives certain signs of the approach-
ing destruction of Jerusalem and of His own personal return to the world, by the care-
ful consideration of which His followers might not be taken unawares by either event.’’
But we must not anticipate (see Props. 173 and 174).

Obs. 4. The conversation between Jesus and the disciples pertaining to

the Kingdom, and the question of the latter just before the ascension, most
effectually disproves the assertions of eminent writers that the Kingdom
was already established sometime in the ministry or life of Jesus (Prop. 56).
The narrative given by Luke unmistakably proves that such theories are
incorrect, since the apostles—hearers and preachers, and confidants—knew
nothing whatever of such an already established Kingdom, Their preach-
ing, instructions, etc., manifest that they had not even the most distant
idea of such an important measure if it had really existed. It is impossible
to credit such theories over against the direct testimony of men, who, of all
persons living, were the most likely to know and express the truth.
Strange that learned men and able theologians can find a covenanted Kingdom ex-
isting (even if it is one in the heart) during the ministry of Christ, when the apostles, at
this most favorable period, were utterly unconscious of the same. Whom shall we credit—
preachers appointed by Jesus Himself and under His special instruction, or those who
flatly contradict the apostles’ knowledge at this stage of historical development? We
give some illustrations of the mode of handling the divine statements. Brown (Com.
Acts 1 : 6), after intimating without a pariicie of proof that Jesus (v. 3) had imparted in-
struction respecting a spiritual Kingdom, tells us (v. 6), ‘‘ Doubtless their carnal views
of Messiah’s Kingdom had by this time been modified, though how far it is impossible to
say. But as they plainly looked for some restoration of the Kingdom to Israel, so they
are neither rebuked nor contradicted on this point.’’ The apostles then had previously
preached a carnal Kingdom, and they still retained a portion of it, but with it all, Brown
conjectures, they had some glimmering of Brown’s spiritual Kingdom! How does he
reconcile this charge of carnality with his comment on Matt. 3:2 where he says: “A
432 THE TILEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PROP. 69.

Kingdom for which repentance was the proper preparation behooved to be essentially
spiritual’’ (overlooking that when the Theocracy, a civil and religious organization, was
established it also demanded the confession of sin and repentance), when the very men
appointed to urge this repentance, failed to acknowledge it. So Killen (The Ancient
Church, p. 190) follows the prevailing track. After previously informing us how Jesus
specially instructed and trained preachers, who held that which ‘“‘was vague as well as
much that was visionary’ concerning the Kingdom (the very thing they were to preach),
he then gravely informs us, without the slightest proof, that ‘‘ during the interval between
the resurrection and ascension,” the apostles so profited, because He ‘‘ then opened
their understanding,’’ that ‘‘ the true nature of Christ’s Kingdom was now fully dis-
closed to them,’’ and this he repeatedly tells us is ‘*‘ the spiritual Kingdom”’ now estab-
lished. But where is the evidence of: this gross ignorance and this sudden enlighten-
ment? It is simply and solely imayinary, and thus introduced to give his modern ideas
an apparent Scriptural support. Much of this loose writing exists. Others in reference
to this interval are more cautious, as e.g. Scott (Com. loci), who, however unwilling, is
forced to say : ‘‘ But, notwithstanding all which He had taught them, they still enter-
tained some thoughts of a temporal Kingdom,’’ and these expectations, he informs us,
were eradicated on and after the day of Pentecost. The interval is thus given to us with-
out an effort to retain it ; and it poorly accords with various comments, on events and
sayings preceding it, found in his commentary. It is sad to find so many writers of
ability (as e.g. Ebrard, Gosp. Ilis., p. 332, ete., Art. ‘‘ Offices of Christ ” in M’Clintock
and Story’s Cyclop.), who declare that during the ministry of Jesus, He and the disciples
taught that ‘‘the Kingdom of God had come,” “ was come,’’ when the record so flatly
contradicts the usage of such language, and the preachers, who are stated to have said
so, were ulterly unconscious of any such a Kingdom established, even during this interval.
It is refreshing to turn from such contradictory presentations to the simple facts as ap-
preciated by others. ‘Thus Rev. Andrew Fausset, the Commentator, in our ‘ Lord’s
Prophecies” (Christ. Herald, Ap. 10th, 1879), refers to ‘‘ Repent ye, for the Kingdom of
God is at hand,’’ and then asking why this Kingdom did not immediately appear, cor-
rectly answers by a reference to the non-repentance and unbelief of the nation, as proven
by the address of Jesus, Matt. 23 : 37-39, saying, ‘‘ these words indicate that the unbe-
lief of the Jews caused the postponement of Christ's Kingdom.’’ Such a position enables
us to receive Acts 1 : 6, and kindred passages, without degrading the disciples and apos-
tles into ‘‘ carnal ’’ believers, etc. The apostles were not ‘‘ ignorant and mistaken” at
this period, and we may well believe, that the question was actuated by the honor and
glory it would bring to their Master, by the personal interest they felt in it, owing to the
specific promise of rulership in it, and by the blessing, according to prediction, it would
prove to the Jewish nation and the world. It was just such a question as hearts full of
love, faith, and hope would suggest with a resurrected Messiah before them. The ques-
tion vindicates their deep interest in “ the Christship” of Jesus, and His answer confirms
their confidence in Him,
Prop. 70.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 433

Proposition 70. Zhe apostles, after Christ's ascension, did not

preach, either to Jews or Gentiles, that the Kingdom was estab-
lished.
They could not consistently preach that it was established, be-
cause (1) the covenant forbids it, the express terms of it not being
verified ; (2) the rejection of the kingdom by the Jews and its con-
sequent postponement during ‘‘ the times of the Gentiles,’ forbids
it ; (8) the seed of Abraham to whom the Kingdom is to be given
not being yet gathered out, forbids it ;and (4) the non-arrival of
the Sec. Advent forbids it.
It is painful to notice how our recent apologetical writers (as e.g. Row, Ch. Evidences,
Bampton Lectures, 1877), while not denying a future fulfilment of prophecy, make the
Messianic prophecies to be mainly realized at the First Advent and in the Ch. Church.
This is a grave mistake, ullerly opposed to the covenants, prophecies, and teachings of
the apostles, all of which point us to the Sec. Advent for the astounding and most joyful
Messianic manifestations. Such an error, if entertained, vitiates any system of belief,
and weakens the defence of Christianity itself, because 1t perverts and misapplies Script-
ure and the Gospel History. Many Pre-Millenarians (as e.g. Dr. Nast in Art. “ Christ’s
Mill. Reign,’’ West. Ch. Advocate, July 23d, 1879) hold that a ‘‘ Kingdom of grace” was
established in the Church (which they also designate ‘‘ new dispensation,’’ etc.), or in
the heart of believers (a spiritual Kingdom), but hold that this 1s to give place to *‘ the
Kingdom of Christ’’ in its full covenanted and proper prophetic sense, viz. : “ an undis-
puted Theocracy on the earth.” While we feel compelled, logically and Scripturally (as we
shall show in detail), to reject this view as untenable and misleading, yet it is—in view
of the unity of Scripture being more largely preserved by it—immensely preferable to
the prevailing theories on the subject. ‘Those holding to this opinion are self-contra-
dictory, which is evidenced by the following illustration. In their comments on Matt.
3 :2 they already find this Kingdom of grace, but coming to Acts 1:6 itis postponed
to the day of Pentecost, and when we come to that period, we find the Kingdom in-
ferred—the Church established being simply preparatory. Because Jesus is the Mes-
siah, it does not follow that He now fills the covenanted and predicted position assigned
to Him ; men hastily conclude that He does (a multitude of writers assert it, and make
it fundamental in their system), but we show from the Scriptures, step by step, that we
have to wait for the Sec. Advent before the Messianic manifestation in connection with the
Kingdom can be realized.

Obs. 1. Our entire argument thus far (with additional reasons that will
be advanced) does not allow us to entertain any other opinion than the one
stated in the Proposition. After the declarations of Jesus that ‘‘ the
house’? (Davidic) would remain desolate until His return, that He would
leave, remain away for an indefinite time, that the Kingdom was connected
with His coming again, etc., it is reasonable to look for a corresponding
style of preaching in His chosen witnesses. This we find in such profusion
that it is a favorite charge with infidels (as Strauss, Bauer, Renan, etc.)
that the apostles still adhered to ‘‘ the Jewish ideas of the Kingdom’’ ; the
apologists (as Neander, etc.) admit that ‘‘ Jewish forms’’ were retained,
434 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 70.

but contend that these were to be (alas ! how true) gradually obliterated in
““the developing consciousness of the church.”’
Many writers of the Tiibingen school and others, regarding Christianity as the result-
ant of a Petrine and Pauline development, attempt to distinguish between these periods.
The Petrine being essentially Jewish is the prevailing type of Christianity during the
first period, but was finally displaced and absorbed by the Pauline, which is regarded as
more anti-Jewish. In this way they endeavor to account (overlooking the Alexandrian
and Gnostic influence) for the overthrow of the Jewish notions of the Kingdom, al-
though all admit that even the Pauline and Johannine are not entirely freed from “‘a
Jewish cast.’’ Unfortunately not only Rationalistic but prominent defenders of Chris-
tianity (as Neander, Nevin, etc.), have seized upon this Petrine and Pauline theory, and
incorporated it into their own line of apologetics, under its shelter apologizing for the
modern view of the Kingdom being so different from that of the early Church. (Comp.
Props. 72, 74, 75, 76.) This is done at the expense of concessions, which, to say the least,
vitiate or lessen apostolic authority. Every theory of this kind forgets that to Peter
was first specially committed the keys of this Kingdom both to Jew and Gentile (comp.
Prop. 64), and that from this circumstance alone he was in no way inferior to Paul or
John. Is it possible to believe that one to whom such keys were entrusted, should be
ignorant of the Kingdom to an extent that requires another’s services to set it right?
No! the whole theory—hypothetical—introduces an uncalled-for, and unproven, antago-
nism between the teaching of the apostles (comp. Prop. 187-8), which only exists in a
philosophical conceit. Differences in characteristic writing, in witnessing statements,
manner of presenting truth, exist between Peter, John, and Paul, but none in doctrine,
or in the truth itself, or in the teachings concerning the Kingdom. On the subject of
the Kingdom they were a unit, and none of the differences alluded to (as e.g. in Paul’s
laying so much stress on justification by faith, rendered necessary by his special mis-
sion to Gentiles to secure their engrafting, or, in his portrayal of the overthrow of the
Mosaic ritual, made incumbent by the same, etc.), are of a nature to form an antagonism
between them. This is seen from our line of argument, enabling us to quote as freely
from Paul as we do from Peter. This divine unity of doctrine is essential to their char-
acter as witnesses ; for just so soon as we admit that in any important doctrine (as that
of the Kingdom) any one of the apostles was in error (however apologetically and phil-
osophically presented so as not to shock our sense of propriety), then his testimony is low-
ered to a more human standard. Even if men endeavor to screen such an one, charge-
able with misconception, from ignorance and of bearing false witness, by saying that un-
der ‘“‘ the Jewish form”’ or ‘‘ Jewish husk’’ there was still ‘‘a germ” (invisibly small) of
truth, which must pass through a process of development before it can be appreciated,
yet all this, done with the most excellent and pious motives, is only opening the flood-
gates of infidelity, for it is an undermining of unity and apostolic character. Well may
the Tiibingen, Parker, and other schools, triumphantly ask, after such vain concessions,
if the apostles were mistascen in their notions of the Kingdom, how can we trust them as
infallible guides in other matters? The sad truth is, that this specious, fallacious the-
orizing is a fearful blow dealt to apostolic knowledge and authority. Instead of having
a sure foundation in the Word, it is placed in ‘t church-consciousness,’’ in develop-
ment, growth, church authority, etc. And moreover, when it comes to finding those
microscopical germs, scarcely two are agreed as to their appearance, shape, or to their
resultant growth. The enemies of the Bible are not slow in seizing this vantage ground
offered to them, and are finding these germs and developments—using the theory most
effectually—in Comparative Theology, and making Christianity only a stage of develop-
ment toward a higher plane, etc. Volume after volume of recent American books with
this plausible philosophical hypothesis running through them, are bearing the fruit of its
adoption. They echo the sentiments of the German “ Friends of Light,’’ that the Script-
ures were good enough in the early history of the church, but were never intended for
the present highly intelligent and cultivated times! It may be said, that this is pushing
the theory to an extreme ; but we can scarcely deny that it is a legitimate one, when
employed, as it is, to disparage apostolic teaching as contained in a ‘* husk.”

Obs. 2. The weakness and Jewish cast assigned to the early church teach-
ing respecting the Kingdom, is the place of persistent attack from unbe-
lievers. It is remarkable, and indicative of the truthfulness of our position,
that for some time the chief assaults have been turned in this direction.
Prop. 70.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 435

For, if it can be shown—taking advantage of the admissions and conces-

sions of believers, which allow a change of view in the church doctrine of
the Kingdom—that the faith of the apostles was discarded by the church as
“too Jewish,’’? then it follows of necessity that the very foundations of
Christianity are unreliable and the superstructure erected upon them is
unsafe. This insidious (and unjust to the Record) charge is skilfully
directed and paraded by thousands of pens. If any of the apostles were
wrong, may not all others be equally in error? Invalidate the testimony
of one on a leading doctrine so that it becomes antagonistic—directly hos-
tile—to another ; declare that the doctrinal position of one or more was
tolerably well calculated for that age but not for successive eras, and you
have no infallible directory. Believers stand amazed, amid the enlighten-
ment of the age, to find the multitude of unbelievers so vast. Alas! we
say it sorrowfully, these are the legitimate fruits of following a spiritualistic
system of interpretation which dares not accept of the language and faith of
the apostles, and of the early church as recorded concerning the Kingdom ;
which vainly wishes that the Millennarian, the Jewish view of the Kingdom,
had never existed. We repeat: the church dy forsaking the old landmarks
of this doctrine will reap in bitterness the sad results of its own sowing.
In forsaking the primitive, covenanted doctrine of the Kingdom, so funda-
mental ; in declaring that the first Christians were in error on this most
important and essential matter ; in heaping upon apostolic fathers and
martyrs the epithets of ‘‘ carnal,’’ ‘‘sensual,’’ ‘‘ material,’’ ‘‘ gross,”’
“‘ Jewish,’’ and ‘‘ fanatical’’ interpretation, she has been paving the way
and forging the weapons for the present unrelenting attack upon the
citadel of Christianity itself. And just so long as she continues to enter-
tain her view (now so prevalent) of the preaching of the disciples, she is
incapable of fairly meeting and setting aside the arguments of unbelievers.
The gross attack of Bolingbroke, owing to alleged discrepancies in preaching, ete., in
endeavoring to make out that the New Test. contains two distinct Gospels, one given
by Christ and another by Paul, has been refined ; the theory of doctrinal development
from the germ supplying the abundant material. Dr. Priestley (Letters 1 and 2 to Mr.
Burn, quoted by Fuller in Calv. and Soc. Sys. Comp., Let. 12), not knowing what to do
with some Scripture, remarks : “ some texts of the Old Test. had been improperly quoted
by writers in the New,’’ being ‘‘ misled“ by Jewish prejudices.’’ This is repeated by
multitudes, and, what is remarkable, more or less endorsed, in some form or other, by
theologians and apologists. Thus to give a single illustration (in a different spirit) from
an eminent author, able and interesting : Oosterzee (Theol. of NV. Test., p. 378), says that
the Apocalypse sustains a “ purely Israelitish character” (see e.g. p. 53 where the Jewish
views are stated), and that it indicates “ that even the most highly developed of the
Apostles at the end of his course, had by no means torn himself from the Theocratic national
ground in which he had ever been rooted.” We thank such men for their frank and noble
concessions of truth, however adverse it may be to their own theories, especially when
it is done not in the spirit of unbelief but for the sake of the truth. Maultitudes pro-
ceeding on the theory that the Messianic Kingdom was established in the Ch. Church,
take it for granted that the apostles changed their views. Thus e.g. Walker, in the
Philos. of the Plan of Salvation, constantly presents it, and locates (p. 245) the period of
enlightenment as follows: ‘‘ On the day of Pentecost, the promised Spirit descended.
The apostles at once perceived the spiritual nature of Christ’s Kingdom.” But the proof
is lacking, and over against Walker we place the above declaration of Oosterzee’s that
John had not changed in his last writing. Covenant, prophecy, unity, all forbid such
a change, especially in communications divinely received.

Obs. 3. Our argument—fortified (1) by Scripture, (2) by charges of infi-

delity, (3) by frank concessions of apologists—accepts of these ‘‘ Jewish
conceptions’”’ of the apostles as legitimately correct and imperatively de-
436 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 70.

manded by the covenants and the Divine Purpose. One writer attempts to
get rid of these ‘‘ Jewish forms’’ by dividing the church into Petrine, Paul-
ine, and Johannine (some make the Pauline last) stages or eras, lauding
and magnifying the one to the prejudice of the other, and making the
former to be absorbed by the latter ;another writer (as e.g. M. Pecaut)
says that Paul continually betrays his ‘‘ Jewish conceptions ”’; Semler, and
others, inform us that John’s writings, especially the Apocalypse, are in
harmony with a ‘‘ Jewish spirit ’’; another writer (as e.g. Westm. Review,
Oct. 1861, Art. 5) tells us that all of them give us “an expansion of the
great Hebrew Theocratic conception.’’ ‘These expressions are given to us
apologetically, or sneeringly (with intended sarcasm), but in themselves they
contain so much truth that the apology or sarcasm becomes uncalled for
and harmless ; for we are fully prepared and warranted to accept of these
“‘Hebrew Theocratic conceptions.’’? Scholten (Oosterzee’s Theol. N. Test.,
p. 895) may see only ‘“‘ forms derived from an earlier mechanical view of
the world, which show that John had not yet entirely risen from his former
Judaism’; Renan (Life of St. Paul, p. 250) may tell us, that ‘* the great
chimera of the coming Kingdom of God was thus the creative and mother
idea of the new religion,’’? and in another place (p. 162), ‘‘ the dream
which had been the soul of the movement of ideas brought about by Jesus,
continued to be the fundamental dogma of Christianity ; everybody believed
in the speedy coming of the Kingdom of God, in the unexpected manifes-
tation of a great glory, in the midst of which the Son of God would
appear,’’ etc., and that Paul ‘‘ expresses Messianic hopes clothed zn the garb
of Jewish materialism’’ ; Neander, Pressense, and a host of others, may
reluctantly admit the ‘‘ Jewish forms,’’ ‘‘ Jewish conceptions,’’ ‘‘ Jewish
materialism,”’ ‘‘ Jewish husks,’’ etc. (telling us that growth was to cast these
aside), but we gladly accept of the very things which are thus wrongfully —
supposed to be prejudicial to the truth itself.
Some writers, overlooking their own concessions in other places, endeavor, with their
Pauline theory, to clear Paul as much as possible from Jewish views. Under the shelter
of Paul’s consistent objections to some Jewish views (viz. : those relating to the ceremo-
nial and sacrificial law abrogated in Jesus, which we also hold), they endeavor to make
out that he rejected everything essentially Jewish. Our argument, as we proceed, will
show the unfounded nature of this theory. It is a matter of surprise that Reuss (His. Ch,
Theol., p. 303), after his admissions concerning apostolic adhesion to Jewish conceptions
(thus introducing antagonism between apostles), in his eagerness to rid Paul of Judaistic
views, roundly asserts : ‘‘ whom (Christ) he (Paul) did not regard as the mighty monarch of
a Kingdom to come.’’ Where is the proof of such a sweeping assertion? The exact con-
trary is evidenced from even a partial comparison of Paul’s teachings, This will appear
in the course of our argument under various propositions, where we will show that Paul
lays much stress on the Sec. Advent and the future Kingdom then introduced, employing
largely the very Jewish phraseology and ideas which were universally applied by the Jews
to the Messianic or Davidic restored, Kingdom. There is no contradiction between Paul
and the other apostles, a: is seen in his equally pressing the importance of the Second
Advent, the futurity of the Kingdom, the location of the restitution, inheriting, the day
of Jesus Christ, etc. But as all these points will come before us in regular order, we
need not anticipate them.

Obs. 4. We take the position that ifthe witnesses of the truth thus occu-
pied—as enemies and friends, assailants and defenders declare—‘‘ a Jewish
standpoint,” it was necessary for them to do so in behalf of the truth itself.
A little reflection here, in view of the special character and mission of the
apostles, will lead any unbiased mind, which acknowledges the inspiration
 Prop. 70.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 437

and authority of the Scriptures, to feel that any theory which places the
apostles in an attitude, doctrinally, antagonistic to the future posture of
the church, is, and must be, radically defective. A mind and heart imbued
with deep reverence for the Word, ought to be prepared to investigate the
doctrinal views of the persons divinely commissioned to proclaim, authorita-
tively, the truth, and to do this with the utmost impartiality. Such, too,
ought not to allow, without the most decisive proof, that the apostles were
mistaken in their ‘‘ Jewish’’ position.
In this matter we only follow the excellent suggestion of Dr. Hodge, one of our op-
ponents, when he says (Sys. Theol., vol. 3, p. 798, comp. p. 797), “ what the apostles be-
lieved, we are bound to believ ; for St. John said : ‘ He that knoweth God, heareth us.’ ”
This is true, but, alas, how littie regarded even by those who are friends and admirers of
the apostles! The quotations, apologies, etc., given already evidence this ; many more
will be adduced as we advance.

Obs. 5. Additionally it may be said: (1) If the apostles preached that

the covenanted, predicted Kingdom was established, why do they not
directly declare this as a fact, and thus remove error and prevent the in-
coming Chiliasm? Is there a single passage which directly teaches that the
Christian church is the Kingdom? No such declaration or passage is to
be found in all the apostolical writings. (2) Hence it is a fact which can-
not be gainsaid that those who bold to a present establishment of the
Kingdom exclusively rely upon inferential proof. This feature alone—a
doctrine derived from »ure inference—should place the reader on his guard
so that he may well consider whether such inferential testimony can possi-
bly outweigh the previously given covenants and teachings of Jesus. An
inference ma; be right or wrong, and this must be carefully tested. It has
no decisive weight agair + direct testimony, but must give way to the latter.
Let us add: it is inconsistent with the leading doctrine of an oath-bound
covenant, of the early preaching of the disciples, and of all prophecy, to
leave it (the doctrine of the Kingdom) deducible from mere inference
resulting from human opinion on the subject. Inferences too so com-
pletely of human onigin, that the most learned and pious differ among
themselves as to the meaning to be attached to it, and the time of its
establishment. It is, therefore, a just conclusion, that, in a matter of so
high moment, if God really (as claimed) established the Kingdom cove-
nanted to David and predicted by the prophets in the church or in the
hearts of believers, etc., then those former preachers of the Kingdom ought
(since we are told that they were mistaken, etc.) as honest men—to say
nothing of their apostleship—both to have confessed their previous error
(for if in error, as claimed, simple justice required this), and to have plainly
and unequivocally declared the presence of the Kingdom in human hearts,
or in the church, or in the world. But they did neither of these things :
the first they could not do, because they had not been ignorant, false
preachers of the Kingdom ; the second it was inipossible for them to do,
since it would have convicted them of having previously preached an
erroncous Kingdom, of abandoning the solemnly given covenants, and of
holding forth a Kingdom which has none of the divinely covenanted and
predicted characteristics. (Passages from which the opposite is inferred,
will be examined in detail hereafter.) Inferences, therefore, which are in
antagonism to the previously ascertained tenor of the Word, to the antici-
pations of the pious Jews, to the former preaching of John, Jesus, and the
438 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 70.

disciples, are justly open to grave suspicion, and one to be discarded as too
unreliable for doctrinal teaching.

Obs. 6. Take the first sermons of Peter, and nothing is said of the estab-
lishment of the Kingdom, although multitudes inform us that it was only
then manifested. Turning to Acts 2 : 14-36 and 3 : 12-26, we ascertain the
following : that in the former, speaking to Jews instead of making out
that the covenant was to be spiritualized and applied to Christ, Peter
boldly asserts that Jesus was to sit on David’s throne, that He was raised
up and exalted for this purpose, that He was seated at God’s right hand
until the period arrives (comp. e.g. Rev. 19 and 20) for making His
enemies His footstool, and that, therefore, He is both Lord and Christ.
(Let not the reader forget here, the meaning of Christ to the Jewish mind
—see Prop. 205.) Let the student place himself in the posture of the
Jewish hearers at that preaching, with their Jewish expectations of the
Kingdom and “‘ the Christ,’’ and he will see at once that this sermon was
most admirably adapted to confirm the Jews in their faith of the Kingdom.
Peter’s argument takes the Jewish view of the Kingdom to be the correct
one, and as one well known (Props. 19-44), and hence, without entering
into particulars, endeavors to show ¢hat Jesus is that Messiah under whom
the covenanted sitting upon David’s throne will yet eventually be realized
—His resurrection and present exaltation giving us the needed assurance.
The Kingdom is not disputed, but He who is to be the Messiah, the King,
is the subject controverted and thus brought forward. ‘This is confirmed
by the second discourse, in which it is distinctly announced that this Jesus,
thus declared to be the Messiah, shall remain in heaven wntil the period of
restitution spoken of by the prophets, and always linked with the-Messianic
Kingdom, shall arrive ; for this Jesus shall come again to be the Restorer
as the prophets announce. Now let the reader consider how the hearers of
Peter regarded the times of restitution (comp. Prop. 144), comprehending
under it the Messianic reign, the restoration of the Davidic throne and
Kingdom, etc., and it is utterly impossible to conceive of any other impres-
sion made upon their minds than that the Kingdom was still future, and
would be established when Jesus would come again. The proof is found in
the historical fact, that the first Christians thus wnderstood Peter. The
times of restitution and the times of the Kingdom are strictly equivalent
phrases to the Jewish mode of thinking and belief ; hence the language of
Peter, as consistency demanded, is in strict accord with our Proposition.
Many of our opponents are forced to give us Acts chs. 2 and 3, as fully
sustaining continued ‘‘ Jewish expectations.”’
Thus e.g. Pressense (Karly Years of Chris., p. 46), says that the apostles after the day
of Pentecost ‘‘ still enveloped that truth (i.e. the truth of Christ), in Jewish forms,” and
(p. 48) adds: “‘they (the first Christians) believed in an immediate return of Jesus
Christ ‘ to restore all things.’ They supposed that the end of the world was at hand
and that the last days foretold by Joel had begun to dawn. Acts 2:17 and 3 : 19, 20.
Thus they awaited those days of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, which was to
inaugurate the Sec. Coming of Christ.’’ Schmid (Bib. Theol., N. Test., p. 337), frankly
admits that Acts 3 : 18-25 viewed with Peter’s utterances in his epistles, refers to the
Old Test. prophecy of the restitution of all things, which “ is to be completed at His second
appearance.’’ (Comp. Prop. 144.) A large amount of similar testimony could readily be
produced from the writings of our opposers—some of which we present under other Prop-
ositions,—and this is the more valuable since it is reluctantly forced from them, being,
as they well see and acknowledge, at variance with their preconceived notion of the
Kingdom, We admire the integrity of such'men, who in honesty, however adverse the
Prop. 70.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 439
confession may be to their own views of the Kingdom, frankly admit “ the Jewish stand-
point’ of the first preachers of the Kingdom ; while we censure the weakness—if not
worse—of that class who either dare not confess it, or pretend, against overwhelming
evidence, that it does not exist, being afraid that an honest acknowledgment would re-
coil upon their own system of faith. The truth of God never suffers by exposure and
freedom; it is confinement and restrainment that, if it does not seriously injure, at
least eclipses it. Fairbairn (On Proph., p. 506), however much he endeavors to give a
modern hue to these sermons (and thus makes out that Peter at one time, at least, had
preached a false Kingdom, viz.: before the day of Pentecost), makes important conces-
sions (1) that the times of restitution occur at the Sec. Advent ; (2) that the sending of
Jesus again, is that Advent ; (3) that even “ the seasons of refreshing” if ‘“‘the sense
absolutely require it,” ‘‘ might be identified with the times of the restitution of all
things” (although he thinks it not necessary) ; (4) that (p. 168) it were against all proba-
bility to suppose that the apostle meant to speak of the prophecy (of Joel) as having
found a complete fulfilment in the events of that particular day, or as being in any meas-
ure exhausted by these.”

Obs. 7. Paul’s teaching fully corresponds with that of Peter. Thus e.g.
in the 1st and 2d chs. of 2 Thess. he unites the Kingdom with the Advent
of the Lord Jesus, and, instead of a present covenanted Kingdom existing,
predicts that before the still future ‘‘ day of Christ’’ is manifested there
will be a falling away, and the Son of perdition, the Antichrist, will be
revealed. ‘That is, before the predictions relating to the promised glory of
the Messiah’s Kingdom can be realized, certain events must first transpire,
and that trouble, trial, and persecution, more or less, await those who are
called and are under the influence of the truth. (Comp. e.g. the Jewish
conceptions of Rom. 8 : 19-23 ; 11 :1-32; 13:11, 12, ete.; 1 Cor. 1:7,8;
Bey Os) Os 2,105) 9,104, etc.) 2Cors. 1 s143..3 216, ete. Gale 1.4;
3 :16-18, etc. ; Eph. 1:10-21; 2:12-19; 4:30, etc.; Phil. 1:6, 10;
2:10, 11, 16, etc. ; and so through all his writings,—constantly speaking
of Jesus as the Messiah, and locating the fulfilment of the promises held
by the Jews ¢o the future coming of this Jesus, by employing the language
and ideas of the Jews applied to the Messiah.)

Obs. 8. James in his Epistle, instead of a kingdom now established,

calls believers ‘‘ heirs of a kingdom,’’ and exhorts to a patient waiting for
‘* the Coming of the Lord’’ when the promises will be realized, thus strictly
verifying Christ’s statements. In Acts 15 : 13-17, in the council of the
apostles, James corroborates the non-establishment of the Kingdom b
showing that ‘‘ after this’’ (i.e. after the gathering out of the Gentiles)
““T (Jesus) will return and will build again the tabernacle of David, which
is fallen down,’’ etc. The postponement is most plainly taught.
The apostles all agreed to this postponement as presented by James. Let the careful
consider : that, in the very nature of the case, this must be so, or else the apostles come
in direct conflict with the statements of Jesus (comp. e.g. Props. 58, 66, etc.). In this
matter there must be, in order to preserve their character of apostleship, a full and cor-
dial agreement.

Obs. 9. John in his Epistles, instead of proclaiming a present existing

kingdom, tells us of antichrist, encourages to faithfulness and looking for
the coming of Jesus. In the Apoc., given to show the future revelation of
Jesus, he shows the trials and tribulations of the church during a period of
time still future to him, and positively asserts that only at a certain time
(Rey. 11:15 and 20:4) the dominion or Kingdom of Christ would be
manifested. Jude, in his short Epistle, refers us to the coming King when
 440 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 70.

mercy and glory are to be revealed to His saints. Thus all the leading
first preachers present the same postponement of the Kingdom ; and it is w
perversion of their language to make them testify to anything contrary to
this and their former preaching. Indeed, it is more than this; it is to
make them contradictory, wnreliable, and hostile to the Covenants and
Prophecy.

Obs. 10. The simple fact, running through the Epistles, is that the King-
dom is spoken of as still future and constantly associated with the speedy Ad-
vent of Jesus. Theexpectancy of that Advent and related kingdom forbids
the entertainment of the substituted notion of a kingdom now so widely pre-
valent. This linking of the Kingdom with the Second Advent is nowhere
spoken of (as now reiterated by eminent writers) as the development of a
new stage in the Kingdom. ‘The passages already adduced abundantly
confirm our position, for, instead of teaching what the Alexandrian, monk-
ish, popish, and modern schools so loudly affirm (viz. : that the covenanted
Kingdom had already arrived and was in full realization and progress),
they point us ¢o the Sec. Coming of Jesus for the glorious establishment of
the Kingdom.’ We give but a single illustration of the apostolic mode of
presenting this subject : Take 1 Pet. 1 : 10-13, and we have (1) the inheri-
tance and savaltion (Jewish phrases) ‘‘ ready to be revealed in the last
time’’ ; (2) to be realized ‘‘ at the appearing of Jesus Christ,”’ ‘at the
revelation of Jesus Christ’’; (3) and this is the same inheritance and salva-
tion which the prephets predicted, linking i¢ with the Messianic Kingdom
on earth. Why should we then, contrary to the entire tenor of the Word,
attempt to locate the fulfilment of this salvation, etc., at a period of time
different from that specified by the apostle and his co-laborers ; or, why
should we disconnect that which the Spirit (‘‘ knowing the deep things of
God ’’) has eapressly joined together? Let any one carefully consider the
phraseology of the New Test. in reference to the coming again of Jesus,
and observe how there is united with it all the Jewish hopes of kingdom,
restitution, redemption, dominion, reigning, crowning, destruction of
enemies, deliverance of His people, etc., and he will clearly see that the
distinctive Messianic hopes, the hopes that centre in the official Christ, are
postponed to the expected, precious Sec. Advent of the Messiah.’
1To a person who has never collated the passages relating to the subject, it will be
surprisiog, if he undertakes it, to find both how numerous they are, and how unanimous
the voice of the apostles in making the same representations. (Lists are given in Bick.
ersteth’s Guide, Brooks’ El. of Proph. Interp., Seiss’ Last Times, Shimeall’s J will come
again, ete.). What Van Oosterzee so aptly applies to Peter, will be found, to a very great
extent, true of all the apostles : ‘‘ as well the discourses as the First Epis. of Peter teach
us to recognize this apostle especially as the Apostle of Hope, in this sense, that the return
of the Lord equally dominates his whole presentation of Christian truth, his whole con-
ception of the Christian life.”’
? Overlooking this feature, many writers find obscurity and difficulties, when none
exist. Thus e.g. Reuss, neglecting this key given so plainly in Hebrews (as in 2:5;
4:95;9 : 28 510 : 36, 37, etc.), says: ‘‘ How involved, obscure, and ambiguous is the
Scriptural demonstration of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 4 : 3 etc.), the design of
which is to establish the certainty of God’s promises.’’ Of course, when men spiritualize
God's promises and survey them only from a modern mystical standpoint there must
necessarily be ambiguity, but let any one place himself on covenanted ground and then he
will see the clearness of the argument, (1) to show that Jesus is the Messiah, (2) that
the promises will be fulfilled in and by Him, (8) that even as Priest He makes provision
for their fulfilment, (4) that His very death ensures the fulfilment of the covenant, (5)
Prop. 70.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 441

and that such a realization of covenant promises will be experienced at His Sec. Coming
unto Salvation. Thus this epistle falls in fully, clearly, and powerfully with the other
portions of Scripture.

Obs. 11. If we critically consider the confession of Peter, it leads us to

the same conclusion. Peter confessed that Jesus was ‘‘ the Christ, the Son
of the living God,’’ and received for this the special approval of Jesus and
acknowledgment that ‘‘ flesh and blood hath not revealed tt unto thee but
my Father which is in heaven’’ (Matt. 16 :16,17). Now this approbation,
calling Peter ‘‘ Blessed,’’?
and the declaration that the Father revealed it,
clearly indicate that Peter knew the significancy and proper meaning of the
title *‘ the Christ.’? This is self-evident from the narrative. What view
of ‘‘the Christ’? did Peter entertain excepting solely that of the Jewish
expectations, and that Jesus, and none other, was indeed the promised
Christ. When Peter, therefore, made this confession he believed as funda-
mental to it, that ‘* the Christ’’ was the kingly title of Jesus, that which
indicated Him as “‘ the anointed ’’ One, coming as the King to restore the
Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom. This is not mere conjecturing Peter’s view
of the Christship, for we have overwhelming proof that such in reality—and
consistently too with Covenant and Prophecy—was his opinion. ‘The proof
is found in Acts 1 : 6 (comp. also Prop. 205, etc.). The reader will also re-
flect that if the modern doctrinal view of ‘‘ the Christ’’ was in Peter’s mind,
isit not reasonable to suppose that Peter or Jesus would have, on this occa-
sion, disabused the other disciples of their Jewish conceptions of the Mes-
siahship ; and can we consistently account for Peter’s rebuking Jesus when
Iie shortly after spoke of His death and resurrection, Matt. 16 :22.' But
when we see that Peter’s conceptions of ‘‘ the Christ’’—as shown to exist—
were approved by Jesus Himself, who shall dare to decry them as ‘‘ igno-
rant’? and ‘‘antiquated.’’ 'To do the latter is both presumptuous and
dangerous. No! Peter knew what was comprehended under the phrase
“‘ the Christ,’’ and however ignorant in reference to the manner and time
in which “‘ the Christ’? would be openly manifested as such in His glorious
work, he certainly was not mistaken in the meaning that he attached to it.
Notice then what follows : without the slightest change or hint of a differ-
ent meaning Peter continwes to preach to the Jews ‘‘ the Christ,’’ which
was understood by all to denote the One anointed to be the King on David's
restored throne. If this was not its meaning, how could inspired men leave
the Jews and others under the impression, without correction, that such
continued its meaning, only pointing to the still future Advent for the
manifestation of this Jesus as ‘‘ the Christ’’ in the fullest sense entertained.’
1]Tt is saddening to see into what palpable contradictions most excellent men are in-
volved, who deny Peter’s conception of “ the Christ,’’ and persistently reject ‘‘ Jewish
conceptions” of the Messiah. We give an illustration (the reader can readily finda
multitude) : Barnes, Com., Matt. 16 : 16, 17, endeavors to give an unwarranted turn to
this confession, an Anti-Judaic one, as if Peter did not entertain the Jewish views, and
as if the words meant : ‘‘ You, Jews, were expecting to know the Messiah by His external
splendor, His pomp and power as a man,” etc. He thus ascribes to Peter a highly
wrought spiritual conception of ‘‘ the Christ,’’ according with modern ideas, Now notice,
in the same chapter, on verse 22, he interprets Peter's conduct as resulting from this :
‘‘He expected, moreover, that He would be the triumphant Messiah,”’ etc., and, on Acts
1:6, the apostles, including Peter (for he makes no exception), are charged with hold-
ing the exact Jewish expectations of a ‘‘ temporal dominion of the Messiah,’’ etc. In the
one place he has the proper idea of Christ, and in the other places he is represented as
holding erroneous views. Our argument shows that Peter, however ignorant of the
442 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 70.

means and time of accomplishment, consistently held to one continuous proper meaning
of ‘‘ Christ,” corresponding with his preaching as a disciple and an apostle.
2 Admirable writers make the grave mistake of changing the definite title of ‘‘the
Christ” (comp. Prop. 205). Apologists fall into the same serious error, as e.g. Leathes
(The Religion of the Christ, Lec. 6, on ‘‘ the Christ of Acts’’) correctly points out the
teaching of Jesus concerning His death, that such a death appeared destructive to the
Jewish faith of the Christ, and that the Christship was fully asserted notwithstanding
the death, but unfortunately (overlooking the distinctive title in its covenanted relation-
ship, and the postponement of the Kingdom) deduces from this, grounded on His resur-
rection and ascension, that ‘“‘the Christship,” as covenanted and predicted, was most
amply realized in the establishment of the Church, although unable to designate a single
Messianic feature thus fulfilled. The facts of the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, Apoc., and early
Church, all show that this is an erroneous conclusion, calculated to lead into a perver-
sion of much that is precious. Leathes applies the same reasoning to the Epistles, and
comes out with the astounding assertion, that by His ascension, the establishment of
the Church, and the conferring of spiritual life and gifts, ‘‘ He thus Himself shows the
fulfilment of psalm and prophecy more than if He had restored again the Kingdom to
Israel, and had gathered in subjection to the throne of David all the kingdoms of the
world and the glory of them.’’ How sad it is, to see excellent men, who desire to honor
Jesus, make that which is preparatory to be the full realization of covenant and proph-
ecy. The simple truth, that the apostles showed that this Jesus, once dead, but risen
and exalted, was the Messiah promised, and that at His Sec. Advent—not before—this
covenanted and predicted Christship would be manifested in power and glory, is com-
pletely overshadowed by a preconceived theory to which all Scripture must bend. Do
we need to be surprised at the lack of faith in the Church, when good men, in vast num-
bers, lend themselves to such a work.

Obs. 12. The testimony in behalf of our position is cumulative. Some

may be added here, leaving the additional for other Propositions (as e.g.
93-104, etc.). Much of the language of Scripture pertaining to this dis-
pensation is utterly irreconcilable with the idea of a Messianic Kingdom,
not merely in its covenanted and prophetic outlines but in its several de-
tails. Thus e.g. if the covenanted Kingdom really existed as many tell
us, how can the church be exhibited, over against the prophetic delinea-
tions, in a position equivalent to widowhood, or, at least, separation from a
beloved one, which mars happiness, Luke 5 : 33-35. This certainly finds
no correspondence with the Messianic Kingdom as given in the Old Test.
Again: the Kingdom is to be revealed in ‘“‘ the day of the Lord Jesus
Christ,”’ but after the ascension of Jesus, the apostles did not see this day
(so Jesus previously informed them, Luke 17 : 22), for they regarded it as
still future (locating it with the Sec. Advent, as in 1 Cor. 7:8; 1 Thess.
5:2, 23; Phil. 1:6, 10, comp. with 2:16 and 3 : 20, 21, ete.) Now
all this employing Jewish phraseology without any indication of change of
meaning, can only be reconciled with the postponement of the Kingdom to
the Sec. Advent. The careful student of Scripture must have been arrested
by this additional peculiarity, corroborative of our argument, that in many
places (as e.g. 1 Cor. 1:7, 8, etc.) the apostles rapidly pass from the
present to the Advent, the intervening period being not worthy to be com-
pared, owing to the absence of the King and Kingdom, to what transpires
at the Messiah’s return ; or, in other words, the distinguishing character-
istics of a purely Messianic nature are attributed to the Sec. Coming, and
the period intervening being merely preparatory, is passed by. If the pre-
dicted Messianic times, the Millennial glory, are to precede (as many de-
clare) the Sec. Advent, could such a style of writing be adopted without
dishonoring the predictions of God and the things of the Messiah? Our
argument finds this distinguishing feature in harmony with all the utter-
ances of the Spirit, and regards it as a necessary sequence of the postponement.
Prop. 70.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 443
Surely the student requires no apology at the length, and the details, of our argument.
The fundamental nature of the subjects considered, and their influence in forming a cor-
rect view, are a sufficient justification. The illustrations of diverging opinions, may be
regarded as numerous, but the student will find them valuable, because they serve to
show—frequently in the very words of their supporters—-the line of reasoning by which
they are sustained, and then the defectiveness of the same is either pointed out in the
text or note. We give considerable space to this early history, and we feel excused in so
doing, when our opponents concede that its close study is most weighty. Thus e.g. Pres-
sense (The Early Years of Christianity, in Pref.) well remarks : ‘‘ Of all the topics of the
day, none is of graver importance than the early history of Christianity, and the founda-
tion of the Church. Everything points inquiry in this direction,”’ etc.

Obs. 18. That our Proposition is true appears from the immediate result
of their preaching. The early church, the Apostolic Fathers, all that were
nearest to the apostles and the Elders, Anew of no established Kingdom but
looked for one to come at the Advent of Jesus. This is evidenced by the
intensely Chiliastic position of the Primitive Church. How can the reader
account for this, unless our view of the Kingdom is the correct one. When
the apostles, and their co-laborers, ‘‘ preached the things concerning the
Kingdom of God,’ ‘* preached the Kingdom of God,’’ how does it happen
that the only doctrine of the Kingdom, East and West, in the churches
under their supervision (comp. Props. 73-77), is the one that we advocate?
Is this merely accidental? Cana single writer be quoted who lived in the
First, and Second, and part of the Third, centuries, and who proclaimed the
modern view of the Kingdom, now so generally entertained? Let men in
answer to this, take refuge in the development theory, in accommodation,
in transition, in substituted revelation, etc., but all such subterfuges prove
unsatisfactory, at the same time invalidating the credibility of inspired
teachers under whose personal supervision and instruction such a doctrine
was allowed to prevail.
Men who lack the scholarly attainments of Neander, Bush, etc. (and hence cannot
make the concessions and admissions of such men) endeavor to bring discredit upon our
doctrine by linking it with heresy (as coming from Cerinthus, or Jewish converts), but
aside then from the impossibility of tracing the Church excepting through ‘“ heretics,”’
these professed critics conveniently overlook the historical fact (so Neander, etc.), that
Millenarians were among the stoutest opposers of Cerinthus and the gross Judaizing (in
reference to the law) tendency ; they forget that not only Christian Churches composed
of Jews but also those among the Gentiles, equally held to our doctrine ; and that the
writers on all sides claimed that they received the doctrine both from the Scriptures and
the recent traditionary testimony of the apostles and elders. (Comp. the succeeding
Props.
Meech works frankly acknowledge our statements, and endeavor, in view of their un-
controverted existence, to show that the Scriptures themselves are unreliable, and that
apostolic authority is not so great as has been deemed. Thus e.g. Desprez (John, or the
Apoc. of the New Test.) when speaking of ‘‘ the Gospel of the Kingdom”’ (in the chapter
on this subject) holds that the view we have thus far presented was taught by Jesus and
the disciples, that it was perpetuated in the church, etc., giving the proof of the facts as
stated. Thus far Desprez is certainly correct, but alas! he only leaves a part of the
Divine Record to testify ;—for seeing that these expectations were not realized, he has-
tily jumps to the conclusion that they are unavailing and utterly unreliable, forgetting
that Jesus, the apostles, and the Apostolic Fathers, all unite in asserting the postpone-
ment of this Kingdom to the Sec. Advent (and for good, substantial reasons). This
procedure destroys the reliability, the integrity of Scripture. This stumbling-block of a
‘“speedy Advent,” its ‘* nearness,’’ etc., forces Desprez to look at the subject with human
eyes and weakness, overlooking that when the Spirit speaks, in the measuring of time
according to His own vastness of conception, that a period necessarily long to man,
when contrasted with the briefness of his own life and generations, is but brief—“a mo.
ment ”—with the Infinite.
444 THE THEOCRATIOC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 70.

Obs. 14. Others, seeing how this Kingdom is united with the Sec. Com-
ing of Jesus, and unable to find consistently the establishment of the King-
dom under the preaching of the disciples, and yet, with their theory of a
Kingdom, compelled to have some kind of a Kingdom in actual existence
during this dispensation—resort to the most arbitrary spiritualistic inter-
pretation to locate the Sec. Advent im the past so that a resultant Kingdom
may logically be connected with it. This will be fully answered as we pro-
ceed in the argument.
An illustration or two must suffice : The Antinomian Perfectionists in their Articles
of Faith (quoted Oberlin Review, May, 1847, make in Art. 28 Christ’s Sec. Coming to occur
at the destruction of Jerusalem, and in Art. 2, they say : ‘“ We believe that, at the peri-
od of the Sec. Coming of Christ, Christianity or the Kingdom of heaven, properly be-
gan.’’ The Swedenborgians claim that the Sec. Advent took place in Swedenborg’s time,
and hence engraft upon it their distinctive “New Jerusalem’’ theory, which includes the
grand characteristics of the blessed Messianic Kingdom. Other writers locate this Sec.
Advent at His resurrection or on the day of Pentecost, forgetting that after these days
the apostles continued to speak of it as future. The most repulsive view is that of mak-
ing the coming of Titus and the Romans to represent the blessed Advent of Jesus—
although some eminent writers have endorsed it—since in the prophecy of Jesus relating
to this event, He discriminates between the destruction of Jerusalem and His own Ad-
vent. None of the Primitive Church, after Jerusalem was destroyed, for a moment
made such an unwarranted application ; their knowledge of covenant and prophecy pre-
vented such a prostitution of “ the blessed hope.” As we shall have occasion to refer to
this Sec. Advent at length, it is sufficient now to remark: that as such theories also set
aside the oath-bound covenants and the prophecies based on them (in their plain gram-
matical sense), giving them a spiritualistic or mystical dress foreign to their real import,
they become, by this very process of transmutation and substitution, unworthy of our
credence. Such a state of things as followed the destruction of Jerusalem, or the estab-
lishment of the Christian Church, and has existed down tu the present day, is not, cannot
be the covenanted, predicted Kingdom of the Old Test., because there is no real corre-
spondence between the former and the latter. Men may pretend to such an agreement, .
but it is forced and unnatural; it is done at the expense of the grammatical word and by
forcing upon it a sense that the laws of language do not admit.
~ PROPIA THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 445,

Proposition 71. Zhe language of the Apostles confirmed the Jews

in their Messianic hopes of the Kingdom.
This is seen (1) from their employing the Jewish phraseology
used to designate the Messianic times; (2) from their applying
these to the future advent of Jesus, and urging their hearers to
expect that such a Coming will fulfil the prophets ; (3) from the
fact that the Christianized Jews, in their respective congregations,
held doth to this Sec. Advent (having received Jesus as the Mes-
siah), and to the restoration of the Davidic throne and Kingdom at
the second appearing of Jesus.

Obs. 1. This is admitted by the ablest writers, not only infidels' but by
such men as Neander. It is corroborated by the church history of the
earliest period, informing us, without any dissent, that, so far as known, all
the Jewish believers held precisely the views that we are defending. Be-
fore we can permit our doctrine to fall even under unjust suspicion, it
would be well if our opponents would candidly consider this historical fact,
and ask themselves a few questions suggested by it. How does it come
that under the direct, personal preaching of the apostles such views of the
Kingdom were entertained, unless it resulted from ¢he manner of teach-
ing? How does it come that such opinions were so generally received under
apostolic nurture, that the modern views and ideas are not found even
stated? If these people were in error on so important a point, was it not
the duty of the apostles and the Elders fo enlighten them—to leave, at least,
a protest against it on record? Is it reasonable, that churches under the
direct pastoral care of inspired men should be so wholly given up Zo alleged
grave error? ‘These, and similar questions, ought to be considerately
answered before these early Christians are branded as ‘‘ gross’? and
‘carnal’ errorists. If the idea of the Kingdom now generally entertained,
is the correct one, it certainly is exceedingly strange, wflerly inexplicable,
that it was not then iniroduced, and that it required wrinspired men to pro-
duce it. If the early church was in error on so leading and fundamental a
doctrine, then the teachers of the same are justly chargeable with both intro-
ducing and continuing this error, for instead of contradicting the Jewish
views of the people, the apostles use the very words and phrases most emi-
nently calculated to confirm the Jewish belief. This is seen in employing,
as e.g. ‘‘ the times of restitution,’’ ‘‘ the world to come,’’ ‘‘ redemption,’’
‘* salvation,’’ ‘‘ the age to come,” ‘* the day of the Lord,’’ ‘‘ the day of
Christ,’’ ete., and without any indicated change of meaning apply them to
the Sec. Advent of Jesus, who is the Messiah. Zhis application naturally
and logically led the Jewish believers to fix their fond expectations of the
Kingdom upon the Sec. Coming, and not on the First. In this, as we have
shown in preceding Propositions, they only leyitimately followed the divine
446 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 71.

teaching of Jesus Himself, who declared that His Kingdom was postponed
(e.g. Prop. 66, 58, etc.) to the time of His Coming again. Our opponents
have either failed in accounting for this feature, or in attempting it have
only succeeded in lowering the standing of the apostles as teachers. Our
position enforces no necessity for abject apologizing, because of such a be-
lief in the early church, induced by the instruction received. We cordially
accept of it as highly indicative of the truth—nay, as its essential sequence,
the truth itself. 1t is the identical faith, enforced by covenant and
prophecy, by the preaching of John, Jesus, disciples, and apostles, which,
above all others, we should find in the Primitive Church.’
1 The most ultra of the unbelievers pronounce the whole matter an imposture. Many
proofs of this might be given, but a single example will suffice. In the Religio-Philo-
sophical Journal of Chicago, Jan. 17th, 1874, is a work advertised (also published in this
Journal’s house), in which the author Jones (a ‘‘ Religio-Philosophivalist”’) assumes that
he has carefully examined and compared together the New Test. and Josephus, and pre-
sents us with the following sage conclusion : ‘‘ that Christ and His Apostles were gross
impostors ; that Josephus and St. Paul were no one else but Christ Himself, after He
had risen from the dead, still had never been dead,” etc. Such nauseating matter is
styled ‘‘ criticism” ; when it is simply the ravings of the lowest form of the fanaticism
of error,-—the outpourings of a depraved heart,—and worthy only of contempt from the
better class of unbelievers.
2 Many writers have noticed this peculiar usage of Jewish phraseology and that the
phrases ‘‘ end of the age,” ‘‘ last days,” ‘‘ last times,’ etc., were regarded by the Jews
as the period just previous to and immediate to the establishment of the Messianic King-
dom. ‘The apostles continue their use, referring them to the still future, including this
dispensation, so that in their estimation these times could not possibly include an ex-
isting covenanted Kingdom, as e.g. in Heb. 1:2 etc. Comp. Olshausen’s Coin., vol.
2, p. 229, who quotes Acts 2:17 ;1 Pet. 1:20 and 1:5 ; John 6 : 39, 40 ;1 John2 : 18;
Rom. 2:5 ; Rev. 6:17, and 9 : 18, saying this corresponds with the Old Test. expres-
sions; Gen. 49:1; Isa. 2:2; Mic. 4:1; Dan. 12:18, and 8:17, and 9:40, which
again answers to “the end,’’ Matt. 24:6, 14. (Comp. Props. 86, 87, 89, 137, 138, 140,
etc.) Redemption was always united in the Jewish mind with the coming and King-
dom of the Messiah, and so it continued, and as Calvin (Jnst., ch. 25, sec. 2), observes,
the Sec. Advent itself, in view of the results, is called ‘‘owr Redemption.’’ 'The unbeliev-
ing Jews themselves continued to employ this phraseology. Thus e.g. R. Akiba (Mil-
man’s His. Jews, vol. 3, p. 100), when supporting the pretensions of the false Messiah,
Barchocab, said of him: ‘“‘ Behold the Star that is to come out of Jacob ; the days of
Redemption are at hand.’’ So also (p. 214, vol. 3), the Karaite belief, in Art. 10, speaks
of ‘‘a coming Redemption through the Messiah, the Son of David.” A multitude of
illustrations might be given, but these are sufficient to indicate how deeply these words
and phrases were engrafted into the Jewish mind.

Obs. 2. After such appeals as Paul makes (Acts 26:6, 7, 8) to the

Jewish hope (Prop. 182) ; after linking the Jewish ‘‘ Rest’’ with the Com-
ing Messiah (Prop. 143) ; after uniting the Jewish view of Judgeship and
Judgment with the Second Advent of Jesus (Props. 132, 133, and 134) ;
after making the Millennial glory dependent upon the future Advent (Props.
120 and 121); after joining the restoration of the Jewish nation with
Christ’s return (Props. 111, 112, 113, 114) ; after endorsing and enforcing
the Jewish first resurrection as preceding the glorious Messianic times
(Props. 125-129) ; after all these, and similar points of union, it is difficult
to see how men and women with Jewish views, holding tenaciously to cove-
nant and prophecy, could possibly understand the apostles in any other sense
than a Jewish or Chiliastic one. Let the reader consider that this agree-
ment is found not merely in one or two things but runs through a great
variety, even embracing all the distinguishing peculiarities of a restored
Davidic throne and Kingdom under the Messiah.
Prop. 71.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 447
Fairbairn, and others, assume that right after the resurrection (which they cannot
reconcile with their own interpretation of Matt. 11 : 12), Jesus ruled as the predicted
King in the covenanted Kingdom. We, on the other hand, hold that (discriminating the
Divine Sovereignty, see Props. 79 and 80), the resurrection of Christ is preparative,
qualifying the Son of Man for that predicted rule ; and to prove that His Theocratic
reign, as covenanted, does not immediately follow the resurrection and ascension (how-
ever exalted David’s Son may be), but is connected with a return (as the apostles tes-
tify), it is only necessary to turn to Paul’s statement, Acts 17 : 31, “‘ God hath appointed a
day’’ (Prop. 138) ‘‘ in which He will judge” (taking the Scriptural idea of Judge,—see Prop.
133), “the world in righteousness, by that man whom He hath ordained ; whereof He hath given
assurance unto all men in that He hath raised Him from the dead.” ‘The resurrection gives
the pledge that that period will most assuredly arrive, while our opponents themselves
admit that the time of this manifestation is future. The careful student will notice that
the credit of being ‘‘ the Christ,’ is dependent upon His having risen trom the dead; and
hence after the confession of Peter He charged His disciples to tell no man that He was
the Christ (joining Mark 9 : 9, which gave an illustration of the Christship) ‘till the
Son of Man were risen from the dead.” But the meaning of “ Messiah” or “‘ Christ” is
utterly hostile to a purely spiritual reign in heaven, as we have already shown ; it being
the express title of the Theocratic King reigning over the restored Davidic throne and King-
dom. Thus the Jews and early Christians understood it, and such continues its mean-
ing. His exaltation only increases the assurance that He “the Christ’ will ultimately be
munifested as such in power and great glory. If all this were to be changed, as Fair-
bairn, etc. suppose, then when the subject was up before the Jews (as e.g. Acts 17 : 3)
Paul and the other apostles ought to have corrected the Jewish conceptions of the
Christship of Jesus. We (1 Thess. 1:10) ‘‘ wait for His Son from heaven, whom He
raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.”

Obs. 3. The language of the apostles is in such harmony with the views
of the Jews respecting the Messianic Kingdom, that our opponents, instead
of giving any explicit passages, are driven ¢o infer an existing Kingdom ;
and this very zlogical inference, as we have repeatedly shown, involves
them in numerous inconsistencies and contraditions. Aside from the sin-
gularity of a Kingdom, specially covenanted and predicted, being set up (as
alleged by our opposers) and this so loosely left to inference (so that they
disagree both concerning its meaning and the time of establishment), it is
incredible for this to have transpired without being directly asserted and the
fact becoming well known to the hearers of the apostles. A Kingdom set
up, and yet the church, for several centuries remain wnconscious of the
matter! Men may charge us with credulity, but such a view far exceeds
our power of belief, seeing that covenant and prophecy describe its estab-
lishment as a thing so open, so notable, so visible to all, that no one can
possibly mistake its existence. How can Fairbairn and others, whoso mod-
ernize Peter’s two sermons, account for the belief of the very churches to
which Peter preached ; a faith which constantly looked for a kingdom still
future and one that should bear the significant and unmistakable marks of
covenant and prophetic promise.
Those inferences, therefore, however plausible they may be, had either no existence
or no force among the earliest converts, being regarded as illegitimate, opposed to the
Old Test. delineation of the Kingdom. Men, in apparent triumph, may now tell us that
this arises from their Jewish prejudices ;—let it be so then, if such are grounded in coy-
enant and prophecy, preserve the unity of the Scripture, and preserve for us the true
doctrine of the Kingdom. Having previously referred to inferences, it may be added :—.
we are not opposed to inferential or deductive interpretation (if properly and- lawfully
conducted), seeing that notable examples (as e.g. 1 Cor. 15 : 27 ; Matt. 22 : 31, 32, etc.)
are given in Scriptures, and all works on Bib. Interp. endorse them, but attention is
directed to this matter for several reasons. It is simply incredible that the establish-
ment of a Kingdom, covenanted, etc., can be left to inference. Again : multitudes
speak of the modern view as so self-evident, that the impression is made as if it were the
448 THE THEOORATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 71.
subject of direct affirmation. The passages assumed to infer it will come up in regular
review hereafter. Again: some writers (as e.g. Jones, Sober Views of the Mill., p. 26) turn
around and, to cover up their own defects in this direction, charge our system of faith
with being built on inferences and deductions, and then, to make it odious, declare that
nothing can be an object of faith that is not plainly revealed in the Word of God, for other-
wise we are ‘‘ building on the sand and not on the rock of truth.” Without entertaining
such a wholesale prejudice against inferences (for they are valuable in their place), it
may be consistently said : that when we produce the plain grammatical sense—one that all
admit exists in the Word,—we are not justly chargeable with inference ; when the literal
import of covenant, prophecy, preaching, etc. is sustained against another inferred and
engrafted sense (given by men uninspired), ought not the former have precedence over
the latter? The reader will be abundantly able to judge from what follows, which
party —for all the Scripture relating to the subject used by writers on both sides of the
question will be brought forward—is the most liable to the charge of founding the doc-
trine on inference.

Obs. 4. The apostles, in their writings, constantly speak of the Kingdom

as something that was well understood and fully comprehended as to mean-
ing. Nowhere do we find the modern explanation and definition given to
it ; and, according to our argument, being covenanted and fully described
by the prophets, i¢ needed no such additions, being already clearly appre-
hended. If the Kingdom had been some entire new thing (as some assert),
or if it was to be in a form different from that described in the literal lan-
guage of the Old Test., then, if the apostles became conscious of such a
change on the day of Pentecost and afterward, one of two things ought to
have been done by them. ‘They, if honest and capable instructors, ought
to have told, especially to the Jews, that the covenant with David as they
(the hearers) understood it could not be realized, or, that the language was
to be understood differently in a spiritual or mystical sense, or, that another
and materially different Kingdom (a spiritual one, or, the church as one)
was now established thus fulfilling covenant promise—using just such lan-
guage as modern (if correct) writers employ on the subject. How could
they leave their thousands of hearers without giving them (if in error on
so great a point) some definite explanation of this kingdom if it varied so
greatly, as learned men make it, from ‘* Jewish conceptions.’?’ The truth is
that it required no such explanations, for the apostles were addressing per-
sons to whom the Old ‘lest. was familiar, to whom the covenants and
Kingdom were well known; and hence they labored to show that this
Jesus was the Messiah, that at His Sec. Coming the predicted restitution
and Kingdom would appear, and that to secure entrance into that King-
dom repentance and faith in that Coming Christ were indispensable.
The critical student will here find one of the chief causes of the early rapid growth of
Christianity. Consider the excessive prejudices of the Jewish mind in favor of cove-
nant and prophecy as they pertained to theiy favorite Messianic expectations, and then
how can we reconcile such a sudden revulsion of view and feeling in the many Jewish
believers, unless there be, as we have shown, certain points—fundamental—of contact and
union? Imagine the modern theories of the Kingdom then preached, and what would
have been the result? Certainly a controversy as to the meaning of the Messianic King-
dom, etc. Bauer, and others, think that the immediate conversion of three, and more,
thousands is so enormous that it must be mythical, but the Messianic idea and fulfil-
ment applied to Jesus at His Second Coming explains the leverage possessed by the
apostles, —the truth being enforced through the power and evidences of the Spirit.
Prop. 72.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 449

Proposition 72. Lhe doctrine of the Kingdom, as preached

by the apostles, was received by the early churches.
This is not only reasonable, but shown to be a fact, from the
apostles having no occasion during their entire ministry to censure
any orthodox believers or churches for misapprehending, or hold-
ing to a false view of, the Kingdom. The decided and convincing
impression is made by the apostolic writings that these first Chris-
tian churches were not ignorant of—but correctly understood—the
important and cardinal subject of the Kingdom.
So decisive is this, that leading Apologists, like Neander, take refuge under the
development theory, obtaining the true doctrine in the advancing and growing ‘ con-
sciousness of the Church.’’ Forced to admit our historical position, they endeavor—
sacrificing the apostles and elders—to secure their own view of the Kingdom under the
plea of an after-Churchly development. Those persons, especially, who desire to be
esteemed so Churchly and so precise, in their orthodoxy, ought to give this: subject a
careiul investigation in accordance with their professed principles,—but even when
asked, their reply may be that of Jer. 6:16. We append one or two testimonies (comp.
Props. 75, 76, and 77 for more) in reference to the prevailing belief. Ebrard (Herzog’s
Real Ency., vol. 10, p. 579) says: ‘‘ The apostolic tradition (so say Hase and others
correctly) was so decided, that Chiliasm was the ruling belief in the first three centuries of
the church. . . . The Commentary of Theophilus (Hagenbach’s silent witness) is
lost, but the belief in Christ's Coming to establish His Kingdom on earth in glory formed
the essential object and anchor of their hope. They recognized the World-Power as one
in the service of Satan, and they looked for no deliverance from it save by His Coming.’’
Semisch (Herzog’s It. Ency., vol. 1, p. 658) remarks : ‘‘ Before the end of the first century,
Chiliasm was the common belief in the Church that had been gathered from the heathen.”
He then states, in detail, how all the writers on the subject down to Jerome were express
Chiliasts, excepting Origen and his school. Our argument, if Scripturally founded, ought
—as a logical result—to find the early Church in this identical doctrinal position. The
prevailing Church belief is asserted by works having no sympathy with our views, as
e.g. Appletons’ New. Amer. Cyclop., Chambers’s Cyclop., and many others.

Obs. 1. Let the student candidly consult the faith of the early churches
and see for himself what it was, viz.: that the intimations of Scripture,
the statements of the Fathers, the concessions of Neander, Mosheim, and
a host of others, and, in brief, a// that we have on record of that period,
conclusively proves that the doctrine held, doth in Jewish and Gentile
regions, was at first (during the First, Second, and greater part of the
Third, Century,) that which we have defended. This feature, so notice-
able in the Jews under the prophets, under Jesus, and under the Apostles,
and thus continuously perpetuated, led Auberlen (Proph. Dan., p. 372) to
pertinently remark, that Jesus, and the Prophets and Apostles, were
‘*Chiliasts.’? ‘The early Church in its entire range was Chiliastic, and
eagerly looked, longed, and prayed for the expected Kingdom still future.
Enemies and friends, historians and theologians, frankly acknowledge this
distinguishing characteristic of that period.
450 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 72.

Thus e.g. Gibbon’s statements (Decl. and Fall Rom. Emp., ch. 15), Carrodi’s His. of
Chiliasm (pronounced even by Prof. Stuart as uncandid), Whitby’s Treat. on Mill., Bush’s
Treat. on Mill., the Church Histories of Neander, Mosheim, Kurtz, etc., the Art. ‘‘ Chiliasm’’
in Herzog’s Encyclop. (by Semisch), or Art. Millennium in Kitto’s Ency., Lardner’s
Credibility, Rees’, Appletons’, and other Encyclopedias, Chillingworth’s Argument drawn
from the Doctrine of the Millenaries, against Papal Infallibility, Hagenbach’s His. of
Doctrines, Greswell’s Exposition of the Parables, Bickersteth On Proph., Brooks’s El. Proph.
Interp., Seiss’s Last Times, Shimeall’s Reply to Shedd, Taylor’s Voice of the Church, Brookes’s
Maranatha, Ebaugh’s brief history in Rupp’s Orig. His. of Relig. Denominations, works
on the Apocalypse, and commentaries on the same, as Prof. Stuart’s, Spaulding, Win-
chester, etc., Millenarian writers, as Duffield, Begg, Bonar, Cunningham, Mede, Bh.
Henshaw, etc. Thus presenting unbelievers, opposers, critics, historians, commenta-
tors, and believers, uniting in the same testimony. We here assert that no writer has
yet been able to present the prevailing modern views as entertained by any writer of
the Primitive church ; no statement quoted, giving the writing, is to be found anywhere.
Dr. Bonar (Proph. Landmarks) has well said: ‘‘ As to the history of our doctrines, the
conclusions to which all inquiries upon this subject have come is, that during the three
first centuries it prevailed universally, its only opponents being the Gnostics. This is now
an ascertained historical fact, which we may well ask our opponents to account for, as it pre-
supposes that Chiliasm was an article of the Apostolic Creed.’’ Chillingworth’s testimony
(Works, vol. 3, p. 369) is that it was ‘‘ held true and Catholic,” ‘‘and by none of their
contemporaries condemned,’’ ‘‘ being grounded upon evident Scripture,’’ etc. Hagen-
bach (Lis. of Doctrines), after quoting Justin’s declaration that it was the general faith
of all orthodox Christians, gives the following, in italics, from Giesler’s Ch. History:
“In all the works of this period (the first two centuries) Millenarianism is so prominent,
we cannot hesitate to consider it as universal in an age when such sensuous motives
were certainly not unnecessary tc animate men to suffer for Christianity.’’ We are only
now concerned with the historical fact, Giesler’s explanation appended for its existence
is not history, but his individual (mistaken) opinion. Bh. Russell (Discourse on the Mill.,
p. 236) says: ‘‘ There is good ground for the assertion of Mede, Dodwell, Burnet, and
writers on the same side, that down to the beginning of the fourth century the belief
(in Christ’s return and personal reign on earth) was universal and undisputed.’ Other
testimonies will be quoted as we proceed.

Obs. 2. Men, who would gladly blot this evidence out of existence as
being adverse to their notions of propriety and of the Kingdom, still can-
didly, impelled by the overwhelming testimony, admit the fact, that the
Primitive Church, generally, 1f not universally, held our views.
Thus e.g. Bush (On Mill., p. 20, etc.) admits the prevalence of Chiliasm, ‘‘ that
during the first three centuries it was very extensively embraced.’’ and then quotes ap-
provingly Chillingworth, ‘‘ that Chillingworth prefers it as a serious charge against the
Church of Rome, which lays such lofty claims to the perpetuation within her own bosom
of the pure, unadulterated doctrines of the apostolic and primitive ages, that in this
matter, if in no other, she has grossly falsified the creed of antiquity, inasmuch as there
is ample evidence that the doctrine of the Chiliasts was actually the Catholic faith of more
than one century ; and certainly there are few judges more competent to pronounce
upon the fact.’’ While Prof. Bush acknowledges the extent of belief, he thinks that it
was thus allowed to prevail because it produced at that time better results than ‘‘ even
a more correct construction of the sacred oracles’’ could effect ;—thus agreeing with
Gibbon in his estimate of its transient merits, making error for the time better
adapted to secure the prosperity of the church than truth! On p. 26 he also re-
marks: ‘‘ During the first ages of the church, when the style of Christianity was to be-
lieve, to love, and to suffer, this sentiment seems to have obtained a prevalence so general
as to be properly entitled all but absolutely Catholic,” etc. He then refers to the gradual
change wrought through Origen, Augustine, Jerome, etc., and the Constantinian era. Dr.
Alger (Crit. His. Doc. Fut. Life, p. 319) fully believes that the Evangelists and early Chris-
tians understood Christ to teach a literal personal Sec. Advent, ete., but he doubts
whether Jesus really meant to be thus understood. He endeavors to rid himself of the
early views by spiritualizing, and a course of reasoning reflecting most deeply upon
the ignorance of persons specially appointed to preach the truth. Pressense (The Early
Days of Christianity, p. 46) says: ‘‘If there.is full evidence that they (the apostles)
Prop. 72.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 451
declared the truth of Christ in all its essentials, the evidence seems to us no less clear
that they still enveloped that truth in Jewish forms.” Which are we to credit, then:
‘the Jewish forms” or Pressense’s developed “‘ germ’’ out of this ‘‘ husk”? Who is to
distinguish between ‘‘ the kernel’’ and the alleged ‘‘rind’”’? What idea does this give
us of apostolic intelligence? We only now say, so extended and plain is this testimony
given by opponents, that some of the latter endeavor to conceal it from their readers,
lest it should exert an influence in our favor. Some even (as Dr. Macdill in the
“‘ Tnstructor,” 1879) resort .to the ruse of quoting the unfavorable opinions as to our
doctrine given by various opponents ;—just as if denunciation was argument and met the
historical question. The nature of the doctrine, etc., will come up, as we proceed, and
the denunciations be fully met. Of course, the intelligent reader will discriminate
between the historical fact of the extension of our belief as given by opponents (as e.g.
Neander, Mosheim, etc.), and their individually expressed opinions as to its Scriptural-
ness, origin, etc. The one is history, the other is personal matter.

Obs. 3. The Primitive Church,—receiving this faith under the guidance

of Apostles, and Elders consecrated by apostolic hands, giving us the
names of Apostles and Elders as expressly teaching it,’ appealing more or
less to Scripture and to their predecessors in the same belief,—cannot have
its doctrine, so fundamental, in this matter set aside and superseded without
placing it, and its instructors, in a very dubious and unenviable light.’
1 Thus Papias says: ‘‘If I met a brother who had known the Apostles, I asked him
carefully what they had said ; what Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and
Matthew had said. I thought I could gather more from a living testimony than from
books.” Again he remarks (quoted by Brooks, El. Proph. Interp., p. 37) : ‘‘ That what
he relates are the very words of the elders, Andrew, Peter, Thomas, James, John, Matthew,
Aristio, and John the Presbyter, as related to him by those of whom he constantly made
the inquiry,’ and pledges himself to the ‘‘truth and fidelity of what he reports.’’
Papias is said (by Irenzus) to have been one of John’s hearers, and he was intimate with
Polycarp. Is it credible that in so vital a matter as the Kingdom, when the gospel
itself was ‘‘ the gospel of the Kingdom,’ the Fathers nearest to the apostles could have
been mistaken? If so, what assurance have we that they not also misapprehended all
other points? Justin Martyr also appeals to ‘‘a certain man among us, whose name
was John, one of the Apostles of Christ.” The reader may consult lists of Millenarian
Fathers given in Brooks’s El. Proph. Interp., Seiss’s Last Times, etc. They include—with
the reasons given—Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Justin
Martyr, Tatian, Melito, Irenzeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, ranging from a.p.
70 to about a.p. 192. Such Fathers as Lactantius, Methodius, Epiphanius, Gregory of
Nyssa, Paulinus, Victorinus, Apollinaris, and others, follow these. In reference to our
use of Barnabas (for critics are divided, see e.g. Hagenbach’s Mis. of Doc., vol. 1, p. 64,
and Arts. in Encyclops., respecting the author ; although since the Greek has been
discovered by Tischendorf, many indorse the work as that of Barnabas), it may be said,
whatever its merit, etc., that it can be legitimately quoted as one of the earliest of
Christian writings, and fully indicative of the views then held. More than this : no one
can censure us for such a use, when (Hagenbach, His. of Doc., vol. 1, p. 86) Anti-
Millenarians, as Clement and Origen, who did so much to obscure our doctrine, quoted
the Epistle as ‘‘ in equal esteem with the Scriptures.”’
2 Those who make light of this primitive faith cannot help feeling the sarcastic
remarks of Gibbon (ch. 15, Decl. and Fall), or cannot avoid, logically, the conclusions of
Desprez (John), and of a multitude of unbelievers. It is simply impossible to account
for the belief without lowering the credibility and authority of the first teachers of the
church, unless we accept of it as legitimate and the natural outgrowth of a correct teach-
ing. The lowest form of attack in meeting our views is to stab these Fathers, charging
them with unreliability, credulity, superstition, etc. This manner of procedure is as
old as Eusebius and Jerome. Just as Eusebius e.g. makes out Papias illiterate and weak
when referring to his Millenarian sentiments, and yet receives him (B. 3 : 32) as
‘* eloquent and learned in the Scriptures’ on other points, so e.g. Prof. Stuart (Com.
Apoc.), in his estimate of the early Fathers, underrates them on Millenarian grounds—
being in their theological views so vitally different from his own—and yet often quotes
them, with evident relish and forgetfulness of his estimate, when they happen to be in
agreement with himself. So with Channing (Remarks on Milton, Works, p. 189), Le
452 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 72.

Clere (Bid. 25 : 289), and others, who represent them as just emerging from darkness
into light, and hence abounding in childish credulity, ete. :
The chief point alleged as evidence of the weakness of Papias and Irenzus (and which
brought forth the scoffing of Whitby, Middleton, Stuart, Macdill, and others) is the oft-
quoted “‘ grape story’’ (referring to the astounding fruitfulness of the vine, etc.). But
let the reader consider that Papias’ writings being lost, and Irenzus’ being in a transla-
tion (the Greek also lost), it is impossible to correct or substantiate the exact language
originally used (comp. candid remarks of Brooks, Hl. Proph. Interp., p. 56, and Farrar’s—
Life of Christ, vol. 1, p. 320, foot-note—allusion to and explanation of the same, as well
as Greswell On the Parables, vol. 1, p. 296). It may be a hyperbole like that of John
21:25 in reference to the predicted productiveness of the earth during the Mill. era,
to which others have added, under the impression of heightening the effect. It may be
even error, for in the details—and as given from hearsay and reported as such, exaggera-
tion may have found scope—the best of men may fall into mistake. But this does not
invalidate the leading, fundamental doctrine ; it really confirms it, seeing that, under
the influence of such a doctrine and its related restitution to Paradisiacal fruitfulness,
such statements are engrafted upon it.* Those who reject Papias and Irenzus on the
ground of exaggeration, ought then in consistency to reject Origen and many of the
other side following, who have been guilty of far greater extravagances in doctrinal
statements. Indeed, the writer feels that, while rejecting the story in its present form,
or regarding it as hyperbolical, it requires far more credulity to receive some of the
statements of the defamers of these Fathers (as e.g. Eusebius’ ‘‘ New Jerusalem,”
equivalent to Rome, Prof. Stuart’s ‘‘ Neroic Theory,’’ Whitby's ‘‘ New Hypothesis,”
etc.) than to accept of these utterances attributed to them. To be witty at the expense
of some advocate, or to find some believer extravagant in view, does not, by any means,
disprove our doctrine.
Another disreputable mode of procedure to lower the Fathers in the estimation of
others or to make them contradictory, is (1) to interpolate or omit, (2) to ascribe to
them what they never said, (3) and to ascribe to them some heretical sentiments. In
reference to the first, Brooks shows (Hl. Proph. Interp., p. 52, 53) that in printed copies
of Justin the word ‘‘ not’ was omitted in the sentence which expressly asserts that
those who are not following the pure doctrine—who are the unorthodox—reject the
Chiliastic view.+ Popish influence, no doubt, appears in this omission (see another
suppression mentioned, p. 54). Bh. Newton (vol. 2, p. 370) has shown that Dr. Mid-
dleton (Inquiry, p. 26) in quoting Justin Martyr has interpolated the phrase ‘‘in the

* Comp. Dr. Neander’s statement (Genl. Ch. His., vol. 2, p. 405-6) respecting spurious
works and interpolations, making it difficult to obtain the exact views held. Various
writers hold that this grape story is ‘‘ a burlesque on the term thousand, written by some
opponent of the doctrine in corrupting the text of Papias,” and ‘* doubtless much more
of the ‘ fanciful and sensuous’ has a similar origin, for Chillingworth says that ‘ imput-
ing to them that which they held not’ was one of the means of overbearing the Mille-
narian doctrine” (so e.g. Editor, Proph. Times, vol. 5, p. 194).
+ The student who desires to investigate the controversy respecting the suppression of
the word ‘‘ not,’’ will find in favor of its retention : Mede, Works, B. 3, P. 2, p. 538;
Arch. Tillotson, Works, vol. 3, p. 380 ; Daille, Use of the Futhers, p. 289 ; Chillingworth’s
Worlcs, p. 732 ; Muencher, His. Ch. Doctrine, vol. 2, p. 450, ete. Dy. Macdill refers to the
following as favoring the suppression of the word ‘“‘ not :” Thirlby, Hagenbach, Nean-
der (!), Shedd (!), Kelly (a Pre-Mill. !), Rossler, Semisch (!), Ed. of the Parisian Ed. ; to
which we add Jebb. Dr. Morehead, in his reply to Dr. Macdill (in the Chicago U. P.
Ch. paper, The Instructor, 1879), takes the former view. We only add the following : (1)
That some mss., according to Holmes (quoted by Brooks, Hl. Proph. Inter., p. 54), contain
the negative ; (2) that the word “‘ not” makes Justin and Irenzus to be in correspond-
ence ; (3) that the Parisian Editor finds the suppression an obscurity and irreconcilable
with Ireneeus (comp. Brooks, p. 54) ; (4) that many scholars, including our opponents,
receive the negative as essential in order to make good sense ; (5) that the negative is sup-.
ported by the general testimony respecting the generality of belief ; (6G) that the omis-
sion of the word ‘‘ not ’’ does not affect the orthodoxy of view, for, while it then allows
that Christians rejected Chiliasm, yet still it makes Justin say that all Christians exactly
orthodox (‘‘ right-minded in all things’’) were Chiliasts ; (7) that to vindicate the orthodoxy
of pease ihe entire passage (which we quote under Prop. 76) ought to have been sup-
pressed.
 Prop. 72.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 458
enjoyment of all sensual pleasures,’’ which Justin never employed. Even (so Brooks)
the eulogy of Eusebius on Papias as a man ‘‘ most eloquent and skilful in the Script-
ures’’ is omitted in many copies, although found in the ancient. It would not answer
to laud a Chiliast. (On the other hand, Brooks notices how an anti-Millenarian is
praised by Dr. Maclaine in his translation of Mosheim’s Eccl. His., when he adds to
Dionysius the words ‘‘ learned and judicious” not found in the original.) It was not
considered wrong to perpetrate (comp. Mosheim, vol. 1, p. 100, Middleton’s Inquiry, p.
158, Madan’s Thelyphthora, Pref., p. 12, ete.), for the truth’s sake, ‘‘ pious frauds.”’
Beaven (Account of lrenwus, p. 240) says : ‘‘ As the opinions of Irenzus on the Millennium
are different from those which prevailed subsequently with almost universal consent
in the Western Church, that portion of his Treatise is rarely found complete in our
present mss., the copyists not thinking it proper or worth their while to copy what was
generally disapproved by the church. . . . The five last chapters of the fifth book
are wanting in all but two mss.’’ Fortunately, too, this work was recovered and pub-
lished to the world by Erasmus, and not by a Protestant or Millenarian. Mede ( Works,
p. 748) charges Jerome with being an ‘“‘ unequal relator of the opinions of his ad-
versaries,” and adds: “ What credit he deserves in this instance may appear by some
fragments of those authors still remaining, whom he charged with the opinion directly
contrary to that which they expressly affirmed.” It is a matter of amazement that such
a writer as Fairbairn, on the poor authority of Jerome, asserts (On Proph., p. 254) that
the Fathers, without exception, ‘‘ with one voice,’’ including of course the Millenarians,
rejected the notion of a Jewish territorial restoration. Let the reader turn to the quota-
tions that we freely give from e.g. Barnabas, Irenzus, Justin, Tertullian, he will find
an ample refutation of this statement. (The views of these Fathers respecting the fulfil-
ment of the Davidic covenant and prophecy, the location of the Mill. age before the
general judgment, etc., show the student how they understood this matter.) Some
recent writers, without a particle of fairness and justice, repeat Jerome’s charge—a
false representation as shown by Mede, Lardner, and many others—against us (aimed
especially at Tertullian), ‘‘ that the saints shall, in the Millennium, have a great enjoy-
ment of carnal and corporeal pleasures’? (comp. Brooks, p. 59, who gives Tertullian’s
exact language, which distinguishes between the resurrected and glorified saints, and those
persons who are spared—see Props. 152, 153, 154, etc.). To reiterate what is so utterly
unfounded in fact, and which has so frequently been exposed as untrue, is evidence of
enmity and a lack of desire for truth.*
_ But the lowest possible polemical trick is to endeavor to associate these Fathers with
heresy, as Papias with ultra Judaism, Ireneus and Justin with Cerinthism, Tertullian
with extravagant Montanism, and Lactantius with Manicheeism. Weare not concerned
in defending those men ; able pens have triumphantly shown that in no sense have they
been guilty of heresy but were the apposers of heresy. The reader is referred to the
candid statements of Neander, Mede, Lardner, Brooks, Taylor, Lee, Semisch, Greswell,
Dodgson, Mosheim, and a host of others. As to Cerinthus, admitting that he held all
that is alleged (although it has often been noticed that the Mill. theory as presented to
us does not harmonize with his other views, see e.g. Art. Cerinthus, Ency. Brit., etc.), yet
our opponents overlook the fact, that Cerinthus was strongly opposed and crushed by
Millenarians. The assertion of the Ency. of Relig. Knowl., Art. Cerinthus, that ‘‘ he is
to be regarded as the first person who held the doctrine of a mundane Millennium,” is
abundantly refuted by the testimony of the ablest writers, church historians, etc., who
assert (what needs no confirmation, since our argument fully develops it) that the Jews
held to it, and that it was perpetuated in the Jewish-Christian church. It is said by
Waterland, Michaelis, and others, that the Apostle John wrote against Cerinthus (as
asserted by Ireneus and taken from Polycarp). Let this be as it may, John wrote at the
time when he knew the doctrine of Cerinthus. Now, is it credible, if the doctrine of
the Millennium is an error, that John in the Apoc. should employ the very ideas and
language to perpetuate it, as seen in the church? Thus we see how, by such grave
charges, men not only involve the early church in heresy, trace the church itself
through heretical men, but make the apostles justly chargeable with its continuance. It

* It is to be regretted that Books of Reference contain such unfounded charges, as e.g.

Rees’ Cyclop., which takes from Whitby (following Jerome) the misstatement that the risen
saints ‘* propagate their species,’’ as the doctrine of the ancient Millenarians. Not a par-
ticle of proof, in the shape of a direct quotation from any of the Fathers, can be given to
substantiate such an assertion. Surely, when this is lacking, simple honesty and justice
demand the withdrawal of this mode of attack.
454 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Pror. 72.

is a sad fact, that if many of the Apostolic and Primitive Fathers were now living, they
could not, with their views of covenant and prophecy, be received as preachers in thou-
sands of pulpits. In reference to Cerinthus, the student will do well to consider the
temperate language of Mosheim (Com. on the State of the Church, etc.) respecting his
doctrine, attributing much that is said of him to prejudice and hatred. For it must
ever be borne in mind that what we know of Cerinthus (as holding Chiliasm) comes
from the bitter adversaries of Millenarianism, while the Chiliastic opposers of Cerinthus
never mention his holding so grossly to a carnal Millennium. Lardner (Works, vol. 2,
p. 701) also thinks that Cerinthus is misrepresented in some things, and this is the
opinion of Bh. Bull, Mede, and many others. Mansel (Gnostic Heresies, p. 114) says:
“ both Mosheim and Neander consider the accounts of the sensual Chiliasm of Cerinthus
to be misrepresentations.” The critical student can readily see why it is impossible to
reconcile Chiliasm with his alleged views. Cerinthus, as all affirm, was a Gnostic, and
his doctrine (as e.g. making Jesus in his humanity a transient vehicle or mere phantom,
—which John opposed, although giving us Rev. 20 : 1-6) was utterly hostile to a Mil-
lenarian position. Hence Neander doubts the Chiliasm of Cerinthus as reported, simply
because it would be antagonistic to his own system, and (Genl. Ch. His., vol. 2, p. 47)
after giving in detail his doctrine, adds: ‘‘ It may be a question, indeed, whether he
entertained such gross and sensual notions of this Millennial Sabbath as Caius and
Dionysius imputed to him ; for such views would hardly be in keeping with his system
asa whole. He spoke indeed of a wedding-feast—an image then commonly employed
to signify the blessed union of the Messiah with his saints ;but on such an image any
one who was both unfamiliar with the figurative language of the Kast, and interpreted
his language under the bias of unfriendly feelings, might easily put a wrong construction.
Dionysius indeed says that, in speaking of festivals and sacrifices, he was only seeking
to veil his own gross and sensual notions. But what warrant had he for such an asser-
tion? If Cerinthus had really taught such a grossly sensual Chiliasm, there would be
in this something so repugnant to the whole spirit of Gnosticism, and so strongly tending
to the Jewish point of view, as to make it necessary for us to rank him with the
Judaists, rather than with the Gnostics.” As to Chiliasts, he says in relation e.g.
to Justin (Genl. Ch. His., vol. 2, p. 423): ‘‘ An antipathy to Gnosticism,and to the
doctrines of Marcion, is strongly merked in both works ; and with this feeling Chiliasm
at that time readily sympathized.’’ In other places he alludes to early Chiliasts being
hostile to Gnosticism in all its forms. This is the candid statement of one who is no
sympathizer with our doctrine, over against the repeated false misrepresentations of
opponents at the present day, who, with delight, repeat the old oft-refuted statements
respecting Cerinthus, but are very careful not to refer to such critical statements of
scholars.

Obs. 4. This generally admitted view of the Kingdom entertained by the

early churches, is supposed by many, especially at the present day, to form
a decided objection to Christianity. Infidels exultingly parade it, en-
deavoring to take advantage of it to show that the teachers and members
were alike fallible and ignorant men,—hence untrustworthy.! Christians
endeavor to break its force by (1) denying its generality or asserting that
but comparatively few held the belief? (2} by disconnecting the faith of the
church from the teaching of the Apostles,* and (8) by ascribing it to a
Jewish or heretical origin.* We, on the contrary, hold that, according to
the truth, i was impossible for the first churches under the personal teach-
ing and supervision of inspired men to have any other faith respecting the
Kingdom than that which history ascribes to the first Christians. The
belief of those churches is a logical result, legitimate outgrowth of previous
teaching, and the only one that harmonizes with the most essential portion
of God’s Word, viz.: the Covenants.
1 Gibbon (Decl. and Fall Rom. Emp., ch. 15, p. 535), describing the Chiliastic view, and
correctly noticing that ‘‘ the ancient and popular doctrine of the Millennium was intimate.
ly connected with the Sec. Coming of Christ,” finally remarks : ‘‘ The assurance of such
a Millennium was carefully inculcated by a succession of fathers from Justin Martyr and
Trenzus, who conversed with the immediate disciples of the apostles, down to Lactantius,
Prop. 72.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 455

who was preceptor to the son of Constantine.” Our opponents in reply to Gibbon have
very unfairly asserted that he was mistaken as to the extent in which it was held, when he
adds : ‘‘ Though it might not be universally received, it appears to have been the reigning
sentiment of orthodos believers,’’ etc. This has been repeated before and since, and the
authorities given, which, to say the least, are uncontrovertible. The use made of it by
Gibbon follows, that ‘‘ The doctrine of Christ's reign upon earth was at first treated as a
profound allegory, was considered by degrees as a doubtful and useless opinion, and
was at length rejected as the absurd invention of heresy and fanaticism.’’ Of course,
the church and the truth suffer by such a comparison, for if the modern prevailing
view is the correct one, then the Primitive Church was perpetuated by errorists and
fanatics, or, if the Primitive Chiliastic position is one in accordance with the truth, then
the modern rejection of it is a wide departure from the true landmarks. The student,
unless he can show that Gibbon is mistaken (which none of his annotators have ventured
to do), must in all candor consider this dilemma. The favorite tactics of many un-
believers is to contrast the modern prevailing view respecting the Messiah and His
Kingdom with that of the apostolic and Primitive Church, point out the palpable dis-
crepancies, and then deduce from it the conclusion, that the growing intelligence of the
Church could not tolerate the Jewish doctrine which superstition and ignorance had
perpetuated. Many works present this line of reasoning in order to disparage the
founders of Christianity.
* Thus, to give an illustration out of a host: Lindsay (Art. Mill. in Ency. Brit.), in
stating the belief of the early churches, says, in opposition to overwhelming testimony to
the contrary : ‘‘ the opinion does not seem to have become general in the church,” and
looking for proof in behalf of such a sweeping assertion, we are referred to Origen in these
words : ‘‘ Indeed, we are expressly informed by Origen that it was confined to ‘ those of
the simpler sort,’ and to such as, ‘refusing the labor of intelligence, followed the
superficial mode of literal interpretation.’” This is certainly uncandid, for we have
here (1) nothing said of the eatent of belief prevailing ; (2) the testimony of an
opponent, who in other places speaks well of Chiliasts ; (3) the ebullition of feeling
excited against opponents who would not receive Origen’s spiritualistic and aliegorical
method of interpretation ; (4) the virtual indorsement of Origen’s system as ‘‘ the labor
of intelligence,” over against that of his opponents ; (5) and the allowing, through this
indirect impeachment of folly and ignorance, that the Apostolic and Primitive Fathers
holding Chiliasm, were, in comparison with Origen and his class, ‘‘ the simpler sort,”
etc. (See for Origen, Prop. 76.) The only additional proof, also indirect, derived
from Neander, is, that ‘‘ the defensive attitude” assumed ‘‘ by the advocates of the
doctrine affords a strong presumption that it was not the doctrine of the church in
general.” This is a mere begging of the question, seeing (1) that the generality is based
on the fact that for a long period the church Fathers, as far as known, were express Mil-
lenarians ,; (2) that this is the direct testimony of Justin, and is implied in the expression
of others (as e.g. Irenzeus conversing with others and gathering material from them,
etc.) ; (3) that a difference of view among the orthodox believers is never hinted at as
existing, as e.g. Irenzeus, the disciple of Polycarp, or Justin Martyr, in arguing and
teaching enforce a unity of belief in the very manner of expression—as if the doctrine
were general’; (4) the upholding of the doctrine so prominently by the leading Apologists
of Christianity (Justin) indicates its extent ; (5) “‘ the defensive attitude’’ is assumed, as
Justin expressly asserts (not against orthodox), against ‘‘ even those of that race of
Christians who follow not godly and pure doctrine.’’ Every tyro in church history
well knows that Gnosticism, and other tendencies, opposed to our doctrine, were
already working in the church and outside in the first century, and this abundantly
accounts for the argumentative and defensive style adopted. More than this: it is
explained by the simple fact that they thus better repressed the objecticns that Jews
might allege against Christianity (comp. Prop. 193). Other illustrations will be given
under Prop. 75,and we simply reproduce a challenge often made and repeated by the
Editor of the Prophetic Times (vol. 1, p. 71): ‘‘ We challenge our opponents to produce
the evidence of the entertainment of anti-Millenarian views by any orthodox and ac-
knowledged Christian teacher for the first two hundred years of our era.’’ When this
evidence is produced then Lindsay, Neander, and others may have something substantial
to build upon ; until it is produced we are slow to receive their statements. Hence such
writers as Ueberweg (His. of Philosophy, vol. 1, p. 264, when referring to the early
Patristic period) are most certainly incorrect, when they say : ‘‘ There arose in Chris-
tianity, in opposition to the reality of the Kingdom of the world, the idea of a Kingdom
of God founded on purity of heart. The expectation of the Messiah among the Jewish
people was spiritualized,” etc. Now the incontestable facts of history make this idea
456 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 72.

of a Kingdom and this spiritualizing @ later development—as we shall show—and Ueberweg

and others take the liberty of transferring what belongs to a later period to an earlier one.
Such works, of course, influence other minds to occupya view unsupported by his-
torical fact. A writer in the Princeton Review (Ap. 1851, p. 217), led on by his zeal against
Millenarianism, remarks : ‘‘ That the commission is to teach all nations without dis-
tinction that Christ is now King, that He occupies the throne of David, that the King-
dom is spiritual, that that Kingdom is the Church, that the agencies for preserving and
enlarging it are purely moral and spiritual (except, of course, God’s providential control
of all things), and that it is to spread over the whole earth, are truths which the Christian
world has believed from the times of the apostles until now.” Indeed ! we should like ¢o have
the history for all this, which thus loads the commission (see Prop. 175) with ‘‘ truths”
not contained in it. Such statements are not solely dictated by ignorance ; other
motives evidently prompt them, for we have a higher opinion of the historical knowl-
edge of such opponents than to attribute the former to them.
2'The critical student, desirous to secure truth, will notice the lack of candor in
numerous Encyclopedias, Eccles. Histories, Dogmatics, etc., in tracing our doctrine.
Thus e.g. reference as to its origin is made to a heretical source, the number of ad-
herents are represented as insignificant as possible, etc., and not a single allusion is
made to the doctrinal views of the apostles or disciples which they preached when sent
out by Jesus, and which are admitted by all commentators and critics (in view of Acts
1:6, etc.) to have been intensely Jewish and in full accord with our doctrine. Let
the mind, wnbiassed, ponder Props. 43, 44, etc., and can a plausible reason be assigned
why the views of disciples, under the personal instruction of Jesus, should be thus
persistently ignored. Suppose even that they were in error, yet in a historical account
of our doctrine, certainly such evidence ought not, in common justice, be omitted. But
the uncandidness is manifested even to a greater extent. Killen (Ancient Church) pro-
fessing to give (ch. 5, p. 445, etc.) ‘“ The Doctrine of the Church,” during the first three
centuries, entirely ignores the existence of our doctrine, although he can enter into details
respecting trivial affairs—a sad defect in impartial history, evincing prejudice in the
historian, and, may we add, fear of the antiquity of our views. In another place and
connection (p. 369) he can, however, complacently reproduce Eusebius’ disparaging
remarks respecting Papias and Irenzus in connection with an allusion to our doctrine,
without the slightest reference to other places where these Fathers are eulogized. The
design is apparent. Others imbibe and exhibit, alas! the same unfairness, not
realizing that they thus weaken their own ground and strengthen our position. We give
another illustration :A writer in the Princeton Revjew, July, 1856, p. 541, tells us that
Waldegrave has shown that after the Second Advent all the saints shall be transplanted
into the third heaven, and that the only Kingdom to be realized is one eternal in the
heavens above, and then adds: ‘‘ Such is the clear, tried, ancient Catholic holding of Gods
people, in all ages, which is to be superseded by the sensuous imagery (Millenarianism)
of an earthly Kingdom.” The palpakle misstatement of the first clause of the sentence
is only equalled by the sneer levelled at God’s own Purpose in the last one. Such
wholesale affirmations can only delude the ignorant.
4 Thus e.g. Milman in his notes on Gibbon can only say that (p. 533 and 535, foot-
notes) our doctrine is “ purely Jewish’’ or “a fable of Jewish dotage.’’ But this is no
answer to Gibbon ; it leaves the matter as it was before, without the least attempt to
explain how it comes that churches, East and West, were for so long a time intensely
Jewish in their views of the Kingdom (comp. Props. 68, 69, 76, etc.). Had the apostles
and ‘their immediate successors no power, if in error, to check, or at least to protest
against, such a tendency? On the other hand, if derived from heresy, it only makes
matters worse, for then how is it possible to trace the pure orthodo« Church. If our op-
ponents had only one, or two, or more, of the very early Fathers to sustain their
position, then, and only then, might they frame something like a logical argument favor-
ing such a derivation. But such writers are not to be found in the first and second
centuries, and even in the third they are few in number. So, again, Dr. Lindsay (Art.
“ Mill.” in Encyclop. Brit.) admits and argues (although leaving out the Scriptural basis
of the covenant) the Jewish origin of our doctrine ; that it was held from ‘“‘ comparatively
an early age,” etc. ; and then, coming to the Christian Church, remarks : ‘‘ From the
Jews this notion of a personal rejgn of the Messiah with His saints on earth, was
adopted by several in the early church, by whom the passage in the Apoc., above re-
ferred to, was confidently quoted in support of this opinion.’’ What shall we say (1)
to the unfair method of making the impression by the word “‘ several” as if but a few,
very few, entertained our view, over against Justin’s direct assertion that all that were
orthodox held to it; (2) and to the one-sidedness of the whole article, endeavoring to
Prop. 72.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 457

indicate that our doctrine was obtained from Jewish sources outside of the Scriptures, and
from a rigid literal interpretation of one portion of the Apoc. Why, in all candor and
justice, does he not allow, e.g. Barnabas or Ireneus or Justin to give the covenant and the
prophecies upon which they base their views? Is it right to ignore the express testimony
of Scripture, which these and other worthies alleye in behalf of their doctrinal position ?
(Comp., for Jewish belief before and at the First Advent, p. 240, etc., of Freedom and
Fellowship in Meligion.)
In reference to the charge of heresy (see Obs. 3, note 2), it may briefly be said that
this originates from an unacquaintance with the history of our doctrine, from an over-
looking of its Scriptural basis and the character of the men who have embraced it, from
receiving the accusation from others without examination, or from pure malice and
bigotry. Writers eminent for learning and ability, who are opposed to us, well knowing
how extensively our views were held by men who lived and died for the church, are very
guarded not to bring such a charge, seeing that if brought it is impossible to trace the
church from the apostles saving through a “‘ heretical’? medium. In the early church
Chiliasts were its preachers, defenders, and apologists. Indeed, we are indebted to
many of our scholarly opponents (as e.g. Neander, Bush, etc.) for defending, ably,
Millenarian Fathers against such a charge. And the defense is simple and just, seeing
that these very Fathers were the men who opposed directly the heretical tendencies of
the early age. Some Protestants might even learn a lesson of charity from Roman
Catholics. While Romanism hates the doctrine and forbids its belief (because so
antagonistic to its pretensions), yet some writers of this class are too wise to brand it
as heresy. Although anxious for the sake of their church to make its numbers as few
as possible, and its doctrines erroneous, yet Schlegel (Philos. Jis., Sec. 11), calling it
an ‘‘ error or rather illusion’’ ‘‘1n the history of those early ages of the church,’’ adds :
‘Nor did its partisans constitute a sect, but it was merely the exaggerated opinion of
some individuals in the bosom of the church, who were animated by no intentions hostile to
Christianity.” He calls them ‘‘ many virtuous and praiseworthy men.” Itis a fact that
even the first prominent opposer of Chiliasm, Origen (e.g. Neander, Ch. His., vol. 1, p.
551), speaks in language of toleration ; the same is true of Jerome and others (comp.
Prop. 76).

Obs. 5. Our doctrine has a Jewish origin, founded upon Jewish cove-
nants, Jewish predictions, Jewish faith, and a Jewish Messiah (Prop. 68,
69, etc.). Many writers, whether intended as a reproach or as a historical
fact, trace our doctrine to a Jewish source. ‘This is correct, whether sar-
castically or soberly presented. | We have already quoted (Prop. 68),
Shedd, Mosheim, Walch, Prof. Bush, Hodge, Milman, and Lindsay as
attributing its rise to a Jewish faith. How could it be otherwise when, as
we have shown and proven under previous Propositions, the Jews at the
First Advent and the disciples sent forth to preach the Kingdom held pre-
cisely to our doctrines respecting the Kingdom and the reign of the saints ;
when, as Auberlen (Obs. 1) aptly said, all, including Jesus and the proph-
ets, were Chiliasts.'. Chiliasm is not doctrinally fixed by the duration of
the reign (Prop. 159), but is determined by the nature of the Messianic
Kingdom.’
' Out of the abundance of material, a number of additional references and quotations
may prove acceptable to the reader. The Art. ‘‘ Millennium’’ in M’Clintock and Strong’s
Cyclop., referring to Josephus (Art. 18, 1,3; War 2, 8, 14), Daniel (12 : 2), Barnabas,
Book of Enoch, Test. of Twelve Patriarchs, Sibylline books, etc., says: ‘‘ it was early
adopted, especially by Jewish Christians,’’ and “it penetrated into the Gentile branch of
the church and spread extensively.’’ Neander (Genl. Ch. History, vol. 2, p. 396, ascribes
to a Jewish origin ‘‘ the idea of a Millennial reign which the Messiah would set up on the
earth,’’ and this is several times repeated (we give a quotation from him under the Prop.
of Jewish objections). In his Llis. of Dogmas he informs us that Millenarianism was
generally taught, giving all the eminent church Fathers of the period as supporting it
(Barnabas, Irenzeus, Papias, Justin), and he endeavors to discriminate between a refined
and a sensuous form in which it was taught, asserting “ by many it was held spiritually,
and clashed not with the Christian spirit’? (but who those ‘‘ many” were who thus held
it purely, ‘‘ spiritually,” he does not inform us, and we must conclude them imaginary
458 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 72.

persons, of whom we have no record whatever). He then traces the doctrine back to
Judaism, “ for among the Jews the representation was current that Messiah would reign a
thousand years on earth,” and he tells us that this notion was derived from Ps..90 ; 41,
the symbolical character of the six days of Creation, and the seventh being a Sabbath
(comp. Prop, 143, for testimony corroborating Neander). So cumulative and irresistible
is the proot that we leave an opponent to sum it up, and give the details as follows : The
Princeton Review (Ap., 1850, p. 329), in a hostile notice of Rev. Imbrie’s sermon, ‘‘ The
Kingdom of God,’’ pronounces our view ‘‘ the Jewish doctrine; and by Jewish we mean
that actually held by the Jews. They taught, 1. That the Messiah was to appear and
reign in person gloriously in Jerusalem. 2. That all the Jews were to be gathered in
the Holy Land. 3. That the pious dead were to be raised to share the blessings of the
Messiah’s reign. 4. That the Messiah and His people were to reign over all nations for
a thousand years. 5. That at the end of that period Satan was to be loosed, and a great
conflict ensue, after which were to come the general resurrection and final judgment.
This theory was by many Christians, during the second and third centuries’’ (observe,
he omits the first, as if none existed then, over against the positive testimony in our
favor), ‘“‘ adopted bodily. The only difference was, that what the Jews expected to
occur at the first coming, these Christians anticipated at the Second Advent of the Messiah.”
We most cordially accept of this statement. Having already given extensive quotations
respecting the Jewish views held (as in Prop. 20, etc.), we only need a few in addition.
Ebrard (Gosp. His., p. 2, ch. 2), in opposing Bruno Bauer’s assertion that the Messianic
idea originated with Jesus and was afterward elaborated, presents the ‘‘ Data concerning
the expectation of a Messiah,” refuting so gross a statement by giving historical facts.
These show that the Jews ‘“‘ looked for the promised re-establishment of the Theocratic
Kingdom,’’ which was ‘‘ the Kingdom of the Messiah,” and that ‘‘ there was a distinct
expectation of a personal Messiah, a Davidic King, and a political Saviour.” M’Clintock and
Strong’s Cyclop., Art. ‘‘ Kingdom of God,’’ thus gives the Jewish view : “ The Jews, at
large, gave to these prophecies a temporal meaning, and expected a Messiah who should
come in the clouds of heaven, and, as King of the Jewish nation, restore the ancient
religion and worship, reform the corrupt morals of the people, make expiation for their
sins, free them from the yoke of foreign dominion, and, at length, reign over the whole
earth in peace and glory.’’ ‘The student is directed to an interesting Art. by Rev.
Schodde in The Lutheran Quarterly (July, 1879), entitled ‘‘ The Messianic Idea in Pre-
Christian Apocalyptic Literature” (and he refers to Drummond’s The Jewish Messiah,
London, 1877; The Svbylline Books in Edinb. Review, July, 1877; Evcursus, in Prof.
Stuart’s Apoc., etc.). He declares that the Jewish Messianic idea prevalent at the First
Advent was incorporated in the Pre-Mill. view, showing the similarity by various quota:
tions. An extract may be in place. He mentions the ‘‘ Psalterium Salamonis’’ or 18
Psalms, supposed to be written shortly before the First Advent, which laments the
destruction of David’s Kingdom, looks for the Son of David, and a restoration under
him of a Theocratic Kingdom, with spirituality and external glory. This work speaks
of the Messiah as God’s “‘ Anointed,” and prays that God would hasten in mercy to
raise up and inaugurate the long expected Kingdom of His Anointed. One prayer is:
‘*God hasten His mercy over Israel, and deliver us from the uncleanliness of the
impious heathen. The Lord Himself is our King to all eternity.” They speak of this
King being of the house of David, and fully recognize the Theocratic nature of the
Kingdom. The ‘‘ Assumptio Mosis,” of which only fragments remain, refers to the
Messianic Kingdom, and to the inaugurator as being the Celestial One, the Most High God,
the Eternal One, i.e. God Himself. The student may well consider the statement of
Shedd (I/is. Ch. Doc., B.C., who received the merited strictures of Lillie, Shimeall, etc);
who speaks of our doctrine as ‘‘ a later Jewish doctrine,” and then adds : ‘‘ The disciples
of Christ, being themselves Jews, were at first naturally infected with these views.” The
simple historical fact, as noticed by Chillingworth and others, is this : that the nearer you
come to the apostolic period, the more generally was it taught by the Fathers as held by the Jews
and disciples. Jerome and others, consequently, 1n view of the agreement, call it
** Judaizing ;” and our most bitter opposers (as e.g. Knapp, Ch. Theol., p. 323) fully
admit that the Jews as‘ a current opinion” held that ‘* He (Christ) would be a temporal
deliverer and a King of the Jews, and, indeed, a Universal Monarch, who would reign over °
all nations. Thus they interpreted Ps. 2: 2, 6, 8, Jer. 23:5, 6, Zech. 9:4 seq.” (He
might have given many Scriptural passages thus used.) “The apostles themselves held this
opinion until after the resurrection of Christ, Matt. 20 : 20, 21, Luke 24 : 21, Acts 1:6.”
Commentators find our view, as Jewish, in various other passages, as e.g. Luke 1 : 71,
and 17 : 20 and 19 : 11, Acts 2 : 26, 30, ete. Indeed, there is not one but refers to our
idea of the Messianic Kingdom as received by the Jews in the times of the First Advent.
 Prop. 72.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 459
? Chiliasm or Millenarianism (the former word derived from the Greek, and the latter
from the Latin, expressive of a thousand years) is most generally used to denote the
doctrine of the Pre-Mill. Advent of the Messiah, and His personal reign on earth, at
least during the thousand years. Dr. Breckenridge (Pref. to Judge Jones’s Notes) has
well observed that the word ‘‘ Millenarian’’ has become extremely *‘ vague,’’ as our op-
ponents who hold to a future Millennium are also in a certain sense ‘‘ Millena-
rians.’’ Originally, however, it was exclusively employed to designate our doctrine
(and thus it is still retained by many writers), incorporating with it the definite
notion (Rev. 20) of the one thousand years (which, however, in the estimation of
leading Foreign and American advocates, does not limit the reign—see Prop. 159). As
others also have adopted a Millennium, the following designations have been extensively
received and used to distinguish with greater accuracy the various beliefs : ‘‘ Pre-
Millenarian,’’ one who holds te the Mill. age, introduced by the personal Advent and
reign of the Messiah; ‘‘ Post-Millenarian,” one who has the same age brought in
without the Advent, placing the latter at its close ; ‘‘ Anti-Millenarian, one who rejects
the doctrine of such an era; ‘‘ Past-Millenarian,’’ one who locates the Mill. age in the
past, or extends it from the past to the present in the course of realization (these last,
however, are more frequently designated as “‘ Anti-Millenarian,”’ i.e. opposed to a
future Millennium).

Obs. 6. The early church Theology on this doctrine—notwithstanding

the sneers of Gibbon and his fellow unbelievers, notwithstanding the pain-
fully apologetic language of Prof. Bush, Dr. Neander, and others—is not
only reasonable, but the most reasonable, because of its vital connection with
what preceded. Reuss (His. of Ch. Theol. in Ch., ‘‘On Salvation ’’)
declares, that faith fastened on its ‘‘ object the Lord Jesus Christ and His
Messianic dignity, which necessarily included the assured realization of
the promises touching the Kingdom ;’’ and after repeatedly stating in his
work that the early Theology was largely taken up with views respecting the
Kingdom (for this naturally resulted from the views of the Christship or
Messiahship of Jesus), he informs us, that the position of those who were
the faithful was ‘‘ obedience to God, which is to give us a title to the
Kingdom, and faith in Jesus, who will soon come to establish it.’? Faith
and obedience inspired hope that the covenanted promises, pertaining to the
Kingdom, would be verified through Christ at His coming again ; any
other position, in view of what preceded and surrounded them, would
have been unnatural and opposed to the truth.
We will allow a Liberalist to state from his standpoint the Primitive belief. Thus e.g,
Potter (Hreedom and Fellowship in Religion, Essay 5, ‘‘ Christianity and its Definitions’’)
says : ‘‘In that childlike age, among a childlike people, something more was needed
than a bare proclamation of moral and spiritual truth, with whatever power of personal
genius. And this need was supplied by the old Hebrew conception of the speedy coming
of the Messianic Kingdom—a conception that appealed with all the vividness of a drama
to the spiritual imagination, and hopes and fears of man. This idea is the one thread of
unity that runs through all the varieties of writings in the New Test. from Matt. to Rev.
It was this that gradually lifted Jesus Himself out of all human and historic proportions
into the colossal magnitude in which He has been seen by Christendom for eighteen
centuries. It was the belief, after His crucifixion, in His second Messianic Advent—an
event which His followers looked for in their lifetime—that gave the immediate animating
impulse to their cause, and attracted such numbers of people to confess Him as the
expected Christ ; for this Advent was to solve all life's trials and perplexities ; it was to
bring redemption to the sinful, rest to the weary, wealth to the destitute, and comfort
to the sorrowing. And around this simple, childish hope, which was yet full to bursting
with the deep life of spiritual aspirations and yearnings, the first Christian Church was
gathered—a sect of Judaism accepting Jesus as the Messiah, and looking for His Sec.
Coming to complete and establish His Sovereignty.” Compare in same work Abbot's
‘* Genius of Christianity and Free Religion,’’ in which “‘ the Messianic faith is the soul of
the entire New Test., giving unity to the Gospels, Epistles, and Apoc., and making
460 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRrop. 72.

Christianity a vital organism ;”’ ‘‘ the Messianic idea is the great taproot of Christianity.”’
Martineau (Nat. Review, Ap., 1863) is approvingly quoted : “ Whoever can read the New
Test. with a fresh eye must be struck with the prominence everywhere of the Messianic
idea. It seems to be the ideal framework of the whole—of history, parable, dialogue;
of Pauline reasoning ; of Apocalyptic visions.’’ Similar testimony to a large extent
might be adduced, but this is sufficient to indicate how these men clearly apprehend
the original and true meaning of the Messiahship as retained by the early church (which
is incontrovertible), and from it deduce the fact (alas! sadly evident in the church)
that the Messianic idea was changed. This is true, but not in the way that they account
for it, either as a logical change by development (so Abbot), or as a requisite accommoda-
tion to Gentilism by Paul (so Frothingham), or as a childlike opinion adapted to a
transition period (so Potter). Allowing any of these results as legitimate (taken too
from Christian Apologists), undermines the New Test. record, the inspiration and au-
thority of the apostles, and lowers the Primitive faith to a mere childish standard. Our
reply to all this will be found under various Propositions.

Obs. 7. The apologetic replies of those who reject our doctrine, given
to infidels, etc., to account for the Primitive faith, are wnworthy of
churches established wnder apostolic teaching and influence. Haton
(Perm. of Christ., p. 262) gracefully acknowledges the early church view,
and rebukes Gibbon because he treats the early belief as a vulgar super-
stition, saying : “‘ It does not seem to have occurred to this writer that the
secret of the success of the Christianity may well have lain in the harmony
of its doctrines with the religious needs of the time, the deliverance which
it held forth from the impending ruin at the end of the world, by many
deemed so near,’’ etc. Aside from the inaccuracy of ‘‘ the end of the
world’’ believed in (for the early Christians had no idea of the modern view
of such an end, but looked for the end of the age or dispensation, to be
followed by another more glorious under Christ—(compare Props. 140,
137, 141, 138, etc.)—the rebuke falls harmless unless we take higher ground
than the mere ‘‘ needs of the time.’’ Prof. Bush (On Mill., p. 22)
accepts of Gibbon’s language that ‘‘ for wise purposes, this error was per-
mitted in the church,’’ and argues that such views of the Kingdom were
undoubtedly for the best in the early history of the church. If this is so,
well may infidelity sneer at and ridicule the establishment of the Christian
church. With inspired men as its teachers ; with apostles, supposed to
know what the Kingdom is, its leaders ; with elders to whom the church
was entrusted for guidance ; with the restrictions cast around error, the
duty enjoined of holding the truth, the honor and faithfulness of God
Himself connected with it—the church needs no such unworthy defence,
making ‘‘error’’ essential to its establishment, success, and progress.
We have works written by able men, in which, in order to prevent the force of the
evidence given in our behalf by the early church, under the heading of “ Judwo-Chris-
tianity,’’ they frankly admit how generally our doctrine was held—even by apostles—and
argue that, in the case of all these, it was a necessary precedence for the future develop-
ment of the truth ; that as knowledge increased ‘‘ the husk’’ was discarded, etc. Thus
e.g. Reuss in his His. of Ch. Theol. of the Apostolic Age. This, stripped of its philosophical
verbiage, simply means : (1) that these apostles and their immediate successors were in
gross error, i.e. possessed the mere ‘‘ husk ;’’ (2) that error is a requisite preliminary to
bring out the truth ; (3) that error was a necessary—hence permitted—-condition in that
period of the church ; (4) that the true source of our knowledge is not in the teachings of
the apostles (as e.g. Petrine school), but in the progress of knowledge through “ the
consciousness of the church ;’’ (5) that for the true doctrine of the Kingdom we are
indebted, not to men specially commissioned to preach the Kingdom, but to uninspired
men who afterward arose as teachers. Having already replied to this, these things are
pointed out to indicate the inconsistent and irreligious shifts to which even good men are
driven when denying the truthfulness of the early church view of the Kingdom, No one,
Prop. 72.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 461

therefore, need to be surprised that the Millenarianism of the Primitive Church winged
the shaft hurled at it by the Antinomian Perfectionists in the Confession of their Faith
(published in their organ, The Perfectionist, quoted by the Oberlin Review for May, 1874).
In Art. 24 they say : “ We believe that the history which the Bible contains of the
church after Christ’s ascension, commonly called the Primitive Church, is a history
rather of the latter-day glory of Judaism than of the commencement of Christianity.’
Prejudice can scarcely exceed this in the minds of professed unbelievers. Alas! how
all this recoils upon the truth itself, and paves the way for numerous extravagances.
Let us take one of the most candid and charitable of men, Dr. Neander, who honestly
supposes a difficulty (where none exists), and in endeavoring to soften or remove it,
makes us conscious of an incongruity. In his efforts to clear Chiliasm (Ch. His., vol.
1. p. 364, etc.) from Ebionitism (or else the church proper could only be traced through
Ebionism) he adduces two reasons for the rise of the former : (1)a tolerance or reception
of the letter in accordance with previous views ; and (2) a sensuous element. This does
not remove—it only increases—the difficulty. For how does it come that, under the
direct auspices of the apostles themselves, this reception of ‘‘ the letter’ and of ‘‘a
sensuous element’’ (as he is pleased to call it) occurs? If the early church were so
generally under the influence of the letter, what churches had the Spirit? If the
history of the church is, as he informs us, that in which the leaven works in its (i.e.
churches) most impure state, then the succeeding stages ought progressively to rise in
purity. But is this sustained by history? Do such explanations soften the charge of
unbelievers that ‘‘ error’’ extensively prevailed and was one of the means of success?
To indicate how poorly prepared Neander was to vindicate his own hypothesis—to escape
from the dilemma—unless to sacrifice to a fearful extent the integrity and avthority of
apostleship, it is only necessary to contrast two passages. Thus e.g. in First Planting of
Chris., vol. 1, p. 362, he thus correctly represents James’s sentiments : ‘“‘ He considers the
acknowledgment of the Messiahship of Jesus as essentially belonging to genuine Judaism,
believers in Jesus as the only genuine Jews, Christianity as perfected Judaism,’ etc. Now,
to get rid of James’s connection, he deliberately gives him this Christian character:
*“* We might infer (with Schneckenburger) that James wrote this Epistle at a time when
Christianity had not thoroughly penetrated his spiritual life, during the earliest period of
his Christian development ; but it may be questioned whether we are justified in drawing
such a conclusion, for no proof can be given that he enlarged his doctrinal views at a later
period. itis possible that he remained confined in this form of imperfect doctrinal de-
velopment, although his heart was penetrated by love to God and Jesus.’’ Any theory
of the Kingdom which in its support must thus lower apostolic teaching is most certainly
defective and dishonoring to the Word. It may, indeed, do no serious injury to a man
like Neander (see his faith in dedication) with his development theory, but it is fraught
with evil to thousands. Such men as Bauer, Parker, etc., only find the strongest possible
confirmation to their unbelief in such a line of reasoning, which undermines Scriptural
authority, and leaves the inspired teachers ignorant of a leading, fundamental doctrine,
to the preaching of which they were specially called. All the Apologetics, noticed in a
course of reading, simply amounts, in this direction, to the following: an “ error’’ is
admitted ; various reasons are assigned, attributable to a transition state, for its per-
mission ; and, on the supposition that the prevailing modern view is the correct one, a
change is allowed as the result of increased light. When Dr. Mosheim and others
acknowledge a Jewish origin, and then suppose that Christian teachers receivea it
because they hoped by it to make the Jews more willing to embrace Christianity, they
are opposed by the testimony of the Fathers ; and so with all other suppositions which
degrade the intelligence or the integrity of the Fathers.

Obs. 8. The important historical position (comp. following Propositions)

that our doctrine thus obtains, should, in the mind of the theological
student, possess considerable weight. If this link were missing—if our op-
ponents could point to this faith lacking in the churches established by the
apostles—then an essential one (required as a logical sequence, a necessary
result) would be missing in our connected chain. We confess to a feel-
ing of satisfaction, of gratification, that it thus exists, abundantly attested
to by our opponents. While unbelievers deride it as uncouth and mis-
shapen, while even believers regard it as of foreign forging, an excrescence,
we, on the other hand, esteem it as most desirable and precious. This
462 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 72.

early faith in the Kingdom, is evidence of consistent divine teaching, of

apostolic supervision, of God’s determination to fulfil His oath-bound cove-
nant, of the true Scriptural conception of the Messiah as covenanted, of the
validity of adopting grace, and of our ultimately inheriting, at the Sec.
Advent, ‘‘the sure mercies of David.”’
In continuation of our illustrations drawn from a class of writers, who, in attempting
to break the force of our historical position, more or less ignore the facts of history and
allow themselves to build hypotheses upon unproven assertions, we select Dr. Knapp.
In his Chris. Theol., sec. 154, he admits that the Jews understood that the Messiah
would restore the Davidic throne and Kingdom, ete. ; that in the early churches ‘* many
Christians’? indulged the same hope, even in the days of the apostles ; that in the
sec. century the belief also extensively prevailed ; that ‘‘ Origen in the third century
was the first who wrote in opposition to the doctrine,’’ ete. He then boldly asserts :
“ The apostles wholly abandoned the opinion afler the ascension of Christ, and expected
no other coming than that at the judgment of the world ;’’ and again (Sec. 118) : ‘‘ The
apostles never indulge in such expectations, but take every opportunity to contradict them.”
To this, briefly, it may be replied : Knapp is not very candid in his statements respecting
the extent to which our doctrine was held, so much so, that the American editor (who
has no sympathy with us) refers to it. (2) Writers in_abundance, such as Neander,
etc. (who are no Millenarians), in direct opposition to Knapp, frankly acknowledge its
generality, and that the apostles had not abandoned the idea (unless, as some, it be
Paul), and appeal to the views held at Thessalonica, etc., as confirmatory of the same.
(3) If the apostles ‘‘ abandoned the opinion”’ and took “ every opportunity to contradict
them,’’ why do it not decidedly when the whole question was called up by the Thes-
salonians, or by the Council at Jerusalem? Why continue to adopt ‘‘ Jewish forms,
ideas, and language?’’ (4) Knapp has conceded that the apostles did not know the
truth respecting the Kingdom unlil after the ascension, although they had been previously
sent out to preach the Kingdom (hence, they preached error, etc.) ; why then did they not
apologize for their preaching an erroneous Kingdom, and tell us, if Knapp is correct,
how and when they were enlightened? (5) If this process of enlightenment began, why
put it off until after the ascension, when previously the mysteries of the Kingdom were
given to them, and after Christ’s death the Kingdom was the special topic of com-
munication for forty days? (6) Why endeavor to make the impression that Millenarians
do not link this coming of the Messiah with the Judgment (comp. Props. 132 and
133)? (7) And finally, if the apostles were so averse, as he alleges, to this idea of the
Kingdom, how does he account for the strange fact, that under their personal super-
vision, and without a single recorded rebuke (they taking every opportunity to con-
tradict it), the doctrine should nevertheless so extensively prevail that in the first, second,
and third century no writer, no teacher appears, until, according to his own statement,
Origen first opposes it? Surely, if Knapp’s statements are to be received, the exact
reverse of all this ought to have happened, viz. : his (Knapp’s) notion ought to have
prevailed, and Chiliasm brought in afterward as an attachment, ete. Indeed, in a
multitude of works, especially designed for students of Theology, we find far more
sweeping assertions than even this illustration affords ; and, if we are to credit them,
the apostles clearly taught the most modernized ideas respecting the Kingdom, but, un-
fortunately for their credibility, let them be examined, and not one gives an explicit,
direct passage to support his theory—the proof alleged being either mere assertion or
invariably and solely inferential. There are also numerous works which profess to
describe what the faith of a Christian Church, modelled after one established by the
apostles, should be. But a remarkable feature in nearly all such portraitures is the
omission of the prevailing Millenarian faith, as not suited to a modern improved stand-
point.

Obs. 9. This early church belief is to many a tender subject, one that.
they would gladly ignore, and hence it is either silently passed by, or kept
as much as possible in the background, or else contemptuously dismissed.
It is only the later attacks of unbelievers—as e.g. in the delineations of
early Christianity by Strauss, Bauer, Renan, etc.—that has again promi-
nently pressed the subject to our notice.
Prop. 72.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 463
The power of prejudice, or the desire to soften history in behalf of supposed truth,
is too palpably seen in this direction. Thus e.g. in some recent works (as in Killen’s
Old Catholic Church) where ‘‘ the doctrine of the great body of believers’’ is referred to,
this doctrine, once so generally entertained, is utterly ignored as if it had never existed.
In Dogmaties, in Ecclesiastical Histories, in Theologies, etc., it is briefly noticed (while
great space can be given to Gnosticism, Donatism, etc.) and made as if it had no
influence in the formation of the church—to fall into the background. Some, as if
fearful of its recoil upon their own theory, seem to be afraid to give even a candid his-
torical statement of its generality. Kven Neander and Mosheim, with all their conces-
sions and frank admissions, do not allow it that pervading prominence which it
certainly possessed (according to their own admissions) in the early church to mould the
character and lives of the first Christians. These and other writers, in discussing the
First Centuries, fall back upon the views afterward engrafted, and without the slightest
proof to sustain them, assume them to have prevailed from the very beginning. In
doing this they necessarily involve themselves in contradictions, which we expose under
various Propositions. Some writers, again, when forced to make the admissions,
endeavor to weaken their force by, as we have noticed, charging the Fathers as ignorant
and superstitious (but excellent men outside of the Millenarian doctrine). A thousand
pens have detracted these early advocates by disparaging them by way of contrast with
succeeding Fathers, telling us that the former are not worthy to be compared with an
Origen, Augustine, Jerome, etc. (forgetting Matt. 11 : 25-30, and that later Fathers,
with all their ability and learning, introduced far greater errors into the church). ‘he
candid, reflecting student will in all this notice (1) that the repressing, withholding, or
softening down of facts has nothing whatever to do with the real truth of doctrine ; (2)
that the weakness, and even credulity, of men decides nothing respecting doctrine
which finds its basis in the Scriptures ; (3) that if the personal qualifications of men are
to determine the truthfulness of Scriptural doctrine, then the fancy, extravagance, and
imprudence, more or less associated with every doctrine of the Bible by men, would
leave but little for our acceptance.

Obs. 10. In our investigation of so important a doctrine as that of the

Kingdom, we should be guarded, seeing that the apostle tells us that ‘‘ the
mystery of iniquity’? began to work in his day, and that it would ulti-
mately burst forth with.increased and growing power. The !eaven then
working would extend and manifest itself 7m perverted doctrine—doctrine
antagonistic to that once proclaimed and believed. That form of doctrine
of a later growth which supersedes and takes precedence of the earlier form,
should undoubtedly be more subject to the suspicion of being a perversion
than the primitive view. Taking this position, then the Alexandrian doc-
trine of the Kingdom, so hostile to the older form, is, to the say the least,
open to grave suspicion, and ought not to be received without careful exam-
ination and decided proof in its behalf.

Obs. 11. Many persons are prejudiced against our doctrine and its recep-
tion by the early church, on the ground that its first Christian patrons
were ‘* Jews’’ or inclined to ‘‘ Judaism.’’ This has already been answered,
and reference is made to it in this place in order that the reader may
notice this peculiarity perpetuated from the Apostles down through the
Apostolic Fathers and their successors who were Chiliasts. While all these
held that their doctrine was derived from Jewish Scriptures, Jewish Proph-
ets, and a Jewish Covenant, corresponding with the faith of pious Jews,
et they at the same time resisted with all their ability the errors which
aa been engrafted on Judaism by Pharisaism, Sadduceeism, and Hellen-
ism (as well as by Essenism and Samaritanism). Now many, influenced
by the charge of ‘‘ Judaism’’ and ‘‘ Jewish,’’ confound this impure his-
torical Judaism (which ought rather to be called after its parentage,
Pharisaism, etc.) with pure Judaism, i.e., that Judaism which was not
464 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 72.

abrogated by the change of dispensation. They forget that Millenarians

were the very first who opposed, on the one hand, the Jewish spirit of self-
righteousness, and, on the other hand, the Jewish libertinism, as antago-
nistic to the religion of Jesus Christ. Herein consists the.injustice ot that
spirit of criticism which refuses, persistently, to distinguish between
these Primitive believers and their opposers, but classes them together.
Dorner (Person of Christ, vol. 1, p. 409) is more discriminative and Just
when he derives Chiliasm from the Scriptures and in opposition to ritual-
istic Judaism says, ‘‘it may in part be more justly'regarded as a polemic
against Judaism on the part of Christianity.”’
Even the poor thieves on the cross cannot escape the censure of some, being de-
nounced us “ Chiliastic enthusiasts,” just as if persons guilty of vice or crime could not
also entertain proper views of truth. It is true that Lange (Com. p. 525) calls the one
‘a noble Chiliast ;’ and the reception and gracious promise given by Jesus to this
Chiliast should put to shame the epithets, etc., that some believers are pleased to be-
stow upon us so liberally. We commend the learning and candor of Whitby (the leader
of our opponents) in his account of the faith of the early Fathers (Treatise on Tradi-
tion, see it quoted in detail, Proph. Times, vol. 6, pp. 83-86), acknowledging its univer-
sality by naming the Fathers ; its orthodoxy; its being professedly derived from Christ
and the apostles ; its embracing certain distinctive features which the named Fathers
teach; its being founded on the sayings of the prophets, our Lord, and the apostles ; its
being not merely asserted as ‘‘ a probable opinion, but as a thing which they were cer-
tainly assured of” (quoting Justin and Irenzus as declaring ‘“‘ We know,”’ etc., and that
it was “ most manifestly’ so “ without controversy’’); and then its being opposed to all
kinds of heresy as evidenced by its writings, and against ultra Judaism as seen e.g. in
Justin Martyr's reply to Trypho. It is true that he employs this line of reasoning, in
detail, against the tradition of Rome—just as Chillingworth—but it is none the less true,
and none the less forcible against his own ‘‘ new hypothesis.’’ ,We append this intended
bitter but delectable morsel (quoted by the Luth. Observer, Dec. 27th, 1878) from the pen
of Dr. Hail, of New York, which gives our doctrine a Jewish origin : ‘‘ This (Pre-Mill.)
alleged scheme of interpretation —if anything so loose, variable, and undefined can be
called a‘ scheme ’—is very old, older than the ‘ Fifth-Monarchy ’ idea, older than Chiliasm (!).
It has its earliest exponent in the mother of Zebedee’s children (Matt. 20 : 20-23). She
came to the Messiah, worshipping Him, and desired a certain thing of Him. ‘ Grant
that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, in
thy Kingdom.’ She reflected the spirit of her countrymen, who adhered to Jesus at that
time. Their hope was of a material, secular, powerful kingdom, theocratic withal—like
Solomon’s—with themselves as its ‘ nobility and gentry.’ Like many sincere and hon-
est persons, she was, at that stage of her intellectual and spiritual life, unable to com-
prehend the true state of the case, and the Great Teacher did not enter into explana-
tions. He taught as His hearers were ‘ able to bear it.’ The study of His answer ought
to be profitable to Pre-Millenarians. The question is obviously in the Jewish sense. But
the answer is as obviously in quite a different sense.” We confess that we, as a Pre-
Mill., have studied this answer with ‘‘ profit,’ for we find that the mother was a Chiliast—
of our faith—and that the Saviour confirmed her in her Chiliasm by not denying that such
places were in store for some accounted worthy of them, but by affirming that they would
be given by the Father at the proper time to the proper persons. We utterly fail to see
Hall’s ‘‘ obviously different sense,” seeing that Jesus left her re-established by His corrobo-
rative answer in her idea of the Messianic Kingdom. (Comp. Props. 154 and 156.) But
while Chiliasm was thus in harmony with Jewish views, based on the covenants and proph-
ecies, it was bitterly and unrelentingly hstile to mere Pharisaism, or the ritualistic
Judaism. This is evidenced by the Chiliaslic treatises written against the Jews. This is
so plain, that Robertson (Ch. His., vol. 1, p. 116) says: ‘‘ Christian Chiliasm showed no
favor to the fleshly Israel, nor even to the holy city.’’ This e.g. is seen in their teach-.
ing the engrafting of Gentiles without circumcision, the continued punishment of the
nation for the rejection of the Messiah, the existing times of the Gentiles, etc.

Obs. 12. The student, who is really desirous to see how extensively our
doctrine was held, will consider these: points of evidence adduced. (1)
PRop. 72.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 465

How universally the Jews held to our doctrine, e.g. Prop. 20; (2) How
this was confirmed by the Prophecies, e.g. Props. 21, 33, 35, 51; (3) how
this belief grew out of the covenants, e.g. Props. 46, 47, 48, 49, 52; (4)
that the preaching of John re-established the faith in many, e.g. Props. 38,
39, 40; (5) that the preaching of the disciples was calculated to increase
the belief, as e.g. Props. 43, 54, 55, etc. ; (6) that no controversy was
raised on the subject, e.g. Prop. 44; (7) that the preaching of Jesus con-
firmed the faith in His disciples and hearers, as e.g. Props. 42, 43, 44, 54,
5d, 57, 58, etc.; (8) how the continued faith in the same was preserved
and perpetuated by the postponement taught, e.g. Props. 57 to 68; (9)
that the death of Jesus did not remove the belief, Prop. 70; (10) how
the preaching and language of the apostles was calculated to enforce the
belief, e.g. Props. 71, 72, 73. (Thus far there is a connected chain, which
indicates how generally our doctrine must have been entertained ; but the
proof is far from being exhausted. Candor requires the consideration of
what follows. (11) That the doctrine was received through the apostles
shown more clearly under Props. 73, in no controversy springing up con-
cerning it; under Prop. 74 in the belief of a speedy Advent ; under Prop.
75 in its perpetuation, and Prop. 76, gradual change.
Even this is only part of the proof, as much more will be found under succeeding
Propositions, in quotations from the ancients and moderns, in doctrinal statements,
etc. The reader will also notice that the concessions in favor of the extent of our view
in the Primitive Church, are drawn chiefly, and in many instances exclusively, from able
writers who are Anti-Chiliastic and unfriendly to our doctrine. The testimony is there-
fore the more impartial and deserving of attention. Our desire in all this is to elicit the
truth, seeing that truth is useful—leading to other truth, avoiding bigotry, giving
motives for action, forming character, commending us to God and man, and is eternal,
while error is misleading and injurious. But may we not ask the reader to consider,
why itis that so many men hate and detest our doctrine so cordially—heaping upon it the
choicest of epithets expressive of its anti Christian nature—when their own upon this sub-
ject is not once mentioned in the Primitive Church ; when their own is not orthodox, but even
falls under the general condemnation which embraces all views in antagonism. Surely the
historical superiority of our doctrine in being thus taught and defended in and by the
Church should lead those great friends of ‘‘ Orthodoxy,” who so readily raise the cry of
“* heresy,’’ etc., to be more modest in their tone and mild in their manner. We, there-
fore, repeat, quoting Stackhouse (Compl. Body of Divinity): ‘“‘It cannot be denied, in-
deed, but that this doctrine (Chiliasm) has its antiquity, and was once the general opinion of
all orthodox Christians.’’ We may, therefore, appropriately repeat, what Dorner (The
Person of Christ, vol. 1, p. 415) declares : “ The primitive Chiliasm represented @ noble
and precious principle, and we may fairly demand for it a juster treatment in the future.’’

Obs. 13. We are abundantly authorized, by the amount of Scriptural

and historical evidence adduced, to most earnestly protest against the con-
tinued uncandid and unscholarly attempts to fasten upon our doctrine an
origin opposed to the plainest historical fact, and the numerous conces-
sions of the most learned of our opponents.
Thus in religious newspapers, etc., it is again and again asserted that our doctrine
is “heresy,’’ that it originated with Papias, or with Cerinthus, or “ a grovelling Judaism”’
(one writer not content with ascribing one origin, in the course of his article gives all
three, and denounces it as ‘‘ heretical’’). Books of reference take up these false state-
ments, and publish them as historical facts. The favorite charge, in order to make our
doctrine unpalatable, is, that it is derived from Cerinthus ; so e.g. Gerhard (quoted
with evident relish by Brown) says : ‘‘ The first author of the Chiliastic doctrine in the
Church of the New Test. seems to have been Cerinthus, the pestilent heretic.’’ (With
this compare the remarks of Neander, etc., under Obs. 3, note.) We allow an opponent
to our doctrine to testify as follows : Mosheim (His. Com. First Th. Cents., vol. 2, p. 245,
466 THE THEOORATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 72.

etc.) says : “‘ Among the ancients and the moderns, many have supposed that Cerinthus
first propagated this error (the doctrine of a future reign of Christ on earth). Few, how-
ever, will readily agree with them, if they consider that this sentiment was embraced by
many—e.g. Irenzus, Tertullian, and others—who abhorred Cerinthus and accounted him
a pest to Christianity. Nor do I think that Musebius is to be trusted when he tells that
the expectation of a Millennium flowed down to the subsequent doctors from Papias, a
bishop of Jerusalem in the second century. For, as Papias was not the first excogitor of
the opinion, but received it from others, as Eusebius himself concedes, it is clear that
at least some Christians before Papias had embraced this opinion. And Irenzus cites
Papias, not as being the author of this opinion, but as bearing testimony to it. Pres-
sense (quoted Prop. 74, Obs. 3, note) makes our doctrine to have originated in the Thes-
salonian church, which adopted “ Judaistic elements.” Some few say that’ Chiliasm arose
from the Apocryphal Apocalypses, but this is discarded by every critic of eminence, who
make these to have originated just as the Apocryphal Gospels, viz. : perversions of pre-
vious existing doctrine, to accommodate the imaginary theory of the writers. Prof.
Briggs refers to Papias, and then says of him: “ Who can fail to give their assent to
Schiirer’s (the very highest authority on this subject) judgment, ‘ The dreams of Papias re-
specting the Millennial Kingdom were derived from the Apocalypse of Baruch.’ ”’ In an-
swer to the question, ‘‘ Who can fail to give their assent ?’’ the reader will observe our
authorities derived from opponents, etc., as quoted, and contrast them with the bitterly
prejudiced statement of a ‘‘ heresy-hunter.’’ For to indicate the “ animus’’ of Prof.
Briggs’s series of articles (signed ‘‘ Westminster” in N. Y. Evangelist, 1879), we have only
to say that, not satisfied with this derivation of the doctrine, he gives us this choice his-
torical information and application : “ Those men of Corinth and Galatia, who claimed
superior orthodoxy to the apostle Paul, are the historical progenitors of Cerinthus and
Papias, and their followers in all ages, who propose, with the men of the late Confer-
ence” (that met in Dr. Tyng’s church in N. York and included eminent representatives
of the various Protestant churches, and among them over forty able and devoted men of
his own church, the Presbyterian) ‘‘ to bring back the Church to what they claim to be
‘ vital doctrine.’ ”” (But this we must expect from a man who threatens his brethren in
the ministry with eccles. trial and censure—as an argument (!). A writer in the W. Y.
Evangelist, Dec., 1879, thinks that ‘‘ trials of heresy may arise in our church (Presbyte-
rian) over the doctrines of the Millenarians.’’ The Herald and Presbyter, quoting this,
significantly remarks : “‘ We doubt it. Heresy-hunters are not numerous among us, and
they are chiefly of the old school. A good proportion of them, moreover, are Millenarians.
In all probability we shall escape the danger.’’)

Obs..14, Let the careful reader answer the following question, and he
will see how eminently consistent with fact is our doctrinal position.
How could John, under Divine guidance, well knowing the Jewish views
that were current (which our opponents fully admit as we have shown),
pen down the portraiture of a Messianic reign (Rev. 20:1-6 and 11 :15-
18), which in its plain grammatical sense corresponds so accurately with
the prevailing Jewish opinions, unless such a sense contains the truth?
God would not, could not, take the dearest cherished Messianic hopes and
parade them in such an expressed sense to deceive believers, when He in-
tended a different sense to be placed upon the words. God does not
undertake that which, if perpetrated by a man, we would unhesitatingly
denounce as dishonest, disreputable, and cruel. (Compare Prop. 75, Obs:
5, and note.)
Prop. 73.| THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 467

Proposition 73. Zhe doctrine of the Kingdom preached by the.

Apostles and Hilders, raised up no controversy with the Jews.
Neither in the New Test. nor in any of the Patristic writings, do
we find the least hint given that the doctrine of the Kingdom ex-
cited any controversy with the Jews ; which it undoubtedly would
have done 7f antagonistic to the Jewish view. This is strong,
corroborative evidence that the doctrine was in accordance with
the Jewish Messianic expectations. For, with the Jewish doc-
trine, drawn from the Davidic covenant and prophecies of a
restored Davidic throne and Kingdom, prevailing, it would have
been impossible to engraft the later and modern views without
exciting bitter and unrelenting hostility.
No controversy arose between the Jews and the disciples before the ascension of Jesus
(see Prop. 44), and this continued after the ascension, for the only subjects in contro-
versy pertained to the Messiahship of Jesus (i.e. whether Jesus was “ the Christ,’’) the
call of the Gentiles, the Mosaic law, the sufficiency of repentance and faith in Jesus, ete.
Indeed, as our argument shows (comp. Props. 69, 70, 71), the same gospel of the King-
dom was preached after the death and ascension of Jesus that was proclaimed before.
And to this very knowledge of the previous proclamation, appeal is made as e.g. Acts
10 : 36, 37, thus indicating in the strongest manner that no change —as now advocated
by the multitude—was inaugurated.

Obs. 1. Jews, indoctrinated into the covenants, were the first converts,
and, with their faith, it would have been utterly impracticable to have in-
fluenced them /¢o receive Jesus as ‘* the Messiah,’’ unless it was understood
that these covenants were at some time in the future to be realized through
Him. Ifthe after-adopted Alexandrian and modern notion of the King-
dom is the correct one, then, in the very nature of the case, before such
Jews could be moved, it must have been shown that the covenants were to
be spiritualized, and that a Kingdom very different from that contained in
the grammatical sense of the covenant was intended. But where, excepting
in the later writings of Origen, etc., have we any such declarations? The
reason for all this can only be found in ¢he original Christian view of the
Kingdom corresponding, so far as the covenanted Messiah’s Kingdom is
concerned, with the Jewish expectations.

Obs. 2. Consider (1) how large numbers of the Jews were converted to
Christianity, accepting of Jesus as “‘ the Messiah,’’ because of the fact
that they were led to believe (a) that at the Sec. Advent the glorious pre-
dicted Messianic Kingdom would be established, and (0) that the life and
death of Jesus (His resurrection and exaltation included), evinced Him
as pre-eminently qualified to be “‘ the Messiah’’ and as possessing the requi-
site power to fulfil the covenant promises. (2) How, as the early doctrine
became obscured, substituted, and finally driven from the field, the conver-
468 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PROP. 73.

sions of the Jews became rarer and almost entirely ceased, excepting such
as were produced under compulsion. How else account for so great a
change, unless it be in the gradual engrafting of other than Jewish ideas to
the Messidhship of Jesus, making the Messiah less and less in correspond-
ence with the Messiah of the Old Test. Scriptures?
Abbott (Freedom and Fellowship in Relig., p. 237), pertinently asks : “‘ Was it an acci-
dent that the new faith took its name, not from the individual Jesus, but from His royal
office?’ This leads Abbott, by tracing back the name, to declare that ‘‘ Christianity is
developed Judaism.” We only now say, that this selection of name would scarcely have
been made, unless the believers were Millenarians, thus distinctively retaining in the
very name the continued Jewish expectations which are summed up in “ the Christ,’ It was
the very name of ‘‘ Messiah,” retaining in force its original meaning, that was attractive
and inviting to Jews. Thus e.g. with the Messiahship, as an integral part of its official
meaning, was attached the restoration of the identical Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom overthrown.
Such restoration as the prophets unitedly predicted, with the reign following, consti-
tuted the Messiah. There can be no doubt whatever, that the modernized doctrinal ap-
plication of the name, now so prevalent, was at this period utterly unknown, -—at least,
no evidence exists in any writing of its having been entertained by any one in the form
now usually presented by divines (comp. Prop. 205).

Obs. 3. The early Jews, instead of accusing Christians of rejecting such

a Kingdom, charged the primitive believers with entertaining such a view,
and sought to bring them, on account of the same, into difficulties with
the Roman Emperors. The same accusation which malignancy urged so
fatally against Jesus before Pilate, was repeated against His followers on
several occasions. This indicates the kind of belief that was held.
Thus (Eusebius, Eccl. His., B. 3, ch. 19) by a perversion (viz.: in its imminency,
etc.) of the doctrine that Jesus would, at some future time, restore the Davidic throne
and Kingdom, and obtain world-wide dominion, the fears of Domitian were excited lest
he lose (so Hegesippus) his Empire (the same fear that operated in the mind of
Herod). The Emperor, enraged at the belief that a descendant of David's would appear
and set up a universal kingdom (Mosheim, Ch, His., vol. 1, p. 56, Gibbon’s Decl. and
Fall, vol. 2, ch. 16), before which, of course, the Roman would. have to submit, ordered
all the posterity of David to be sought out. They were brought from Palestine (Euse-
bius), but as they disclaimed any efforts of their own to effect this, exhibited faith only in
a dead and buried kinsman, were themselves poor, expected the Kingdom through God's
power, etc., Domitian concluded that he had nothing to fear from them, and dismissed
them with contempt. The belief, however, led him (and no doubt others) to look coldly
on Christians’
and to persecute them. This incident, if a true account, indicates: (1)
the belief of Christians concerning the Kingdom ; (2) that they attributed its establish-
ment to Jesus at His coming again ; (3) that, being Theocratic, it was to be set up by His
power, in a supernatural manner ;—all of which, as it now does to multitudes, appeared
highly improbable to the Emperor. Another instance is given thus by Pressense (arly
Years of Chris., p. 157), when referring to the troubles at Thessalonica : ‘‘ Wresting the
words that he (Paul) had spoken with reference to the Kingdom of Christ and His speedy
Coming to reign, (Acts 17 : 7), they accused Him before the Preetor of conspiring against
Cesar.” Here we have (1) the Jews endeavoring to take advantage of the received doc-
trine of Christ’s coming Kingdom ; (2) contrasting it as something that would be hostile
to the Roman Power ; (3) this could only be done by showing that they (the Christians)
held to a fulfilment of the Davidic Covenant through the intervention and power of a Coming
Jesus ; (4) such a divine interference, connected with the resurrection of the dead, etc.
was regarded by those in authority as a mere idle superstition. Let it be noticed, that
in none of the answers given before Roman authorities, is the covenanted idea of the
Kingdom ignored and the modern notion substituted by way of defence. Milman (His.
of the Jews, p. 423, vol. 2) remarks : ‘‘ The Christian Hegesippus relates that Vespasian
commanded strict search to be made for all who claimed descent from the House of
David, in order to cut off, if possible, all hopes of the restoration of the royal house, or
of the Messiah, the confidence in whose speedy coming still burned with feverish ex-
citement in the hearts of all faithful Israelites. This barbarous inquisition was con-
Prop. 73.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 469
tinued in the reign of Domitian,” ”
etc. Milman does not sufficiently discriminate that
these believers were Jewish Christians, as their replies evidenced. He correctly says
(vol. 2, p. 425), ‘‘ It is by no means improbable that its descent from Judaism, of which
Christianity was long considered a modification, tended to increase the hostility against
the unoffending Christians, which their rapid progress had excited.” Salvador, a Jew
(quoted by Milman, same page), tells us: ‘‘ Jews and Christians were still, to a certain
extent, confounded in the popular mind ; and fear, political jealousy, and hatred do not
sharpen the powers of just discrimination.’’ How could this be so unless some things
were held in common, as e.g. the covenants, prophecies, the idea of a Messiah and King-
dom, etc.
It is also noticeable that Chiliasts were persecuted when they rejected the claims of
pretended Messiahs among the Jews. Thus e.g. when Barchocheba claimed to be the
promised Messiah (4.p. 136), and raised the extensive revolt against the Romans, it is
said that he endeavored to persuade the Christians—when Chiliasm abounded—to join
him. But they, deeply imbued with the claims of Jesus to the Messiahship, with the
past fulfilment of prophecy, with the predictions relating to the manner of establishing
the Kingdom (as e.g. to be preceded by a resurrection of saints, etc.), refused to identify
themselves with such a movement, and were, in consequence, cruelly persecuted by him.

Obs. 4. This, again, is sustained by the apostles’ argumentation with the

Jews. Aside from the usage of Jewish phraseology, without explaining it
as moderns do ; apart from the action of the apostles in Council (Acts 15),
which cannot be made to accord with the later notions of the Kingdom ;
—it is found that the apostles never were compelled to combat the Jewish
idea of the Messiah, or of the Kingdom. We have a noted instance of this
in Paul, who disputed with the Jews (e.g. Acts 28 : 17-29), ‘‘ expounded
and testified the Kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both
out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets.’’ He speaks of ‘‘ the hope
of Israel,’ “preaching the Kingdom of God,’’ and never once intimates
that the Jews were mistaken in their views of the Kingdom as derived from
the Covenant. The dispute (as we find e.g. Acts 26 : 1-23) was not con-
cerning the Kingdom, but respected ‘‘ Jesus of Nazareth,’’ whether He
indeed be the Messiah.
This is so fully admitted by numerous writers that, on the ground of a future change
being intended in the idea of the Kingdom, the charge of deception and perversion is
urged against Paul by some (as e.g. the Duke of Somerset), while others gravely inform
us that the Jews, owing to prejudice, etv., were unprepared for the truth, and hence Paul
accommodated himself to their weakness. But all this lowers apostolic integrity and
authority. The simple facts are as presented in the record : the Kingdom in the Jewish
mind is the great object of hope, and therefore, in preaching to Jews it must be made
prominent; this Paul does according to the manner in which it is covenanted and pre-
dicted, and then goes on to show that ‘‘ Jesus of Nazareth,” even the Crucified One, is the
Messiah to establish the covenanted Kingdom at His Sec. Coming. In evidence of this,
appeal must necessarily be made to the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus,
the postponement of the Kingdom, the Second Advent, the prophecies illustrative of
these things, the pre-eminent qualifications of Jesus as Messiah, etc. For, if it can be
shown that Jesus is truly ‘‘ the Messiah,’’ then the rest follows asa natural result—the Jew
sees how the Kingdom can, and will, come, the covenant itself being renewed and con-
firmed by His death and resurrection.
470 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 74.

Proposition 74, The belief in the speedy Advent of Christ, en-

tertained both by the Apostles and the churches under them, in-
dicates what Kingdom was believed in and taught by the first
Christians.
If it can be shown that the apostles and their converts believed
in a speedy Advent, that they looked for it near at hand, as im-
mediate and impending sooner or later, then it follows that the
Alexandrian modern view of the Kingdom could not have been
entertained by them. They then, of necessity, owing to the short-
ness of time intervening, must have linked the Kingdom they
proclaimed with the Sec. Advent (e.g. 2 Tim. 4: 1, etc.).
Let the student carefully consider this Prop. and following Obs. and notes, and he
will find it logically proving that the Church-Kingdom view, and all other theories op-
posed to the Primitive one advocated by us, are radically wrong and unscriptural.
Otherwise we are driven to the conclusion, that inspired men, the founders of the Ch.
Church, were in gross error, and taught things irreconcilable with the idea of their mis-
sion and the perpetuity of their work ; or that, in other words, directed by the Spirit
and specially consecrated to proclaim the Kingdom of God, they still totally failed to
appreciate the labor designed for them. By our line of argument, the intelligence, in-
tegrity, and authority of the apostles are fully sustained ; by our opponents’ concessions
and abject apologies in their behalf, they are in these particulars correspondingly
degraded. Infidelity looks on and laughs—laughs at our credulity, but still more loudly
laughs at the straits and subterfuges resorted to by our opponents to save the credibility
and inspired ascendency of the apostles. Every writer of ability and learning —what-
ever theory he may adopt respecting the Kingdom—acknowledges the apostolic and early
belief in a speedy Sec. Advent. We append a few: Rothe (Dogmatic, 2 P. p. 58) re-
marks: “ The apostles unanimously expected the return of Christ, to enter upon this King-
dom (Chiliastic) on earth.’’ Donaldson (editor of Ante-Nicene Library), in his His. ch.
Doe. and Lit., vol. 2, p. 261, declares, respecting the Pre-Mill. doctrine advocated by Jus-
tin : ‘‘ The opinion just adduced is one in which the whole Church shared. All eapected
Christ to appear on earth, to raise His saints, to grant them the possession of the earth,
and to bless them with uninterrupted happiness.” Schaff (His. Apos. church, p. 275)
speaks of ‘‘ the expectation of the speedy return of Christ in glory, as ‘‘ probably one of Paul’s
favorite themes ; that he exhorts the Thessalonians “‘ to be always ready to meet the
Lord, who shall come unexpectedly, like a thief in the night, and warns them, for this
very reason, among other errors, against presuming to calculate the day and hour of His
appearing.’* Similar testimony will be quoted in following Props. We now give one from
an unbeliever—many such exist—who presents a historical statement with the purpose
of lowering the teaching of the N. Test. and Patristic theology. Fiske (‘‘ The Christ of
Dogma,” in The Unseen World, p. 112) says : ‘“‘The doctrine of the Messiah’s Second Com-
ing was also received without opposition, and for about a century (?) men lived in con-
tinual anticipation of that event, until hope long deferred produced its usual results :
the writings in which that event was predicted were gradually explained away, ignored,
or stigmatized as uncanonical ; and the church ended by condemning as a heresy the
very doctrine which Paul and the Judaizing apostles, who agreed in little else, had alike
made the basis of their speculative teachings.’’ Alas! how true in many respects is this
presentation, and how merited the sarcastic allusion to the church’s departure from “ the
old paths,’’ once trodden in faith and hope. (Fiske’s statement is a revamping of Gib-
bon’s, ch. 15, Decl. and Fall.) So Renan (Life of Jesus, p. 266), in view of this, says that
Prop. 74.] THE TIEOCRATIC KINGDOM. A471

‘“*The first Christian generation lived entirely upon expectations and dreams,” but that
it required “more than a century’ for the church to disengage itself (however, p. 251,
more or less held afterward) from such views and ‘‘’a fantastic Kingdom of God.”

Obs. 1. Let any one, for a moment, consider the covenanted and pro-
phetic portrayal of the Messianic Kingdom here on earth—its extension,
universality, blessing, etc.,—and then regard the comparative brief period
(in expectancy), allowed for the Advent by the Primitive church, and it
becomes absurd to crowd the fulfilment of covenant and prophecy respect-
ing that Kingdom into the supposed brief period of time. /'Take it for
granted even, as we will show, that the apostles anticipated a longer time
than their successors did to intervene ; yet the very language, expressive
of shortness of time, used by them still amply sustains our position. This
expectancy of the Sec. Advent indicates (1) that they had no idea of an
existing Messianic Kingdom ; (2) that they looked for such a Kingdom ¢éo
follow the anticipated Advent ; (3) that they did not regard the church as
the covenanted Kingdom, but as simply provisionary.
How strangely those who refuse to accept of the Primitive faith seek for apologies to
shield their modern notions—to give them, if possible, an odor of traditional sanctity.
Thus e.g. Pressense (The Early Years of Christianity, p. 407) says : ‘‘ The destruction of
Jerusalem was to have yet a further effect—it was to enlarge the views of the Christians
as to the future of the church, and to give indefinite expansion to the horizon of proph-
ecy. They had until now been living in daily expectation of the end of the world and
the immediate return of Christ.’’ He argues that, owing to this destruction, now Chris-
tians put off the Advent to the distant future, and that they believed ‘‘ that a long future
of conflict was before the church.’’ To prove this last assertion he refers to ‘‘ Hegisip-
pus (Eusebius’ His. Eccl. 2 : 32), relating that the Emperor Domitian, on questioning
some Christians in Palestine (who were connected with the Saviour by ties of kindred)
as to the Kingdom of Christ and His return, received this reply : ‘ His Kingdom is not
an earthly kingdom or of this world, but a heavenly and angelic Kingdom, which will
comein the fulness of the ages, when He shallreturn to judge tke quick and the dead.’”’
But (1) the indisputable fact is, that the destruction of Jerusalem greatly confirmed the
church in its Millenarian faith, for such a literal fulfilment of Christ’s predictions led toan
increased belief in His near coming and Kingdom. But this Pressense himself— contradicting
his own theory—fully admits, when (p. 308) he says that ‘‘ the Millenarian doctrine became
in the second century so widely diffused.” Hence it was not the destruction of Jerusalem
that checked it, but the later Alexandrian opposition. (2) In reference to the alleged
proof, it is only necessary to say that it is the very language that a Millenarian can hold,
who, for prudential reasons, does not enter into details—seeing that every Millenarian
holds it to be a Theocratic Kingdom of Divine institution, etc., ‘‘ which will come in the
fulness of the ages.” (Comp. Prop. 73, note.)’’

Obs. 2. The Scriptures abundantly testify to this belief in a near Advent,

and all of the apostles testify to the same, as e.g. Paul, Rom. 13:11, 12;
Phil. 4:5; Heb. 10 : 25, 36, 37; Tit. 2:18, etc.; James 5 : 7-9; Peter, 1
Pet. 4:7; John, Apoc. 22:12, 20, etc. The most eminent writers,
believers and unbelievers, candidly acknowledge this feature, however
they may differ in accounting for it. It is doing violence to deny that
which is so plainly stated. Neander (Ad. to His. Plant. of Ch. Church,
vol. 2, p. 65, Bohn’s Ed.) urges the fact that the*apostles did not look for
the conversion of the world du¢ for the speedy Advent of Christ, and
remarks: ‘‘ Hvery unprejudiced reader of the New Test. cannot fail to
perceive that such an expectation filled the souls of the apostles.’’
Then showing how this view affected their notion of the church, he adds :—
‘“‘ Tt was not the idea of a renovated time that Christianity first attempted
to realize, but everything appeared only as a point of transition to a new,
A472 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 74.

heavenly, eternal order of things which would commence ad the Sec.

Advent.’’
We admire the candor of Neander, who so frankly gives us what is antagonistic to
his own system. For additional statements on the Apostolic belief in the nearness of
the Advent, see e.g. vol. 2, p. 5, his Antignosticus, or the Spirit of Tertullian, p. 251, Com.
on James, Eng. tr., p. 106, etc. (comp. Prop. 49, Obs. 7, note 1). Prof. Bush (Mill., p.
23), in referring to the early church looking for the Sec. Advent, says : “ For aught we
know, in fact, the apostles themselves might have been of the prevailing beliet, as we have
met with no reasoning which convinces us that they always understood the full reach
and import of their own writings.’’ (Thus the apostles are, to sustain a theory, reckoned
ignorant of their own language ! And these too are inspired men!) Renan (Life of
Paul, p. 250) tells us : ‘‘ The two Syriac words Maran-atha (the Lord is about to come)
became the watchword of the Christians among themselves ; the short, animated expres-
sion, which they passed from one to another to encourage themselves in their hoping.”
The Westm. Review (Oct., 1861, Art. 5, p. 249) declares : ‘‘ Gradually there grew up in
the early Christian community, grounded, it may be, on half-remembered sayings ot the
crucified Jesus, an expectation of a Second Advent, in which, as the mysterious being
announced by Daniel, the rejected Hero of the human race should reappear, throned on
a white cloud, to overthrow the last representative of the impious world Empire, and
to institute the eternal Kingdom, so long desired, so often announced, so repeatedly
postponed.” ‘The reader scarcely need be reminded that such quotations might be
indefinitely extended. The sarcasm of the infidel and the reluctant, apologetic admis-
sions of believers form amass of material interesting to the investigator, but too un-
wieldy for our limits. In our researches we confess to surprise and pain that such a
writer as Reuss (His. Ch. Theol., p. 272) should sarcastically write of the early believers in
this rude style: calling them ‘‘men who remained quietly at home, waiting the Sec.
Coming of the Lord, instead of going forth to meet Him on the grand highway of human
history.’’ It will be a blessed lot, if Reuss, either in abundant labors or in journeyings
for the good of man, will be fuund equal to many of the men that he ridicules.
That the apostles believed in a speedy Advent is the opinion of Hodge (Sys, Div., vol.
3, p. 876), Olshausen (Com., makes the extreme that even Paul expected to live until
the Advent, vol. 4, p. 399, vol. 5, p. 280), Conybeare and Howson (Life, etc., of St. Paul,
vol. 1, p. 401), Oosterzee (Theol. N. Test., p. 333, etc.), Meyer’s Com., and Coms, gen-
erally. But Rees’ Cyclop., Art. Mill., following the guiding of Whitby, asserts, without
a particle of proof to sustain it, (1) that the apostles never believed in this personal reign
of Christ or in Chiliasm (over e.g. against first preaching of Kingdom, and Acts 1 : 6) ;
and (2) ‘‘ that the apostles never entertained the delightful hope of seeing their Master
coming into the world again’’ (which is too sweeping, unless we confine it, as the
writer probably intended, to their day or lifetime ; this, as we shall show, may be true,
and yet does not affect our argument). Hase (His. Ch. Church, ch. 2, s. 43), to weaken
the antiquity and authority of our doctrine, remarks on ‘‘ Ecclesiastical Life :” ‘* All
hope of an earthly Theocracy was apparently destroyed by the death of Jesus, but
Christians generally believed that Christ was to return to the world a second time, and
many indulged the hope that they would live to witness His advent. This faith gave
birth to the boldest expectations, partaking generally of a sensuous character, and while
it seemed @ national necessity and a religious consolation to the Jewish, it was a source of
anxiety and perplexity to the Grecian congregations.’’ To this we briefly reply : (1)
The correspondence with Jewish faith is acknowledged ; (2) a Theocracy on earth was
postponed to the Sec. Advent ; (3) this made the Advent itself so desirable ; (4) many
of the alleged ‘‘ sensuous” expectations are only such to those who spiritualize the
covenants and predictions ; (5) that the Grecian, as well as the Jewish, congregations
loved this Advent, and had correct views concerning it; (6) that Hase contradicts
himself as to the universality and effect of the belief, as we shall show hereafter by
quotations from him. Hagenbach (His. of Doc., sec. 75), usually careful in his statements,
falls into an error, when speaking of the Apologetic era extending to a.p. 254, saying :
‘‘The disciples of Christ having received from their Master the promise of the Second
Coming, the first Christians looked for this event as near at hand, in connection with.the
general resurrection of the dead and the final judgment.’’ The facts are, as he himself
afterward particularizes, that the doctrine of a general resurrection was of later origin,
developed by the Alexandrian school; the first Christians, as far as known, not ad-
vocating it, but holding to a first and second resurrection. Hagenbach impartially
vindicates Justin holding to two separate resurrections, declaring (p. 214) ‘‘ that
Chiliasm did not come into the orthodox, Church through Cerinthus,” that (p. 215)
Prop. 74.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 473

*“ Justin (Dial., p. 306), writing at the time of Papias, says that it was the general faith of
all orthodox Christians ; and that only the Gnostics did not share it (comp. Irene. 5 : 25,
26, Tertul. c. Marc. 3 : 24).” He then quotes Giesseler’s (Ch. His., 1, 156, Dog., p. 231)
emphatic declaration, that ‘‘in all the works of this period (the first two centuries)
Millenarianism is so prominent that we cannot hesitate to consider it as universal in an age
when such sensuous motives were certainly not unnecessary to animate men to suffer
for Christianity.”’ (Thus making ‘‘ sensuous” error necessary to sustain the martyrs !)
Hagenbach, to save his own Church theory, and give it some kind of ancient support,
endeavors to weaken Giesseler’s statement by saying: ‘‘ Compare, however, the writ-
ings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tatian, Athenagoras, and Theophilus of
Antioch, in none of which Millenarian notions are propounded.” Macdill (‘‘ The
Instructor,” May, 1879) reproduces this assertion, and says ‘‘ no traces’’ of our doctrine
are to be found in them. ‘This is misleading and unfair, as will appear in a brief reply :
(1) these writers have left but little concerning their views on Eschatology, and that little
corresponds with Pre-Mill. views ; (2) the correspondence is so great that many of ow
opponents concede these Fathers to us, as we shall show under Prop. 75 ; (3) the simple
fact they all looked for a speedy Advent is pre-eminenily in our favor ; (4) they do not give
the slightest hint of being opposed to our views ; (5) they present no trace of the modernized
notions ; (6) the general statements of Irenzus, Justin, and Tertullian respecting the
universality of our belief includes them, for otherwise—being prominent Fathers—an
exception would have been indicated ; (7) the Lurden of showing by direct quotations
from them, that they were not Millenarian, has never been assumed by any critic or
writer. Our opponents, by a resort to such subterfuges, making the impression on the
ignorant that these men were in opposition to Millenarianism, only evidence the weak-
ness of their cause. A scholar certainly will not permit himself to be deceived in this
manner by so shallow an artifice, unworthy of the men who produce them.

Obs. 8. A number of ways have been devised to meet and interpret these
expectations of a near Advent. (1) To receive them as the truth ; (2) to
designate them as ‘‘ Jewish fables ;’’ (3) to pronounce them mere human
utterances, designed for a purpose, and unworthy of credence ; (4) to call
them ‘‘a husk,’’ which contains a germ of truth to be afterward devel-
oped ; (5) to define them as an accommodation to a transition period ; (6)
to hold them forth as longings inspired by enthusiasm and love for Christ ;
(7) to explain them as denoting an expected spiritual, instead of a personal,
coming ; (8) to interpret them as. indicative of an anticipated providential
coming in judgment. The system of interpretation adopted by us (Prop.
4), and the principles underlying the same (Props. 5, 9, 16, 17, etc.), ex-
clude all these methods of explanation excepting the first.
It is not necessary to examine these theories in detail, seeing that our argument, as
we proceed, fully meets them. Some few, as Noyes, the “ Perfectionists,’’ etc., hold that
the Sec. Coming took place about 40 years after the crucifixion ; others that (as Prince,
Thomas, etc.) it was to be manifested in themselves ; while still others contend that
Christ, in some way unexplained, had come or was to come in and through them, either
spiritually or by the conference of power, etc. The latter view is found in some mysti-
cal sects, who have even gone so far as to claim that, in virtue of such a coming, the
New Heavens and New Earth, the New Jerusalem itself, was to be created and erected
by themselves, or else was manifested through themselves (e.g. Swedenborgians,
Shakers, etc.). We only now refer to a strange effort on the part of Pressense (The Early
Days of Christianity, p. 308) to make the impression that Millenarianism arose in the
Thessalonian church, and was from thence disseminated. He says: “ The Thessalonians
were in daily expectation” (see Prop. 160) ‘‘ of the return of the Saviour, 1 Thess. 4 : 11,
2 Thess. 2:2, and 3:10. This was the first manifestation of the Millenarian doctrine,
which became in the second century so widely diffused, and so strongly imbued with
Judaistic elements.’’ This is flatly contradicted (1) by the Scriptural basis of our doc-
trine ; (2) by the history of it among the Jews, and its existence at the First Advent ; (3)
by the history of the doctrine in the church at Jerusalem (ase.g. the teaching of James
in the Council) ; (4) by its history in all the churches as given in these Propositions ;
(5) by the teaching of the apostles, as Pressense himself admits, concerning the near-
474 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 74.

ness of the Advent, etc. ;* (6) by the fact that this teaching of Millenarianism had per-
meated the whole church before the Gospels and Epistles were given, for otherwise we
cannot account for its universality, as testified to in these pages by eminent men of all
shades of opinion. Pressense, by this effort to give it an earthly and fanatical parentage,
is not candid. We can well imagine, if he had been in Paul’s place, what a letter he
would have written to these Millenarian Thessalonians, censuring them for starting a
doctrine found in God’s oath-bound covenants, and the subject of a thousand prophecies.

Obs. 4. Among those who are believers in a literal Sec. Advent, various
theories are proposed by way of explanation. Fairbairn’s (On Proph., p.
445) idea is, ‘‘ that the real explanation of the matter lies in their singu-
lar strength of faith, and which led them, in a manner, to overleap the
gulf of ages, to identify the present with the future, and to realize great
events, whether near or remote, in their pressing magnitude and impor-
tance.’’ But we see in this far more than mere faith and personal presenta-
tion of the truth. Neander’s notion (Com. on James, p. 106) that it arose
from a longing desire of the Apostolic church in a “‘ transition point,’’ and
(Ch. His., vol. 2, p. 65) that it was natural for them to do so, not yet being
fully acquainted with the truth ; and Olshausen’s view (Com., vol. 2, p.
222) of its being an accommodation to Old Test. language, inspired by the
lively ardor and desire of the Apostles :—these give but a low estimate of in-
spiration, and make the wishes and circumstances of the Apostles the crite-
rion of truth. Olshausen also (Com., Matt. 24) suggests that the predic-
tions of Christ’s speedy coming are conditional, being dependent on the
repentance of those to whom they were addressed. But the positive language
in which they are couched, and the events, continuous, connected with
them forbids such a view (Prop. 18), which otherwise, with varied and con-
stant repetition, would be well adapted to lead astray. The Apostles in their
public and private instructions never give the least hint that it is to be
thus understood, and none of their hearers or immediate successors enter-
tained such a notion. ‘There is, however, force in the suggestion, as we
shall show, if the number of the elect is taken into consideration. Ooster-
zee (Theol. N. Test., p. 126) says: ‘‘ It cannot be denied that the Lord

* We give an illustration from the same work (p. 286) which involves singular con-
tradictions, viz. : it makes Paul in the earlier part of his career the author of our
doctrine, but which he afterward modified : “ The views of the apostle (Paul) as to the
nearness of the closing period of history, which is to be inaugurated by the personal
return of Christ, seem to have undergone some modifications. In the first stage of His
apostolic career He supposes, with all the Christians of that time, that but a very few years
will intervene before the coming of the day of the Lord ; he is even persuaded that it
will arrive before his own death, 1 Thess. 4:15. Subsequently, in the Roman prison,
on the eve of sealing his testimony with his blood, he receives new liyht. This is very
evident from his Epistle to the Philippians, Phil. 1 : 20-25. He learns before his
death that centuries are to be granted to the Church for the fulfilment of its work, and
for sowing the seed of the Gospel in the vast field opened to missionary labor.’’ Observe,
however, (1) he contradicts his statement respecting the Thessalonians ; (2) he allows the
universality’ of belief ; (3) he makes Paul, specially enlightened, guilty of propagating
error ; (4) he misapprehends Paul’s allusion to nearness and his own death, Obs. 4 ; (5)
there was no such change of view in the Roman prison, the passage referred to not
giving the slightest hint of a change of view in the nearness of the Advent ; (6) if Paul
was thus favored with a change, why not extend it to all the apostles, e.g. John, who
repeated the nearness and warning respecting it ; (7) neither Paul nor any of the apostles
believed in ‘‘ the closing period of history, which is to be inaugurated by the personal
return of Christ’”—this is Pressense’s view, derived from spiritualistic sources—-Paul
(Rom. 11, etc.) believed a grand history was only then to commence.
Prop. 74.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 475

throughout His teaching, as well as in His last eschatological discourses,

represents His coming as very near at hand. ‘This was the natural con-
sequence of the prophetic form of conception, in which the difference of
time and space falls into the background, the exhortation to watchfulness
and active labor receiving greater force from reference to the near, un-
expected, and decisive future.’’ ‘There is propriety in the reason thus as-
signed, but it does not cover the entire ground, failing to tell us why this
is ‘* the prophetic form of conception.’’ .
To indicate how the leaven of infidelity is working, see the Art. of Rev. Dr. Buckley
in the Independent (Dec., 1878), on ‘‘ The Proph. Conference.’’ He admits that the
apostles frequently refer to the nearness of the Sec. Advent, saying, however, ‘‘ As a
result of this extraordinary language and other causes, the apostles and early Christians
fell into the error of supposing that Christ’s final coming would take place before that
generatzon Showld pass away,”-and he quotes Isaac Watts and Albert Barnes to show
that the apostles were in error. Now if these inspired men were in error on so important
a point, what assurance have we that they are not equally in error on other important
matters? We venture to say that on a missionary platform, advocating the conversion
of the world by the present instrumentalities, Buckley will totally overlook this asser-
tion of his, and eulogize the apostolic conceptions of the extent and perpetuity of their
work in this Whitbyan direction. Watson (Apol. for Christianity) takes the same view of
error, and then presents this exceedingly lame apology in behalf of the apostles : ‘‘ Their
mistake in this respect ought not in any wise to diminish their authority as preachers of
the Gospel.’’? Why not? Preachers, appointed to preach the Kingdom, specially en-
lightened to proclaim the truth, affirming that they received and gave only that which is
true, to delude a vast body of believers by express affirmations, which are only “ per-
sonal conjectures,’’ ‘‘ mistakes,’’ ‘‘ errors of judgment,’’ and all this is in no wise to
diminish our confidence in their authority, etc.? The apology is self-contradictory and
insulting to the apostles. Better make none than to give one which deyrades apostolic
teaching, bringing them to an uninspired level. Beecher (Ch. Union, Sep. 5, 1877), ina
sermon on ‘‘ The Future Life,’’ says : “ He (Paul) expected to see Christ in this world
before he departed ; and all the apostles believed that they should ; and there are some
in our day who believe that they shall. I think that you will see Christ ; but you will
see Him on the other side. You will go to Him, He will not come to you. And your
going to Christ will be spiritual, and not carnal. But the faith of the apostles, and of
others, was that they should see Christ in their day. In this matter, however, they
were mistaken. They believed that which facts and time overthrew. Their conviction
was founded on a misinterpretation of the language of our Master.” Alas! when
eminent ministers thus deliberately degrade the apostles! What then becomes of the
prayer and assurance of Jesus that they should be led into the truth? What value
then can be placed upon the special bestowment of the Spirit to guard them against
error? What assurance have we that they are not in error on other important points?
No! never can we receive such dishonoring sentiments ; and a system of faith which
needs them is most certainly defective.

Obs. 5. The announcements made of a near Advent in such phrases,

‘* the Lord is at hand,’’ “the coming of the Lord draweth nigh,’’ etc., has
excited the ridicule of infidels as evidence of grave error ; has provoked,
in some instances, from professed believers reluctant acknowledgments of
‘* mistakes,’’ and, in other cases, lamely produced apologies derived from
the personal status of the Apostles. The real ground for the usage of
such language has been too much overlooked. A remarkable feature in
this contest over the expressions and meaning of the Apostles is the follow-
ing : unbelievers and believers both refer to the fact that the language is
given in the old Jewish prophetic form. The ancient prophets (as e.g.
Isa., Joel), spoke of the promised Salvation, the day of the Lord, the Com-
ing of the Mighty One, as being near, close at hand, etc., when the fulfil-
ment of prophecy shows that centuries upon centuries must intervene
476 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 74.

before it is fully realized. No one has objected to these forms of prophetic

expression, on the ground that they represented remote events as near
because it was reasonably supposed that such phraseology was in strict’
accordance with a professed prophetic revelation given in the largeness of
time which must characterize the utterances of the Spirit of God. Precisely
so with the Sec. Advent ; being a doctrine given by the self-same Spirit,
it would ily correspond with His previous utterancesto pronounce i
remote, even if many (according to human measure of time) centuries in-
tervened. For the latter, although distant to man, would not be so with
God, to whom ‘‘ one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as
one day.’’ We must, therefore, judge the Apostles’ language, not by a
human, but by the Divine standard. The Spirit—if of God,—does not meas-
ure time as we do; and it is only fair and honest to weigh expressions
regarding time given wnder the direction of that Spirit by the largeness of
view which characterizes God Himself. If the Spirit in the consciousness
of Omniscience, Omnipresence, Eternity, the Infinite,—of previously given
declarations corresponding to these,—had in the prophetic announcements
of the Apostles employed, even to designate thousands of years, the language
(to accord with human ideas) ‘‘ remote,’’ *‘ far distant,’’ “long time,”
etc., unbelievers would, probably, be the very first to point out the incon-
sistency of such phraseology with the Divine attributes, and justly claim
that such expressions are indicative of human infirmity. We hold, conse-
quently, that the declarations of the Apostles respecting the nearness of the
Advent, are in strict accordance with the truth, and that, in themselves
properly apprehended, they contain decided evidence of the Spirit having
given them. And, as they sustain an intimate relation to the perfection of
the Spirit, they cannot be interpreted, without undue violence, as an ac-
commodation to human imperfection.
God's Word is not man’s that presents this nearness ; hence God, and not man,
informs us according to His own view, whether it is near or distant. To God it is but a
brief period, and this principle relating to time still future is recorded in various
Seriptures. Thus e.g. that long (to man) period of Jewish tribulation, extending from
the Babylonian Captivity down to Christ, down to our own times, is called in Isa. 54 : 7,
“<a small moment.”” This whole dispensation is called ‘‘ a day,” etc. Now, the Primitive
Church, after the apostles, instead of grasping this Divine mode of speaking, took the
language as if characteristic of man’s ideas of nearness, and apprehended this nearness
as imminent, impending. What possibly increased this feeling in the early churches
was the adoption of the defective (Sept.) chronology, by which it was supposed that
nearly six thousand years had elapsed, and the Sabbatism was expected (compare
eandid remarks of Prof. Bush, On Miil., p. 23 and p. 4). But against this, it may be
alleged, that the apostles looked for the Advent during their lifetime. In answer, see
Obs. 8. Two additional points may be suggested : (1) Prophetic tine, either as to
beginning, or ending, or both, is reserved by God as specially pertaining to Himself,
and, therefore, any references to such time will be given according to God’s own estimate
of time. (2) The language is also adapted to the capability of salvation. Before the
Advent and Kingdom appears, a certain predetermined number of the elect must first
be gathered. As the destined seed of Abraham is raised up, the work, which to human
estimation is a long one, to God is but a short one, and will be—to use the Spirit’s
estimate—speedily accomplished. Hence we can, and do, receive the comments of un-
believers, etc., excepting their deductions that the apostles were mistaken. Thus e.g.
the author of The Beginning of Christianity (p. 366) says in reference to the speedy
Advent: ‘‘ This expectation is expressed by all the apostles in terms which fairly admit
of no other interpretation. It is found in Paul (Rom. 13: 11, 12; 1 Cor. 7 : 29-31 ; and
10:11; Phil. 4:5;1 Tim. 6:14).” ‘‘The same expectation is expressed in the
Epistle to the Hebrews (10 : 25, 37) ; in the Epistle of James (5 : 3, 8); in the Epistles
of Peter (1 Pet. 4:7; 2 Pet. 3:3); in the first Epistle of John (2:18); and in the
Apocalypse (1:1; and 2:11; and 22:7, 12,20). To put any other construction on
 Prop. 74.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 477

these passages, as if the parousia to which they refer was anything else than the Sec.
Advent of the Lord to Judgment, would introduce a dangerous license in the interpreta-
tion, and one which might be employed to subvert the principal doctrines of the
Christian system. Under the general expectation of the apostles, mistaken though it
might prove to be in the one particular of time, there lay a fundamental truth.’’ From
our standpoint, the apostles need no apology for employing such language ; for its use
proves them to have been inspired.

Obs. 6. In accord with the truthfulness of the Divine statements in ref-

erence to time, a decided advantage is derived from them in the form
given. ‘The estimate of nearness given by God Himself, in measuring pro-
phetic periods, throws around the Sec. Advent a purposed indefiniteness, a
sufficiency of uncertainty, an impression that it may be near, to be con-
ducive to watchfulness and piety, to excite vigilance, energy and labor, to
impart wisdom, prudence and character, to incite to patient, diligent
and faithful study. The evidently designed chasms in chronology, the
selection of signs which more or less attend the history of centuries, the
concealment of the number of the elect, the withholding the day and the
hour, the speaking of things present owing to their certainty of arrival,
although still future, the brevity of dispensations when compared with the
ages of eternity,—these are all in the same line, suggestive that time is
given to present motives of caution and action.
The salutary influence of this style of prediction in the first centuries has been
admitted by infidels (e.g. Gibbon, etc.), by believers
(e.g. Bush, etc.), and, we are told,
was eminently adapted to confirm the early Christians under persecution. But it is
just as available, just as hope and strength imparting to-day as ever ; and many, who
sympathize with us or who reject our doctrine, forcibly acknowledge this feature. We
append two illustrations. Van Oosterzee (Theol. N. Test., sec. 29), speaking of Peter
and the apostles generally looking for the Advent, remarks: ‘‘ The day of the Lord’s
Parousia, not more nearly defined by the Lord Himself, remained and remains a point
of individual expectation, upon which only time can shed the true light. If Peter
shared in this respect the expectation of the whole apostolic age, the event which he
looked for remains not the less the object of expectation for all future ages, and the hope
commended by him is still an inexhaustible fountain of consoling and sanctifying influence.’’
Fairbairn (On Proph., p. 77) says : ‘‘ The day itself was, theretore, purposely left in con-
cealment ; it remained among the undiscovered secrets of the Godhead, and nothing
more than probable and proximate signs were given of its approach, as of an event to
be ever expected and looked for, yet never, as to the period of its actual occurrence, to be
certainly foreknown.” (Well may it be asked, How can Fairbairn reconcile his Mill.
age of definite time to precede such an Advent, with the posture indicated by his
language?) Hence it becomes us, if we wish to imbibe the apostolic spirit portrayed,
to occupy the attitude assumed by the apostles and their converts (comp. Prop. 182).

Obs. %. In view of the inestimable purposes of Salvation connected with

the Sec. Advent, the latter cannot be held up too prominently, being, as
Holy Writ expresses it, ‘‘ the blessed hope.’’ ‘The nearness connected with
the preciousness, makes the Advent so extremely desirable and the object
of inspiring hope. Many who receive, and many who reject our doctrinal
position, hold to the exceeding worth of this Advent, both to its immi-
nency (may at any time occur), and to its desirableness (i.e. ought to be
desired by the true believer).
Thus e.g. Lange (Com., vol. 1, p. 433) says that it may occur “‘ at any moment,” and
in various places speaks of its being the great object of heartfelt desire and hope.
Neander (vol. 1, p. 182, Ch. His.) designates it as ‘‘ fitted to be, not an object of dread,
but of joyful, longing hope.” So Barnes (Com., 2 Pet. 3 : 12) and Dr. Brown of Glasgow
(Ch. Sec. Coming) calling it ‘‘ the polar star,” besides a host of others (comp. Props.
478 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [Prop. 74.

173 and 182), Hence it is not correct to say, what a writer in the Westminster Review
(Jan., 1873, p. 88) sneeringly asserts, viz. : that Christ represented His religion as
“ new wine,” but “‘ now it is old wine that has lost some of its original ingredients by
evaporation,” and among the things ‘‘ evaporated’’ or lost he numbers “‘ the anticipa-
tion, not to be laid aside for a moment, of the immediate return of Christ.” Admitting
that multitudes have removed, ignored, or perverted this doctrine, yet it is also true
(aside from its unchangeable relationship to the Word) that many, even of our op-
ponents, cordially receive it while untagonistic to their own system of belief—i.e. to their
Millennial theory.

Obs. 8. To invalidate the credibility of the Apostles, some allege (even

believers, as Olshausen, etc.) that ‘‘ the apostles expected the return of
Jesus in their lifetime.’? But this remains wnproven, being only infer-
red from the phrase (1 Thess. 4 : 15) ‘‘ we, which are alive and remain,’’ and
from the account given by John 21: 22, 23. But the former, as after-
ward explained in the Second Epistle, and the latter as evidenced by
John’s own interpretation (v. 23), and afterward by the events delineated
in the Apoc., forbid such an inference.
The “we” appears only indicative of fellow-believers, of Christians who should be
successors—for the exhibition of the apostasy and Antichrist by Paul (including a
series of events not to be compressed in a lifetime), the portrayal of future events in
the Apoc, by John which were to transpire previously, the allusions to their own coming
death as something to occur before the expected Advent—are sufficient evidence that the
apostles, under the guidance of the Spirit, regarded the period of the Advent as in-
definite in the future to follow certain events, which they knew (as seen by references
to their own departure) were not to take place during their Jifetime. (Ihe passage
Mark 9:1, Matt. 16 : 28, Luke 9 : 27, will be noticed in Prop. 153, on the Transfiguration.)
One of the editors (either Dr. Brown or Dr. Valentine) in the Quarterly Review for July,
1874, in Art. ‘‘ Did the Apostles expect the Sec. Coming of Christ in their own day ?”
ably answers the unwarranted deductions of Olshausen, Oosterzee, Meyer, and others,
conclusively showing that they did not anticipate the Advent before their own departure.
This Art., overlooking what we have stated in relation to the Spirit’s estimate of time,
gives the following solution to the language employed : ‘‘ The apparent nearness of this
event may result from its transcendent importance and its relations to us as individ-
uals. In such a matter the element of time is almost lost sight of, and we stand as in
the presence of the august reality.”” This is enforced by illustrations and a quotation
from Lange (Life of Christ, vol. 1, p. 81, 82).

Obs. 9. The apostles, after the res. and ascension of Jesus, never used
the formula ‘‘ the Kingdom of heaven is at hand ;’’—thus accepting of the
change in the manner of Christ’s teaching (Prop. 58, etc.), and linked
by the phraseology adopted (Prop. 71, etc.), the Aingdom with the Sec.
Advent. For, instead of the previous formula, they now tell us that
** the Coming of the Lord draweth nigh,’ “ the Lord is at hand,” etc. They
guard us thus, by the very choice of words, against the notion that the
Kingdom was already established, or that it possibly could be set up dur-
ing the absence of the King. Under the former preaching, Jesus being
present, the Kingdom was announced ; under the apostolic, Jesus being
absent and the Kingdom postponed, His Coming again, as the requisite
prelude, is prominently proclaimed.
A singular feature which has attracted the critical student is this: Owing to the
belief in the speedy coming, the rapid development of Antichrist and his overthrow, the
expected approach of the anticipated Kingdom, the history of the Church for several
generations is, notwithstanding the progress made, almost a blank on questions now
regarded as highly important, as e.g. those relating to church government, the exact
progress, triumphs, and conflicts of Christianity. So much is this the case, that the
first and second centuries have become a kind of battle-field between the various theories
Prop. 74.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 479

of church government. No documents, such as appeared later, defining forms, looking

toward perpetuity, etc., appeared. This very state—this very lack—supports our posi-
tion. Uhlhorn (Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism, p. 337) refers to this, saying:
‘“* The Coming of the Lord was then believed to be quite near, and this hope dominated
the whole life. No provision was made for a long continuance of the Church on earth,
‘and all efforts were exclusively directed toward remaining in the world without spot till
the day of Christ’s Coming.” (To which we add: and to urge others to receive this
Jesus and be saved, for the spread of the Gospel indicates their missionary zeal, not as
Reuss (Prop. 74, Obs, 2, note) has it that they stayed ‘‘ at home,” etc.)

Obs. 10. The Apostles occupied the very position regarding the Sec.
Advent, enjoined by the Divine Master ; to have employed any other
language (e.g. in accord with modern ideas) than that used, would have
been a violation of His commands (as e.g. presented Matt. chs. 24 and
25).
In the Scriptures referred to, in connection with the exhortations to watchfulness,
we find an epitomized history of events running from the destruction of Jerusalem
down to the Advent, and, in strict accordance with our argument, it gives no hint,
not even the slightest, of a Kingdom until the period of the Advent arrives. The
declarations of Jesus and those of the apostles are in harmony. The same will be
found in other respects as we advance in the argument. If the modern views
engrafted on the New Test. are correct, then we ought to find, instead of these
exhortations, that “the coming of the Church in greater power and glory draws
nigh,’’ with cautions not to look and watch for the Advent, but for larger and still larger
triumphs of the Church. The two positions are utterly antagonistic, and it is absurd to
endeavor to blend them together. Either the New Test. teaches the one or the other—
both are irreconcilable unless violence is done to the language. Let the critical student
answer the following question, and it will be decisive: If inspired apostles were in
error respecting the Sec. Advent, so that they could not locate with their views of it
(as conceded by our opponents, as quoted) a conversion of the world, or even a long-
extended missionary work with it, whal would such inspired men, who professed to
understand the prophecies, do with e.g. Ps. 22 : 27, 28, and a thousand similar predic-
tions? Does it not, consistently and logically, follow, that if in their estimation ful-
filled at all, they must of necessity be realized after the Sec. Advent, as held by the
Primitive Church, and not before that Advent, seeing that they give no room for the same?
480 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 75.

Proposition 75. Zhe doctrine of the Kingdom, as held by the

churches established by the Apostles, was perpetuated.
This was done by the Apostolic Fathers, by succeeding Christian
Fathers, and by other writers in the church. The same is cor-
roborated by Jewish and Pagan authors, and also by Apocryphal
books.
What Buckle (His. Civil., vol. 1, p. 215) says of truth in general is applicable to
that pertaining to this Kingdom : ‘‘ No great truth which has once been found has ever
afterward been lost.”

Obs. 1. Our doctrine is traced continuously from the Apostles themselves,

seeing that (Prop. 72, Obs. 3, note 1) the first Fathers, who present Mil-
lenarian views, saw and conversed either with the Apostles or the Elders fol-
lowing them. So extensively, so generally was Chiliasm perpetuated, that
Justin Martyr positively asserts that all the orthodox adopted and upheld
it. Justin’s language is explicit (Dial. with Trypho, sec. 2); for after
stating the Chiliastic doctrine, he asserts: ‘‘it to be thoroughly proved
that it will come to pass. But I have also signified unto thee, on the other
hand, that many—even those of that race of Christians who follow not
godly and pure doctrine—do not acknowledge it.! For I have demonstrated
to thee, that these are indeed called Christians ; but are atheists and im-
pious heretics, because that in all things they teach what is blasphemous,
and ungodly, and unsound,’’ etc. He adds: ‘‘ But I and whatsoever
Christians are orthodox in all things do know that there will be a resurrec-
tion of the flesh, and a thousand years in the city of Jerusalem, built,
adorned and enlarged, according as Ezekiel, Isaiah, and other prophets
have promised. For Isaiah saith of this thousand years (ch. 65 :17)
‘ Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be
remembered, nor come into mind; but be ye glad and rejoice in those
which I create : for, behold, I create Jerusalem to triumph, and my people
to rejoice,’’ etc. Moreover, a certain man among us, whose name is John,
being one of the twelve apostles of Christ, in that revelation which was
shown to him prophesied, that those who believe in our Christ shall fulfil
a thousand years at Jerusalem ; and after that the general, and, in a word,
the everlasting resurrection, and last judgment of all together. Whereof
also our Lord spake when He said, that therein they shall neither marry,
nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal with the angels, being made
the sons of the resurrection of God.’’?
' This is the passage that has been tampered with in some mss., the ‘‘ not’’ being
omitted (comp. Prop. 73, Obs. 3, note 2). For the genuineness of the passage, see e.g.
Brooks’ El. of Proph. Interp., ch. 3. Semisch (Herzog’s Cyclop.) remarks on it : ‘‘ Chiliasm
constituted in the sec. century so decidedly an article of faith that Justin held it up as a
criterion of perfect orthodoxy.’’ Numerous writers have made the same comment. This
has, unfortunately, led some (as Shimeall, the Christadelphians, etc.) to apply it as a
measure of orthodoxy at the present day. ‘To avoid a wrong inference, we may add,
that the criterion set up by Justin in his day might well answer the purpose at that
Prop. 75,] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 481
time, but is inapplicable to the present day. The reason is simple : those who rejected
Chiliasm in Justin’s time were also guilty of subverting the essential, fundamental doc.
trines of religion (and hence the force of his comparison), while this is not true of a
large number of our opponents at this day. Such a comparison instituted, continued,
and pressed, would be both illiberal and unjust (comp. Prop. 72, Obs. 1, note 2).
> Justin Martyr’s testimony is so overwhelming that some of our opponents seek to
break its force by various shifts, e.g. by disparaging the man, by advocating an inter-
polation, by silently passing him in the enumeration of Fathers, etc. Prof. Briggs,
under the signature of ‘‘ Westminster,’’ in the New Yorle Evangelist, professes to give
an utterly unfair and unscholarly (as we shall prove again and again) history of Mil-
lenarianism. On the strength of Jerome omitting Justin’s name in his list of Chiliasts,
the Prot. jumps to the sage conclusion that Justin was no Chiliast! This is opposed by
the writings of Justin, by all our standard Church historians, and by a multitude of
able critics. It is conceded to us by numerous bitter and unrelenting opposers (such
as Shedd, Prof. Stuart, Mosheim, etc.). The omission is readily accounted for by Mede
(Works, p. 813), and by the character (Mosheim, vol. 1, p. 250, with which comp.
Neander, Kurtz, etc.) of Jerome. To break the force of Justin’s testimony by laying
stress on general Eschatological expressions (which we can also cordially adopt), and
avoiding the statements of Justin where he particularizes the order or manner of fulfil-
ment, is correspondent with Briggs’ entire series, which for unfairness, perversions,
deliberate untruthfulness, and arrogance (in sadness we say it) bears off the palm. We
only add: that Justin is far more competent (in view of the time he lived, his scholar-
ship, his pre-eminence as an Apologist, his consistent Christian life sealed by martyrdom
for the truth) to tell us what was ‘‘ the orthodox’ view in his day than ‘‘ Westminster,’’
with his heart filled with enmity and prejudice, is to-day. The reader will, we hope,
dispassionately look at the evidence we give (much of it from learned and able opposers,
who scorned to stoop to such devices), and then compare it with Prof. Briggs’ reply to
Dr. West. The latter asserted in ‘‘ The Proph. Conference’’ (that met in Dr. Tyng’s
church in New York) that “a true Christian Chiliasm was the orthodow faith of the
Primitive Church in its purest days ’’ Briggs affirms that this is © unhistorical and
false,’ and ** that it was rejected among the earliest of heresies in its grosser forms
and merely tolerated in its finer forms.”
To give the reader a just idea (in vindication of the severity of our strictures) of the
bigotry and intelligence of this ‘* heresy-hunier,’’ and his relish for *‘ bitter herbs,’ as well
as his charitable assumption of superiority and ecclesiastical authority, we reproduce
this choice morsel : after threatening persecution, as against heretics, if Millenarians do
not keep those views to themselves and desist in calling it ‘‘ a vital doctrine,” ete., his
authoritative animus bursts forth as follows: ‘‘1t depends entirely upon themselves
what the future is to bring forth. If they will abandon their organization, disband their
committee, stop their Bible and Prophetic Conferences, we doubt not that there will
soon be a calm again, and they will remain undisturbed in their ecclesiastical relations ;
but if they are determined to go on in their aggressive movement, they will have only
themselves to blame if the storm should become a whirlwind that zwill constrain them to depart
from the orthodox churches, and form another heretical sect.’’ This is evidence that he,
after all, has not much confidence in his one-sided argumentation, for if he trusted in
the power of truth, he would not thus lose his temper, and speak of men (leaders)
who are pre-eminently superior to himself in every qualification relating to scholar-
ship, intelligence, usefulness, devotion to the service of the Master, etc. Suppose
we should make such demands, and propose to secure “a calm’’ by asking them to
abandon the publicity of their views, to stop their parade of the Whitbyan theory at
missionary meetings, etc., they would justly pronounce it arrogant, claiming that views
honestly and sincerely believed to be amply sustained by Scripture and history are not
to be got rid of by persecution, but by solid Scriptural and historical reasoning. When
argument is weal threats are resorted to in order to prop it up, thus repeating the pain-
ful history of the past. Do Post-Millenarians keep their views to themselves, as shown
in thousands of books, pulpits, platform addresses, newspapers, Systematic Theologies,
etc. ? Can they justly ask us to refrain from giving equal prominency to our doctrine, if
we deem it advisable, especially when we believe its proclamation to bea (od-com-
manded duty? Would they make us, by threats of force, dishonest to conviction and
hypocritical in belief ?

Obs. 2. Numerous testimonies of friends might be adduced. A few are

given by way of illustration (comp. those given under Props. 72-74).
482 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 75.

Judge Jones, under the name ‘‘ Philo-Basilicus’’ (Zit., vol. 3, Hssays,

p. 78), says ‘‘ that all the Fathers, whose writings have come down to us,
previous to Origen, and some who were contemporary and subsequent to
him, believed this (Chilvastic) doctrine cannot be disproved.’’' _Bh. Newton
(On Proph., p. 591-2) remarks : ‘‘ In short the doctrine of the Millen-
nium was generally believed in the three first and purest ages, and this
belief, as the learned Dodwell hath justly observed, was one principal
cause of the fortitude of the primitive Christians; they even coveted
martyrdom, in hopes of being partakers of the privileges and glories of the
martyrs in the first resurrecticn.’’?
1 Shedd (His. of Ch. Doc.) endeavors to make the unfair impression that some of the
Fathers, from whom we have but a few fragments of opinion, were not Chiliastic, saying
that ‘‘ there are no traces of Chiliasm in the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius,
and Polycarp.’’ This is uncandid : (1) because their associates and followers were Chil-
iastic, and the language employed by the latter includes the former ; (2) Justin's test of
orthodoxy embraces them ; (3) they allege in the fragments nothing against our doc-
trine, and much less anything favoring the modern (Prof. Shedd’s) view ; (4) they
employ phraseology and language that can only be justly reconciled with a Chiliastic
belief. In reference to their faith, Taylor’s Voice of the Church, Shimeall’s Reply to
Shedd, Seiss’ Last Times, Ap. 2, etc., have quoted sufliciently from these writers to show
that they were Chiliastic. Clement’s allusion to ‘‘ preaching the Coming of Christ,’’ of
Christ’s Coming ‘‘ suddenly” and ‘‘ quickly,’’ of ‘‘ every hour expecting the Kingdom of God
in love and righteous, because we know not the day of God’s appearing ;” Ignatius’ speak-
ing of ‘* the last times,” of ‘‘ expecting Him who is above all time ;’’ Polycarp’s reference to
‘“ reigning together with Him ;” all this, taking into consideration the prevailing usage,
indicates what many, even hostile to us, admit, that they were Chiliasts. Shedd’s idea
is not only to unfairly represent our doctrine but to imply that the modern view also
prevailed, of which there is not the slightest trace. Dr. Lillie, Dr. Brookes, and others, have
rebutted his ‘‘ singularly’ (so Lillie) ‘‘ inadequate, and I say it reluctantly, somewhat
unfair chapter on Millenarianism.”” Prof. Shedd does not meet the issue, viz.: that it is
** conceded that every one of the Apostolic Fathers, who says anything at all on the
subject, is a Chiliast,” but in view of the silence of some Fathers on the subject in the
very brief writings of theirs in our possession, hastily concludes that this “ tenet was
not the received faith of the Church, certainly down to the year 150.’’ The student
will allow its ‘‘ due weight” to such a conclusion, indicative of the fact that our his-
torical position is pressing our opponents sorely, seeing that they can resort to such a
method to weaken, if possible, its foree (comp. Prop. 74, Obs. 2. note 1).
? Others are given for the student. Dr. Bennet ( Works, vol. 2, p. 184): ‘* The Mil-
lennial Kingdom of Christ was the general doctrine of the Primitive Church from the times
of the apostles to the Council of Nice, inclusively.” As the testimony of Millenarians
might be regarded as partial or biased, the reader is merely referred to the following :
Mede’s Works, Greswell’s Exp. of the Parables, Taylor’s Voice of the Church, Brooks’ El.
Proph. Interp., Seiss’ Last Times, Elliott’s Hora Apoc., Gill’s Com., Sir I. Newton On
Proph., Auberlen On Proph., Bonar’s Apostolicity of Chiliasm, Cox’s Millenarian’s Answer,
besides many others. The following writers can also be advantageously quoted:
Duffield, Bh. Henshaw, Tyng, Gaussen, Sherwin, Alstedius, Shaeffer, Maitland, Pym,
McCaul, Brightman, Anderson, Manford, Bryant, Drummond, Hooper, Ogilvy, Homes,
and others. Dr. West delivered a good paper on the ‘‘ His. of the Pre-Mill. Doctrine’
before the Proph. Conference at New York.

Obs. 3. The testimony of opponents (some having already been given,

Props. 72-74) may properly be presented because impartial. ‘We select for
this purpose the originator and defender of the generally received view .
(comp. Prop. 175). Dr. Whitby (Zreatise on Tradition) gives us the fol-
lowing often-quoted statement : “‘ The doctrine of the Millennium, or the
reign of saints on earth for a thousand years, is now rejected by all Roman
Catholics, and by the greatest part of Protestants ; and yet it passed among
the best Christians, for two hundred and fifty years, for a tradition apos-
Prop. 75.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 483

tolical ; and, as such, is delivered by many Fathers of the second and

third century, who speak of it as the tradition of our Lord and His apos-
tles, and of all the ancients who lived before them ; who tell us the very
words in which it was delivered, the Scriptures which were then so inter-
preted ; and say that 2t was held by all Christians that were exactly ortho-
dox.’’ ‘‘ It was received not only in the Eastern parts of the Church, b
Papias (in Phrygia), Justin (in Palestine), but by Ireneus.(in Gaul), Nepos
(in Egypt), Apollinaris, Methodius (in the West and South), Cyprian,
Victorinus (in Germany), by Tertullian (in Africa), Lactantius (in
Italy), and Severus, and by the Council of Nice’’ (about a.b. 323). .Even
in his Treatise on the Millennium, in which he endeavors to set aside the
ancient faith by his substitution of ‘‘ a new hypothesis,’’ he acknowledges,
according to Justin and Irenzus, that (ch. 1, p. 61) there were ‘‘ three
sorts of men: (1) The Heretics, denying the resurrection of the flesh and
the Millennium. (2) The exactly orthodox, asserting both the resurrection
and the Kingdom of Christ on earth. (3) The believers, who consented
with the just, and yet endeavored to allegorize and turn into a metaphor
all those Scriptures produced for a proper reign of Christ, and who had
sentiments rather agreeing with those heretics who denied, than those ez-
actly orthodox who maintained, this reign of Christ on earth.’’
Such evidence from Anti-Millenarians is cumulative. The reader may find it
interesting to glance over others. Thus e.g. Bh. Taylor (Liberty of Prophesying, sec. 2)
remarks (over against concessions made, as Brooks has noticed, in his Sermon on 1 Cor.
15 : 23): “that the doctrine of the Millenaries was in the best ages esteemed no heresy,
but true Catholic doctrine; though since then it hath had justice (?) done it, and hath
suffered a just (?) condemnation.” Chillingworth (Works, p. 347), already referred to
(Prop. 73, Obs. 1, note 2), says: ‘‘ It appears manifest out of this book of Irenzus that
the doctrine of the Chiliasts was in his judgment apostolic tradition, as also it was esteemed
(for aught appears to the contrary) by all the doctors, and saints, and martyrs of, or about,
his time ; for all that speak of it, or whose judgments in the point are any way recorded,
are for it ; and Justin Martyr professeth, that all good and orthodox Christians of his time
believed it, and those that did not, he reckons among heretics.’’ His argument is,
briefly, as follows : ‘‘ That this doctrine (of the Millennium and Christ’s personal reign
on earth) was by the church of the next age after the apostles held true and catholic,
I prove by these two reasons : first, whatever doctrine is believed and taught by the most
eminent fathers of any age of the church, and by none of their contemporaries opposed or
condemned, that is to be esteemed the Catholic doctrine of the church of those times ; but
the doctrine of the Millenaries was believed and taught by the most eminent fathers of the
age next after the apostles, and by none of that age opposed or condemned ; therefore it
was the Catholic doctrine of those times.’’ Such testimony can be multiplied : for Mosheim
(Ch. His.) speaks of it as ‘‘ the prevailing opinion ,” Gieseler (Ch. His.) tells us that it
“became the general belief of the time ;’ Lardner (Cred. of Gosp. His.) informs us that
‘* the Millennium has been the favorite doctrine of some ages and has had the patronage of
the learned, as well as the vulgar, among Christians ;’’ Miinscher (His. Dog.) testifies:
“ How widely the doctrine of Millenarianism prevailed in the first centuries of Chris-
tianity, appears from this that it was universally received by almost all teachers ;’’ En-
eyclopedia Americana (Art. Mill.) pronounces it ‘‘a universal belief among the Christians
of the first centuries.”” The student desirous of additional references may consult for
confirmatory statements Bush (On Mill.), Neander (Ch. His.), Burton (Bampton Lec.,
1829), Stuart (Com. Apoc.), Barnes (Com. Rev.), Bh. Russel (Dis, on Mill.), Hagenbach
(His. of Doc.), Kitto (Cyclop.,~Art. Mill.), Baumgarten (His. Apos. Ch.), Lechler (Apos.
and Post-Apos. Times), Schlegel (Philos. of His.), Milner (Ch. His.), Jones (Ch. His.),
Shaff (Ch. His.), Kurtz (Ch. His.).
The candid admissions of those who are no believers in our doctrine are so interest-
ing that we append several more. Thus e.g. Dodgson (Transl. of Tertullian, vol. 1, p.
121-3) speaks of our belief, according to Ireneus and Justin, ‘‘ as belonging to the full
soundness of faith,’’ that ‘‘ Kusebius states it to have been the prevailing doctrine in the
church,’’ and that ‘‘ until the early part of the third century; (it was) held by most,
484 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Pror. 75.

questioned by none whose name has been preserved.” Bh. Russell (Dis. on Mill., p. 236)
remarks : “so far as we view the question in reference to the sure and certain hope
entertained by the Christian world that the Redeemer would appear on the earth, and
exercise authority during a thousand vears, there is good ground for the assertion of
Mede, Dodwell, Burnet, and other writers on the same side, that down to the beginning
of the fourth century the belief was universal and undisputed.’’ Dr. Nast (the Com-
mentator) in an Art. in ‘‘ The West. Ch. Advocate” (July 30, 1879) remarks: ‘‘ Hase,
distinguished for the accuracy of his statements, calls Chiliasm ‘ the great faith-article of
the Primitive Church.’ Prof. Volk, in his masterly reply to Dr. Keil, says also, ‘It was
fundamental to the Church from the beginning.’’’ Our entire line of argument shows
why, of necessity, it was thus ‘‘ fundamental’ and ‘‘ the great faith-article’ of the
early Church.

Obs. 4. The evidence in favor of the general perpetuation of the doc-

trine is strengthened by the concessions of those who were among the first,
and most bitter, opposers. Thus e.g. Jerome (Com. on Jes., 19:10), says :
“that he durst not condemn the (Millennial) doctrine, because many ec-
clesiastical persons and martyrs affirm the same.’’
This is quoted by Brooks (Hl. Proph. Interp., p. 48). Among my notes I find the
following reference : See Jerome’s Pref. to Isa., 65, and his Com. on Jer. 19 : 10, where
he admits that *‘ many Christians and martyrs had affirmed the things that he denied;
and that a great multitude of Christians agreed in them in his own day; so that
though he could not follow them, he could not condemn them.’ In another place he says :
‘a multitude of persons will be offended with me.” Comp. also Brooks’ (p. 49, ete.)
statements concerning Eusebius, Augustine, etc. We fully admit in following Proposi-
tions that through such men as Jerome, Eusebius, and others—who like Eusebius
could flatter the Emperors with the idea that the Millennial glory was already inaugurated
under their sway, and that Rome itself was converted into the New Jerusalem —the
doctrine declined. We also admit, as in full accord with predictions, that during ‘the
dark ages it remained, like many other precious doctrines, under an eclipse. The very
opposition and decline here noticed is only an additional reason for retaining the doc-
trine, because if extensively popular and universally received, and continwed thus down
to the present, its history would not harmonize with the warnings, cautions, and predic-
tions relating to it, showing that men would turn away from it. On this point it is
only necessary to again quote Whitby (Treatise on Tradition, as given p. 86, Proph. Times,
vol. 6) himself : “‘ This doctrine (Chiliasm) was owned in the first ages of the church by
the greatest number of the Christian clergy, as is confessed by Eusebius ; that by the
confession of St. Jerome muny ecclesiastical men and martyrs had asserted it before
their time (//. Kecles. 1, 3, c. 39, in Jer. 19), and that even in his days it was the doctrine
which «@ great multitude of Christians followed (Proem, in lib. 13, Com., in Esa.),"’ etc.

Obs. 5. The reception and interpretation of the Apoc., also indicates the
extent of Millenarian doctrine. It being held to contain the hopes of a
Kingdom to come, as we have shown, it was confidently appealed to in
our behalf, and was universally received by the orthodox believers. This
continued until some Anti-Chiliasts endeavored,—seeing no escape from its
teaching,—to bring it into discredit ; which opposition only ceased when it
was found that its plain announcements might be spiritualized. Dr.
Smith (NV. Test. His., p. 723, On Rev.) remarks : ‘‘ The interval between
the Apostolic age and that of Constantine has been called the Chiliastic
period of Apocalyptic interpretation.’’
Gibbon (JLis. Decline, etc., vol. 1, p. 535) sarcastically alludes to this, saying : ‘* A
mysterious. prophecy, which still forms a part of the sacred canon, but which was
thought to favor the exploded sentiment, has very narrowly escaped the proscription of
the church.” He refers to the complaint that Sulp. Severus made respecting its
neglect ; for as Reuss and others have stated, the Greek Fathers, under the influence of
the Alexandrian theology, from the time of the third century manifested an antipathy
to the book, although previously it was held as the great and important Revelation from
Prop. 75.| THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 485

Christ. It is supposed by some that Caius (about a.p. 210) first started the opposition
to the Apocalypse ;* this was strengthened by the position of Dionysius (about a.p. 248),
although he is forced, over against his doubting its genuineness, to say : ‘* But, for my
part, I dare not reject the book, since muny of the brethren have it in high esteem,”’’
etc. (comp. Stuart’s, Hug’s, Michaelis’, Barnes’, and other Introductions for a detailed
account). Gibbon refers to its omittal by the Council of Laodicea (a.p. 363). The
contest over the book resulted from its supposed Chiliastic teaching (so Barnes, etc.),
and Hug (Introd., p. 654) says: ‘‘ It was amid the disputes concerning the Millennium
that the first explicit and well-authenticated denial of the Apoc. occurred.’’ Bh. Russel
(On Mill.) states : ‘* It is worthy of remark that'so long as the prophecies regarding the
Millennium were interpreted literally the Apocalypse was received as an inspired pro-
duction, and as the work of the apostle John ; but no sooner did, theologians find
themselves compelled to view its annunciations through the medium of allegory and
metaphorical description, than they ventured to call in question its heavenly origin, its
genuineness, and itsauthority.” Art. Apoc. (by Prof. Schem) Appleton’s Cyclop., says -
‘*The rejection of the canonical and apostolical character of the book was chiefly
prompted by opposition to Chiliasm ; and when the interest in the Chiliastic contro-
versies declined, the church generally received the Apoc. as the work of the apostle
John.’’ Hence Mede (Works, p. 602) said: ‘‘I have demonstrated that the 1000 follow
the times when the beast and the false prophet, and consequently the times of
Antichrist, which those who oppose the Chiliasts have found so necessary” (i.e. assume
existing) “as to force them to deny the Apocalypse to be Scripture ; nor was it ever
admitted until they had found some commodious interpretation of the 1000 years.” We
append Horne’s (/ntrod., vol. 2, p. 379) statement : ‘‘ It is a remarkable circumstance that
the authenticity of this book was very generally, if not universally, acknowledged during
the first two centuries, and yet in the third century it began to be questioned. This seems
to have been occasioned by some absurd notions concerning the Millennium, which a
few well-meaning but fanciful expositors grounded on this book ; which notions their
opponents injudiciously and presumptuously endeavored to discredit, by denying the
authority of the book itself.”” (He quotes Sir Isaac Newton and Dr. Priestly as regard-
ing it one of the best attested books of the New Test., which is the uniform opinion of
the best critics, destructive and orthodox.) The student will find numerous similar
testimonies in the Introductions to the Apocalypse (as e.g. Barnes, Lange, Alford,
Liicke, etc.), so that (so Lange Rev., p. 64) in summing up “the Pre Constantinian
Period” of Apoc. interpretation, it is thus given : “ Fundamental Thought: The Millennial
Kingdom is to come ; according to the Chiliastic view, its coming is imminent.” M Clintock
& Strong’s Cyclop., Art. ‘‘ Revelation,’’ remarks : ‘‘ The interval between the apostolic
age and that of Constantine has been called the Chiliastic period of Apocalyptic inter-
pretation. The visions of John were chiefly regarded as representations of general
Christian truths, scarcely yet embodied in actual facts, for the most part to be exempli-
fied or fulfilled in the reign of Antichrist, the Coming of Christ, the Millennium, and
the day of judgment. The fresh hopes of the early Christians, and the severe persecu-
tions they endured taught them to live in those future events with intense satisfaction
and comfort.’’ Compare the statements of Herzog’s Encyclop., Appleton’s Cyclop., and
others ; especially the Introd. by Dr. Elliott in his Hora Apoc. Pressense (The Early
Days of Christianity, p. 501, Ap., note L), advocating the authenticity of the Apoc.,
remarks : ‘‘ The first doubts on this subject were expressed by the sect of the Alogi,
who denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. These doubts were carried further by Caius,
and finally by Dionysius of Alexandria (Eusebius 7 : 25), and more or less confirmed by
Eusebius. But it is needful to study the grounds taken by Dionysius, in order to be
convinced that he reasons entirely from a priori arguments, and that it is fear of the
Chiliasts or Millenurians which leads him to throw doubt upon the book of Revelation.”’

* The student is referred to a contradiction—those who. assert that Caius rejected the
Apoc., ground such a rejection on the supposition that he esteemed Cerinthus the
author of it—now, the Benedictines (Buckle, Mis., vol. 3, p. 211) allege, that when the
Apoc. was violently attacked by Cerinthus and other heretics, the early Fathers, as
Justin, Irenzeus, Theophylact, etc., believed it to be written by John. However this
may be, two things are certain: (1) that if the doctrines of Cerinthus are correctly
reported he could not be the author of the book, seeing it contains much opposed to the
same ; (2) John being the author and the opponent of Cerinthus, would not adopt views
endorsing, more or less, those of Cerinthus.
486 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRoP. 75.

Obs. 6. The extent to which the doctrine prevailed is also apparent from
the Apocryphal books. The counterfeit is based upon the genuine.
Thus e.g. Gieseler (Ch. His., vol. 1, p. 100), after saying that “‘in the character of
the spurious writings of this period (the Sec. Century) we can trace the peculiar features
of the age ; their purpose being either to encourage the persecuted, or to convince the
unbelieving, and not unfrequently to give the sanction of antiquity to the tenets of a
particular sect. In this way the old spurious writings of the Jews were interpolated by
the Christians, as the Book of Enoch and the Book of Ezra; and others were new
manufactured as the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Ascension of Isaiah, and
the Shepherd of Hermas. Of a different character were the books of Hystaspes, and
the Sibylline Prophecies, which, as well.as the Acts of Pilate, seem to have been chiefly
intended for the heathen.’’ ‘In all these works the belief in the Millennium is so
evident that no one can hesitate to consider it as universal in an age, when certainly such
motives as it offered were not unnecessary to animate men to suffer for Christianity.
This belief rested mainly on the book of Revelation. The Mill. was represented as the
great Sabbath which was very soon to begin, and to be ushered in by the resurrection
of the dead.’’ Prof. Stuart-(Com. Apoc., vol. 1, Introd., etc.) largely quotes from them,
and shows their Chiliastic tendency. See also Greswell (On the Parables, vol. 5, Part 2)
and numerous writers, such as Lawrence (who translated several), Corrodi, Liicke,
Wieseler, Bleek, etc. Comp. Art. on The Sibylline Books in Littell’s Liv. Age, Sept. 29th,
1877, taken from the Edinb. Rev., which says that Ewald, Bleek, and others have
supposed that this Jewish expectation of a Messianic Kingdom was, more or less, based
on Daniel’s predictions. The writer says of these books that “ they explicitly pro-
pound the idea of a Kingdom of the just upon earth anterior to the final resurrection
and general judgment.’’ We do not receive and vindicate those books as e.g. Whiston
(Vindic. of the Sibylline Books), and we do not decry them as e.g. Justin (Rem. Eccl. His.),
but simply receive them as indicative and corroborative of views largely held at an early
period, preceding, at, and after the First Advent.

Obs. 7. This feature, in order to weaken the force of our Proposition, is

asserted by some, viz.: that our doctrine was confined to the Jewish
churches. ‘Thus e.g. Shedd (His. Ch. Doc., p. 291) declares: ‘‘ it is not
surprising to find that Millenarianism was a peculiarity of the Jewish
Christian, as distinguished from the Gentile Christian church, at the close
of the first century.’’ The facts as given by history, and attested to by
Neander, Mosheim, Lightfoot, Lardner, Whitby, and a host of others,
flatly contradict this declaration. The Gentile Christian churches down
to the third century (until Caius, Origen, and Dionysius), received it
just as freely and entertained it just as heartily as the Jewish Christian.
Prof. Shedd gives no historical proof to sustain his position. The con-
trary is clearly seen (1) by ¢he Gentile churches which adopted it, as e.g.
Thessalonica, Vienna, Lyons, Carthage, etc.; (2) by the Gentile Fathers,
and their converts, which adopted it, of whom we have more than of
Jews ; (3) by the generality of view entertained, there being no recorded
attack by any writer until the time of Caius, Origen, and Dionysius ; (4)
by both the Greek and Latin Fathers, the East and West, adopting it.
Such a concealment of facts, admitted too by many of our opponents, is evidence of
weakness and unfairness. The simple truth is, that both in the East and the West, both
in the Pauline and the other apostolic churches, both in minds previously imbued by
the Jewish or the Hellenic culture, this doctrine of the Kingdom, still future, was
cordially entertained. Dr. Neander (vol. 1, p. 364) makes
some judicious remarks on |
this point, when he clears Justin of Ebionism. The drift of such assertions is very
apparent, viz. : to make our doctrine odious undér the impression that it is exclusively
‘* Jewish’ — overlooking what we have already said on this subject, and that the
Chiliastic Fathers were themselves the opposers of the fanatical Jewish opiuions and
prejudices based on a servile observance of the Mosaic law. Even in the Pauline
churches much was retained essentially Jewish in doctrine, but the candid student will
Prop. 75.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 487
discrimivate between this and what was regarded as non-essential. The extreme Jewish
idea of the continued obligatory observance of the Mosaic ceremonial law was combated
by the early Chiliasts, as e.g. evinced in their opposition to the Ebionists, but this was
done without discarding doctrines founded on covenant and prophecy, and remaining
untouched by the abrogation of the Judaic ritual. The critic will candidly distinguish ;
the one-sided disputant will mingle together things that essentially differ. The plainest
facts have no force with the latter, as e.g. the testimony of Justin (as given by Neander,
vol. 1, p. 364) that Chiliasts were found among the converted Pagans. The student will
not fail to observe how, in their eagerness to find some leverage against us, our op-
ponents present directly hostile theories to account for the historical origin of our
doctrine ; thus e.g. Pressense, as we have previously quoted, ascribes its commence-
ment to the Gentile Thessalonians, and Shedd to the Jewish churches.

Obs. 8. Various methods, lacking candor and fairness, are resorted to in

order to avoid giving our doctrine its pre-eminent historical status. Some
of these have been referred to (see Props. 72-74), others will follow.
1. Some writers, seeing the preponderance on our side, purposely lower Patristic
learning (Prop. 72). Hamilton, Shedd, etc., only lower the quite early Fathers (Chil-
iastic), and give their decided preference to the later ones (with all their monkish, popish
tendencies), on the plea that ‘‘ their learning and talents far surpassed any in the first
centuries of the church.’’ Just as if Scriptural doctrine depended on human learning
and talent, and not on divine declarations. The student will notice, that when the Refor-
mation restored the right of private interpretation and judgment, it also resulted in
depreciating Patristic works. The Reformers attacked Origen, Jerome, and others;
criticism assailed the enthroned later Patristic Theology, pointing out its palpable
contradictions and errors. The result was, that for a time all—without discrimination—
fell into neglect, the scathing rebukes of the Reformers and the searching tests de-
stroying their reputation and authority. But after a while a reaction set in; their
works were again read and quoted, and found to be valuable, if not in imparting au-
thority, at least in giving the history of doctrines and of the church. The republication
of them in various forms, the desire that every writer has to have them sustain a
discussion of doctrine, the numerous quotations found in able works, the exhaustive
researches in early history through their aid, fully indicate the esteem in which they are
held. After repeated disputes concerning their merit, it is finally conceded by the best
critics that while all may be, more or less, defective in some points, the nearer the
Fathers are to the apostles the purer the doctrine promulgated (i.e. less of error is im-
parted), and, provided a unity exists, the greater weight it should possess. In depre-
ciating the earlier Fathers, as some do, we lower, in a measure, Christianity itself—i.e. it
can only be legitimately traced in its continuity through such disparaged Fathers. The
Fathers are only worthy of reception in so far as their writings correspond with the Script-
ures, and are valuable in giving us an idea how the Scriptures were interpreted and
understood. To uphold them as infallible, or to decry them as unworthy of attention is
to entertain an extreme ; to treat them as Stuart, and others, is to give force to the
sarcasm of Chillingworth, that divines ‘‘ account them as Fathers when they are for
them, and children when they are against them.” On the Fathers, compare ‘‘ The
Ante-Nicene Library,’’ Daillé ‘* On the right use of the Fathers’’ (Hallam’s Introd. Lit. of
Europe, vol. 2, p. 404), Riddle’s Manual Ch. Antig., Wake’s Epis. Apost. Fathers, Whis-
ton’s Prim. Christians, Middleton’s Free Inquiry, and Eccl. His. in general.
2. Cyclopedias in articles written by persons, either hostile to our doctrine or un-
acquainted with its history, give a very one-sided description of it. In addition to the
instance presented under Prop. 78, others can readily be given. Thus e.g. Appleton’s
Amer. Cyclop. appears reluctantly to say : “ It is admitted on all sides that Millenarian
views were, if not general, at least very common in the ancient church,’” and while cor-
rectly giving the Fathers who supported them, it artfully associates with them Mon-
tanism, etc. It perverts the language of Justin (comp. Prop. 72), saying that he ‘‘ knew
many orthodox Christians who were not’ Millenarian, when the exact reverse is true
(comp. Brooks El. Proph. Interp., Seiss’ “ A Question in Eschatology,’ p. 17, foot-note,
who refers to Daillé, Mimscher, Minter, Schwegler, etc.). Forgetting the distinctive
teaching of Millenarianism, viz.: that of the personal Advent followed by the Kingdom
of the Theocratic King here on earth introducing the promised Mill. glory, the article
introduces the belief in the end of the world at the tenth century and afterward, Mil-
lerism, Swedenborgianism, etc.—all of which rejected the Chiliastic teaching on the subject
 488 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 75.

of the Kingdom. While interesting and candid facts are given, it is apparent that the
writer had no distinct idea of Millenarianism doctrinally, or else he certainly would not
have attempted to identify with it those (1) who had only one single point of union
with it, viz. : in the belief of a personal Advent, and (2) who had no sympathy with it
even in a single point, viz. : spiritualizing, even the Advent as the Swedenborgians
and Shakers. In the Millenarian doctrine the personal Sec. Advent is only the grand
means for introducing the glorious Kingdom and reign here on earth ; in the theories
thus engrafted upon us it is either spiritualized away as something of the past, or it is
supposed to end all sublunary things by a general judgment and destruction. Such
works being specially designed for reference, lead,.unintentionally, many to be prejudiced
against our doctrine. ‘Take Buck's Theol. Dic., Art. ‘* Mill.,’’ and as introductory—
prejudging the matter and prejudicing the reader--our faith is represented ‘* according
to an ancient tradition in the Church, grounded on some doubtful texts in the Apoc.
and other Scriptures.’ Then to neutralize its historical force, its extensiveness is thus
underrated : ‘‘ Though there has been no age of the Church in which the Millennium
was not adinitted by individual divines of the first eminence, it is yet evident, from the
writings of Eusebius, Irenceus (2), Origen, and others, among the ancients, as well as from
the histories of Dupin, Mosheim, and all the moderns, that it was never adopted by
the whole Church, or made an article of the established creed in any nation.’’ (But
adinit this, and if it forms @ valid reason for rejecting the doctrine, how then, tried by
this test, would Buck’s modern Whitbyan theory fare? Our opponents are exceedingly
careful not to make a trial of this test of orthodoxy.) After giving some Mill. tenets, as
muinly founded on Rev. 20 : 1-6, he says: “ This passage all the ancient Millenarians
took in a sense grossly literal, and taught, that, during the Millennium, the saints on earth
were to enjoy every bodily delight.” With this utterly unfair, disrespectful, and erroneous
representation, our doctrine is contemptuously dismissed, and the spiritual view given.
We abundantly refute his statements in the quotations given (even from opponents),
and show by direct citations from the Fathers that they founded the Messianic King-
dom, which they expected, on the covenants and prophecies, and that they carefully dis-
criminated between the glorified saints and the nations in the fiesh, and in their holding
to inestimable spiritual and heavenly-derived blessings connected with the Millennium.
Such unpurdonwle, professed historical representations, making our belief ridiculous at
the expense of scholarship or honesty, can be multiplied. We append an illustration, to
show how Chiliastic Fathers are treated. In the Art. “ Irenzeus,’’ M’Clintock & Strong's
Cyclop., the writer (Prof. J. H Worman), after highly eulogizing Irenzus, and in
evidence of his deserving the same giving his doctrines held, passes to his Millenarian
views, saying : ‘* The peculiar Millennial views of Ireneus, which stamp him, by his close
adherence to Papias, as a Chiliast, we hardly care to touch ; they are certainly the weak
spot in our author, but deserve to be passed not only without comment, but even unnoticed.”
Alas! what prejudice will effect.
3. Editors in critical notes appended to works, frequently give unhistorical statements.
which practically degrades the belief of the early church. Thus, to illustrate : Gibbon
(Decline and Fall, etc., vol. 1, p. 532) remarks : ‘‘ It was universally believed that the end
of the world” (Gibbon ought to have said, to be correct, ‘‘end of the age’’) ‘‘ and the
Kingdom of heaven were at hand,” etc. The Editor, Milman, remarks in a note:
“¢ this was, in fact, an integral part of the Jewish notion of the Messiah, from which
the minds of the Apostles themselves were but gradually detached. See Berthold,
Ohristologia Juideorum, concluding chapters.’’ Here, without. the least proof being
assigned, and with a reference to the Jewish view which must have highly colored the
previous preaching of the apostles, Milman vakes an important supposed change for
granted (which, if true, places the apostles during their discipleship in the position of
ignorant preachers of the Kingdom), and one too, which, if it really occurred, places
the believers of the first centuries in a false attitude, of direct antagonism to the apostles.
The remark does not help, in the least, to invalidate Gibbon’s statement, but only
makes it the more formidable, seeing that the prevailing belief under apostolic super-
vision is left unaccounted for and unexplained. Such loose criticisms, with just such
lack of proof, abound in numerous works, and are received, without examination, by
many solely on the reputation of the critic, and the result is that our doctrine suffers.
4. While some Kccles. Historians candidly give a tolerable fair statement of the early
view, its generality and the names of the Fathers who held it, etc., there are others
who grudgingly and in the briefest manner adhere to it. Thus e.g. a student not posted
in the history of the doctrine could not possibly infer from the brief account of Kurtz
(Ch. Ifis.) the extent and perpetuation of our faith. Others, again, mention it but with
words of disrespect and condemnation, even when expressing no personal opinion on
Prop. 75.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 489
other alleged errors. Others, refusing to consider the important influence that it
exerted in the early church, almost entirely (some entirely as Jones’ Ch. lis.) ignore it,
until they come to the history of the Anabaptists. Such authors are read by many
incapable of discriminating, and thus necessarily prejudice other minds against us.
Even Mosheim (whom we largely quote) is rebuked by Gibbon (Deel. and Full, vol. 1,
p. 535, note 66) as a “ learned divine uot altogether candid,’’ for the manner in which
he presents this matter. But Mosheim makes far greater admissions in Vom. de Rebus
Chris., and does justice to the prevalence of the doctrine. The reader must consider,
what was said under Prop. 73, viz: that the early belief is a tender subject to many,
seeing that they cannot reconcile its existence and prevalence with their modern
notions. Hence, with the best of motives, they hastily pass over it in order that
the contrast between the early and the later faith may remain, as much as possi-
ble, in the background. Others, however, exhibit the unfriendliness felt, by care-
fully mentioning Chiliasm in connection with enthusiasts and fanatics, but not the
slightest reference is allowed when the names of eminent scholars and divines, who
held it, are mentioned. The concessions, seemingly forced by historical necessity, are
reluctantly given, and as tersely as possible. ‘Thus to illustrate: Hase, Lis. Ch.
Church, omits aw proper detailed (such as the subject demands) mention of Primitive
Chiliasm, and thus violates his affirmation in the Pref., p.12. For, when explaining
what might safely be omitted in a Church History, he remarks : ‘‘ No particular event
connected with theological science ever needs to be noticed, except when it becomes
important as a prominent circumstance belonging to the age, and may properly be re-
garded as characteristic of the times.’’ He slightly notices Chiliasm, and then in con-
nection with Cerinthus, Montanus, Irenzeus, and Tertullian. Large space can be given
to heresies, to inferior doctrines and events, while the briefest allusions are penned
respecting this doctrine once so prominent, belonging to an age, and characteristicof
the times.”’
5. Professed writers on Chiliasm are recommended, although admitted to be very
unfair in their statements. ‘Thus e.g. H. Corrodi’s His. of Chiliasm, which one of our
opponents (Prof. Stuart, Com. on Apoc., latter part) characterizes as a book that must be
read with caution, being uncandid and unreliable, is extolled by others. Such works,
with their sweeping assertions, and their efforts to link with our doctrine opinions and
parties in nowise related thereto, practically degrade the belief of the first churches,
giving force to the sarcasms of unbelievers, Corrodi (whose views Dorner, Person of
Christ, v. 1, p. 240, rejects, as too blindly followed by others) has merely given a carica-
ture of our doctrine, allying with it many (as we shall show hereafter) whose opinions
are utterly antagonistic to Chiliasm, and far more in accord and sympathy with his own
doctrinal position than ours. He lays great stress on the vagaries incorporated by
some fanatics, just as if his own doctrine, as well as all others, had not in ike manner
been perverted. The professed histories of Prof. Briggs in the NV. Y. Evangelist (1879),
of Dr. Macdill in The Chicago Instructor, are of a similar nature, corresponding with the
brief mention of Prof. Stuart (Apoc.) and others. The simple fact that the histories of
Millenarianism in such works, cyclopzedias, reviews, etc., are one-sided and unjust led
Appleton’s Amer. Cyclop. to assert that a His. of Chiliasm was still a desideratum, saying:
““ A good history of Millenarianism in the Christian Church is still a desideratum, as the
works published do not exhaust the subject”’ (it is to be hoped that a scholar, properly
qualified, and able to discriminate between our doctrine and that of others, will yet
supply this acknowledged want). We are indebted on our side to compressed state-
ment as given by Mede, Brookes, Bickersteth, Greswell, Seiss, Shimeall, West, Moore-
head, and others.
6. Writers on the His. of Ch. Doctrine, Dogmatical Theology, Eschatology, Sys. Divinity,
etc., have given rather a caricature of the history of this doctrine than a correct account
of the facts as they existed, although a few concede largely in our favor. Having given
some specimens already, we only refer to a recent illustration. Prof. Shedd, in his His.
of Ch. Doc. (an admirable work in many respects), unquestionably misstates a number
of things in reference to our belief. This is clearly seen from the evidence that we
have thus far produced. ‘The reader is referred to Shimeall’s Reply to Shedd for strictures
on some of his statements. This mode of procedure necessarily injures our view in
the estimation of persons to whom the historical facts are unknown.
7. Writers ugainst our doctrine, seeing the historical force that it sustains in its
relationship to the first centuries, carefully avoid all allusion to it. Thus e.g. Brown
(Christ’s Sec. Coming) makes no reference to the church history of the doctrine ; and
many, ignorant of the real facts, are deceived in supposing that it was confined, as an
error, to comparatively a few persons. In addition, it may be remarked, that if
490 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 75.

Brown’s reasoning is correct, viz. : that Chiliasm is unscriptural, then it only increases
the difficulty of reconciling the prevailing Primitive Church view with the apostolic
supervision and the purity of transmitted doctrine. It is evident acknowledgment of
weakness, when a work specifically directed against us passes by this Primitive belief
without, at least, attempting to explain the same. But this is true of numerous works.
8. Some authors, with all their candid concessions, attempt (as e.g. Bush, On Mill., p.
12, etc.) to make the impression that the very early Fathers were divided into two parties,
one holding to a literal, the other to a spiritual, interpretation of the Kingdom. But,
unfortunately for themselves, in the enumeration they are not able to present on the side
of the latter a single one of the earliest Futhers. To illustrate : we give the Fathers cited
by Bush himself as follows: on the literal side Barnabas, Justin, Ireneus, Cyprian,
Tertullian, Lactantius, with Bh. Bull, and Lardner as apologists for them ;—on the
spiritual side, Origen, Epiphanius, Genadius, Augustine, Jerome, and Dionysius. The
ordinary reader not conversant with dates is apt to be deceived, regarding these as
contemporary, when the truth is, that the Spiritualists only arose in the third and follow-
ing centuries.
9. Other writers present this in a still more offensive form in order to delude the
unwary. Thus e.g. Hamilton in his work against Millenarians (p. 308) boldly remarks :
‘that its (Chiliastic) principles were opposed and rejected by almost every Father of the
church, with the exception of Barnabas, Clement, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenzus, Nepos,
Apollinarius, Lactantius, and Tertullian.’’ This, of course, cannot deceive the scholar,
who well knows that Hamilton cannot produce a single Father before the third century in
opposition to us, but itis eminently calculated to deceive and prejudice the unlearned.
10. Some, who are. evidently afraid of the antiquity of our doctrine, proceed to even
greater length, entirely ignoring the earlier Fathers. Thus e.g. Jones (‘‘ Lec. on the
Apoc.,” p. 9, Pref.), speaking of the same, says: “we will concede to you that these
opinions are not novelties ;we can trace them as far back as the beginning of the third
century.” This unscholarly procedure, in the face of abounding testimony to the
contrary, merits a severe rebuke.
11. Another favorite method to disparage our views is the giving, in a professed
account of the early belief, an exceedingly weak and one-sided exhibition of the Scriptural
basis upon which it rests. Thus e.g. Lindsay (Ency. Brit., Art. Mill.) entirely omits the
covenants and prophecies as quoted by the Fathers (which we reproduce in this work),
and confines himself almost exclusively to Rev. 20, just as ff that really was the founda-
tion of our system of belief, forgetting that Chiliasm, based on covenant and prophecy,
existed before the Revelation was given. Even an opponent like Bh. Russel (Dis. on the
Mill., p. 39) pointedly says, that there is ‘‘no room for doubt that the notion of a
Millennium preceded by several centuries the introduction of the Christian faith’’ (comp.
Shimeall’s Eschatology, or a Reply to Prof. Shedd, p. 59, etc.).
12. Various other methods are resorted to in order to diminish the force of our doc-
trinal position in the early faith of the church, and as these have already been referred
to, the briefest enumeration must suffice. (1) Our doctrine is dismissed as Judaic or
Jewish (Props. 69-73), just as if that settled the whole question ; (2) that good and great
men did not receive it, just as if doctrine, Scriptural, depended upon man’s reception of
it ; (3) that fanatics and enthusiasts held to it, thus overlooking the fact that this is true
of almost every doctrine, and that this is no test of the truth of any doctrine ; (4) the
Fathers are made out as credulous, superstitious (Prop. 72, Obs. 1, note 4), while the
greater defects of Anti-Chiliastic Fathers are ignored; (5) they are made to say what
they never wrote (Prop. 73, Obs. 1, note 4), so that even Prof. Stuart (Com, Apoc.)
refers to it as a fact that sentences indorsing Millenarianism have been altered, omitted,
or others substituted (as e.g. Victorinus spiritualized by Jerome) ; (6) the Fathers are
made out to be the followers of Cerinthus (Prop. 72, Obs. 1, note 4) or of Papias, or the
advocates of Montanism (when some of them lived long before Montanus arose), or else
they are simply discarded as errorists, unworthy to be followed; (7) they conceal the
actual views held by the Fathers who opposed, because such opinions are likewise
antagonistic to their Whitbvan notion ; (8) they, without positively saying so, leave the
impression, by the artful opposition presented, that the modern notions respecting the
Millennium were then also entertained in the Apostolic and Primitive Church, although ©
unable to quote any one favoring the same.
13. Still another method is to make Millenarianism responsible for the vagaries of
every writer (forgetting to apply the same rule to the still greater absurdities of our op-
ponents). One of the editors of The Proph. Times (vol. 5, No. 6, p. 90) has well said,
“that on the basis of this method of reasoning, Bossuet’s Histoire des Variations is con-
clusive against Protestanism.’’ :
Prop. 75.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 491

14. Others prominently present the disagreements between Millenarian writers in

details, etc., and from thence illogically draw the conclusion that the whole is erroneous,
forgetting that the same reasoning would destroy the credibility of any or all of the
great doctrines of the Bible (as the Atonement, Lord’s Supper, etc.). Brookes (Maranatha,
p. 19) shows that there is far more agreement between Pre-Millenarians than between
Post-Millenarians, and that Pre-Millenarians are in agreement on the grand outlines
although belonging to all the various differing denominations. These outlines in
which they agree are the Pre-Mill. Personal Advent, the first resurrection Pre-Millennial,
the Messianic Kingdom Millennial, the future Millennial reign of the saints, the restitu-
tion, etc. Our opponents differ among themselves as to the See. Advent, the location of
the Millennium, etc., so that they are divided into various parties with antagonistic
theories, and no bond of union—saving hostility to Chiliasm--to unite them. (Those
differences will be shown by us hereafter.)

Obs. 9. Although the doctrine was opposed in the third and following
centuries, yet it continued for some time to have many who held to it.
The custom of Christians, as Tertullian informs us, to pray ‘‘ that they
might have part in the first resurrection,’ was not easily rooted out, for,
as Cyprian (about A.D. 220) tells us, the thirst for martyrdom was
increased by the hope that suffering for Christ would entail a more distin-
guished lot in His coming Kingdom. Nepos, Lactantius, Methodius, Paul-
inus, Gregory of Nyssa, Victorinus, Apollinaris, taught the Millenarian
doctrine.’ Seiss (Ap. Ch. 2, to Last Times) gives additional, Hippoly-
tus, Commodian (of whom Clarke, Sacred Lit., p. 194, says : ‘‘ he received
the doctrine of the Millennium, which was the common belief of his time’’),
Cyprian, the Council of Nice, and Sulpicius Severus. Shimeall (Lschatol-
ogy) adds to these, Melito (one of the earlier Fathers, contemporary with
Justin, Bishop of Sardis, whom Jerome and Gennadius affirm to be Mil-
lenarian),and Coracion. It makes, however, no material difference how
many names may be added as writers in the third and fourth centuries,
since (1) it has been shown to have been the prevailing belief previously,
and (2) a falling away from the faith—the early faith—s predicted, and
believers are warned (e.g. 2 Tim. 4 : 3, 4, etc.) against it.
' Undoubtedly many others could be added, if we possessed their writings. Brooks
(Hl. Proph. Interp.) gives these, and thus alludes to Epiphanius (about a.p. 365) as men-
tioning ‘‘ the doctrine being held by m:iny in his time, and speaks favorably of it himself.
Quoting the words of Paulinus, bishop of Antioch, concerning one Vitalis, whom he
highly commends for his piety, orthodoxy, and learning, he says: ‘Moreover, others
have affirmed that the venerable man should say, that in the first resurrection we shall
accomplish @ certain millenary of years,’ etc., on which Epiphanius observes, ‘ And that
indeed this millenary term is written of, in the Apocalypse of John, and is received of
very many of them that are godly, is manifest.’ ”’ Lib. 3:2. It is in view of such testimony
that Appleton’s Cyclop., Art. Mill., remarks: ‘‘ The old view continued to find ad-
vocates during the third century, among whom Tertullian, Nepos, bishop of Arsinoé,
and Methodius, bishop of Tyre, were prominent. In the fourth century, though it had
still many adherents among the people, it found no longer any advocate of note among the
Christian writers, yet Jerome, who did not believe in it himself, did not dare to condemn
it.” An indirect argument is employed toc denote the continued prevalence of the doc-
trine by Millenarian writers (as Brookes, Bickersteth, Greswell, and others) in the
course adopted by the Nicene council. Although the council was busy settling disputed
questions, yet nothing was said against our view, which implies (1) that many among
the council must have held the doctrine, or (2) that they regarded it as so far based on
Scripture and the tradition of the church that those who held it were orthodox brethren,
or (3) that it was so extensively held outside of the council among Christians that pru-
dence dictated no utterance against it.

Obs. 10. The apologies that those make who admit the prevailing early
belief and yet regard it as erroneous, are derogatory to the truth,—to
492 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 75.

Christianity itself. Having alluded to this (see and compare Prop. 72,
Obs. 4, and note), it is sufficient to say, that it will not answer, in order
to get rid of this early church view, to do as Grotius (whom Gibbon, Decl.
and Fall, vol. 1, p. 533, approvingly quotes) does, who ‘“‘ ventures to in-
sinuate that for wise purposes, the pious deception was permitted to take
place,”’ or as a later writer (Bush, On Mill., p. 21), who thinks that owing
to ‘‘ special trials’? and ‘‘ wncultivated minds,’’ the error was winked at
because ‘‘ the error in itself was an innocent one.’? Such apologies are
worse than none, recoiling back with fearful force (as infidels exultingly
see and enforce) upon the founders of the Christian church, under whose
direct wuspwes it was extended. The reason for all this wnnecessary apolo-
getics springs from a supposed better belief substituted in place of the
earlier.
In reference to so important a matter as the Kingdom, we unhesitatingly adopt the
language of Eaton (Perm. of Chris., p. 46), ‘‘ we cannot, however, accept, we can only
repudiate and challenge all asserted improvements, whether by substitution or omission,
in the subject matter of Christianity itself, effected by alleged advances in knowledge
aud civilization.”” The doctrine of the Kingdom, related as it is to the true conception
of the title “ the Christ,” is a vilal part of “the subject matter of Christianity,” and,
properly considered (as will be shown), cannot be set aside by such dishonoring reason-
ing. Hence we must reject as a pitiful exculpation, Prof. Briggs’ idea that in the early
Church the Millenarian error was probably needed to advocate a principle against
Gnosticism, and, therefore, in Irenzeus, and some more, it may be overlooked and for-
given. From this it appears that error and falsehood may be profilubly employed to
advance the interests of Christianity ; this is not the first time that the. notion was
entertained.

Obs. 11. It has been observed by some that this doctrine of the early
church, if true, should have been continuously presented in a prominent
orthodox form (i.e., confessionally), and because not so held, it cannot be
true. But this entirely overlooks the predicted defection from the truth
(as e.g. 2 Thess. 2, 2 Tim. 4:3, 4, ete.), and the warnings given to us to
return to the truth as previously imparted ; it elevates the mere deductions
and confessional position of the church above that of the Scriptures in its
covenants and prophecies ; it forgets that the probationary attitude of man
and the exercise of his will has an important bearing, making a rejection
of truth possible ; and it ignores the fact, that precisely the same line of
argument which applies to a foretold apostatizing from truth, and to the
propriety (necessity) and good results of a revival of doctrine by the
Reformation, can, with equal force, be used in the defence of this single
doctrine.
The student will observe that the very persons who urge this objection are very
careful to conceal from the ordinary reader two important facts connected with this
matter, viz.: (1) that the earliest creeds were so worded, by simply taking Scriptural
phraseology, and without entering into the order or manner of fulfilment, that all, Mil-
lenarian or Anti-Millenarian, could subscribe to them ; and (2) that the modern notion of
the Millennium is not found in any of the ancient or more recent confessions (see Prop.
78). If the objection has propriety it certainly must include their own doctrine. Hence
the reasoning of Prof. Briggs, demanding a confessional standard in the Primitive Church
has not a particle of force, but is positively condemnatory of his own doctrine, seeing that .
neither his doctrine nor ours is confessionally presented, but that both of us can accept
e.g. the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed, which only deal in generalities. He
keenly feels this, and, therefore, lays stress on later developments.
On this point it is eminently proper to present the misleading statements of eminent
historians who, opposed to Chiliasm, seek to apologize for its existence by way of belittling
its extent of belief. Neander (Genl. Uh. Lis., vol. 2, p. 397), with all his concessions
 Prop. 75.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 493
and his defence of Chiliasts, is unfair in this : ‘‘ What we have just said, however, is -
not to be understood as if Chiliasm had ever formed a part of the general creed of the
Church. Our sources of information from the different branches of the Church in these
early times are too scunty to enable us to make any positive assertion on this point.
Wherever we meet Chiliasm, as in Papias, Ireneus, Justin Martyr—everything seems to
indicate that it was diffused from one country and from a single fountain head.’’ Now
this 1s uncandid and unhistorical for the following reasons : (1) there was no general creed
of the Church published in those early times with which Chiliasm can possibly be com-
pared ; (2) he mentally forms a creed of his own development (a later one) with which he
institutes such a comparison ; (3) he presumes on an Anti-Chiliastic tendency which
he himself (as we shall hereafter fully quote) admits broke out later, but which he here
presumes, against history, to have previously existed ; (4) his sarcastic reference to the
one country and one source (Phrygia) is abundantly rebutted by his own statements
respecting its Jewish origin and the Scriptures quoted ; (5) he makes a positive state-
ment with not a single historical fact adduced to sustain him in his assertion ; (6) on the
other hand, his declaration is most positively contradicted by Justin, Irenzus, and Tertul-
lian—now which are we to credit, Neander’s assumption at so late a day or the Fathers’
statements who then lived? The Art. ‘ Mill.” in M’Clintock & Strong’s Cyclop. admits that
Chiliasm was ‘ early adopted,’ and was especially held by ‘‘ Jewish Christians ;’ that
it ‘“‘ spread extensively among the Gentiles,’’ as shown by the Fathers quoted in the
Art. But, after these statements, it is added : ** Notwithstanding the extensive spread-
ing cf the Millenarian tenet, it would be a rash inference to assume that it was universal,
or accepted as the creed of the Church.” To this Art. written by Prof. Fisher (a Post-
Mill.), the strictures above apply, because we have no evidence that other than Gnostics
opposed us in the early Church, and that the belief of every Father who, in detail,
reterred to Eschatology, shows plain enough what was the accepled faith of the Church.
Such pleadings are a begging of the question, and only proclaim the weakness of others.
It is therefore with amazement that one reads Macdill (/nstructor, May, 1879), who
speaks of the Chiliasm of the Primitive Church as ‘‘ monstrous and absurd,” and to
sustain such assertions quotes the prejudiced and bitter taunts of opponents (who desire
by any means to rid themselves of Chiliasm), and of a Pre-Millenarian, Kelly (who
endeavors to sustain a certain scheme of his own by depreciating others), avoiding the
temperate judgment, concessions, etc., of scholars, critics, and others. In his partisan-
ship, he thus coolly bestows the following advice : ‘‘ We think that modern Pre-Mil-
lenarians would lose nothing, and that the cause of Christ would gain something, if our
Pre-Mill. brethren would along with Origen, and Augustine, and Lardner, and Neander,
and Kelly believe that ancient Chiliasm was a reproach to Christianity, and admit that
many Christians were al] along opposed to it.’” Thus, we are to allow opponents to judge
and mould history, for us, so as to accommodate their respective theories. Thus, to get
rid of a man by suicide, we are to urge him to the same, and then tender him the rope
by which he is to hang himself. Who were these ‘‘ many Christians,” and what history
or document gives us the slightest clue to them in the first and second centuries?
Even if it could be regarded as gain (?) to Pre-Mills. to confess this ‘‘ reproach’ (?), it
would be a serious loss to Christianity to make the very men--confessors, martyrs, apol-
ogists, and writers—through whom Dr. Macdill can alone trace the orthodox Ch. Church,
so contemptible as to embrace ‘‘a scheme, so unscriptural and repulsive, so absurd and
shocking.” What a difference there is between the spirit of this man and many of our
scholarly opposers whom we also liberally quote and criticise ; the one, under prejudices
and passion distorts historical facts—the other, impelled by love of truth, presents them
however adverse they may prove to his own belief.

Obs. 12. It has been alleged by others, that, taking the church as a
whole, and considering the vast multitude since the days of the apostles
that have rejected the doctrine, but comparatively a@ small number have
held to this view of the Kingdom ;—and, hence, it ought to be rejected.
We reply, that as numbers are no fest of religions ; as truth is not estab-
lished by majorities ; as doctrine is to be found in its purity in Scripture
and not in the voice of the multitude ; as Christ Himself has confined the
reception of His words to ‘‘ a few,’’ ‘“‘a small flock,’’ even to ‘* babes,”
and not to the ‘‘ many ;’’ as the warnings of a widespread defection are
plainly imparted, we are not concerned either in defending our numbers,
494 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [|PRop. 75.

or in admitting our minority. Historical facts, abundantly verifying pre-

dictions, are sufficient to satisfy us. It is to be admitted, however, that—
to escape the notion of a novelty or a later substitution,—it is a source of
gratification to find so many advocates of the truth pertaining to this sub-
ject, and especially to find them in the very period of the church’s history,
where, reasonably, they owght to appear as witnesses.
Many of our opponents strenuously protest against our making Chiliasm universal in
the Apostolic and Primitive Church. Now, in this, as our quotations show, we only
follow the declarations of scholars who, without any doctrinal bias, give their decided
opinion respecting its extent. For the reason assigned in the Obs. we are not con-
cerned in pressing this universality or insisting upon it as a decided fact, although stated
as such by Justin and Tertullian. 1. We are satisfied with its being the common, prev-
alent faith of the orthodox Churches, East and West, North and South, as the evidence
conclusively shows. 2. We have, no doubt, that Gnostics, and errorists, and probably
some Christians (more or less leavened) opposed the doctrine from the beginning (for
doctrine of every kind finds its opposers or perverters in every age), for such antagonism
we must reasonably expect. 3. The universality is only apparent in this: that while
the early Fathers advocated it, not one of the early Fathers—contemporary—opposed it ;
such opposition proceeding from later Fathers. 4. This earnest protest against the uni-
versality by our present opponents, holding to the Whitbyan theory, does not help
their cause in any respect, seeing that the alleged hostility to our doctrine did not spring
from a regular, systematic defence of the Whitbyan doctrine; for every opponent (as we
shall show) arising from the third century advocated a Millennial theory which they (the
Whitbyans) do not receive. It follows, therefore, that the men who first set themselves
against our doctrine were likewise in error (although they must be profusely eulogized,
as done by Prof. Briggs—because they opposed alleged error with error). 5. The re-
sult of this contest over the universality of our doctrine, as thus developed, shows, if
we are to credit our antagonists, that the Universal Church was in decided and grievous
error—a portraiture certainly not very complimentary to a Church founded and just
perpetuated by inspired men and elders consecrated by apostolic hands. Our position
takes @ higher view of the doctrinal position of the Church, and gives it that dignity and honor
which belong to it ; that of our opponents simply belitiles and degrades it. The abun-
dant quotations presented by us confirm this statement.

Obs. 13. Since many of our opponents, in order to make an erroncous

impression on those unacquainted with Eccles. History, purposely mingle
the later Fathers with the earlier (as if they were contemporary), it will be
proper to give the Fathers 7 chronological order, so that the ordinary
reader can see for himself when they lived, and form his own judgment re-
specting their position in history. This decides the question of priority,
and also that of the later introduction of opposing influences. We will,
therefore, mention those that are expressly named by both ancients and
moderns.
1. Pre-Mill. Advocates of the 1st Century.
a1. (1) Andrew, (2) Peter, (3) Philip, (4) Thomas, (5) James, (6) John,
(7?) Matthew, (8) Aristio, (9) John the Presbyter—these all lived between
A.D. 1-100 ; John, it 1s supposed—so Mosheim, etc.—died about A.p. 100.
(All these are cited by Papias, who, according to Irenzus, was one of
John’s hearers, and intimate with Polycarp. John is also expressly
mentioned dy Justin. Now this reference to the apostles agrees with the
facts that we have proven: (a) that the disciples of Jesus did hold the
Jewish views of the Messianic reign in the first part of this century, and
(2) that, instead of discarding them, they linked them with the Sec. Ad-
vent.) Next (10) Clement of Rome (Phil. 4:3), who existed about a.p.
40-100. (His Chiliasm, in the small remains left, is apparent from three
particulars : (a) ‘‘ preaching the Coming of Christ ;’’ (0) rebuking scoffers
Prop. 75.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 495

at the alleged delay of that Coming, and expressing the hope “‘ that He
shall come quickly and not tarry ;’ (c) and occupying the Chiliastic posture
of “every hour expecting the Kingdom of God.’’? Such sentiments only
accord with the then prevailing Millenarian views; if opposed to it, as
some too eagerly affirm because no detailed expression of eschatological
opinions have reached us, how could he, when Jewish views were all
around, thus employ language pre-eminently adapted to confirm Chili-
asm, unless in sympathy with it.) (11) Barnabas, about A.p. 40-100.
(Whether the Epistle is that of Barnabas who was with Paul, or of some
other one, makes no material difference, seeing that all concede him to
us, and admit that it was written quite early, and must be indicative of the
views then held.) (12) Hermes, from a.p. 40 to 150. (We give this
lengthy date to accommodate the dispute respecting the Hermas who is the
author of the Pastor. Some who do not receive Chiliasm make him the
earlier mentioned Rom. 16:14; others, a later Hermas, who wrote about
A.D. 150. All agree that he is a Chiliast, and his location as to time is,
probably, decided by our doctrinal preferences.) (13) Jgnatius, Bh. of
Antioch, died under Trajan, about a.p. 50-115 (some date his death a.p.
107). (His references, in the brief fragments, to ‘‘ the last times’’ and the
exhortation in those times to ‘‘ expect Him,’’ is in correspondence with
our doctrine.) (14) Polycarp, Bh. of Smyrna, a disciple of the Apostle
John, who lived about a.p. 70-167. (In view of his association with
Chiliasts, and, in the few lines from him, locating the reigning of the
saints after the Coming of Jesus and the resurrection of the saints, has
led Dr. Bennet and others to declare him a Millenarian.) (15) Papias,
Bh. of Hierapolis, lived between s.p. 80-163. (His writings come chiefly
through an enemy—Eusebius—but all concede him to be a Chiliast, and
declare that he was the disciple and pupil of St. John, and the companion
of Polycarp.) This is the record of names in favor of Millenarianism,—
names that are held in honorable esteem because of their faith and works
in the Christ, extending to death.
b 1. Now on the other side, not a single name can be presented, which
(1) can be quoted as positively against us, or (2) which can be cited as
teaching, in any shape or sense, the doctrine of our opponents.!
2. Pre-Mill. Advocates of the 2d Cent.
a. (1) Pothinus, a martyr, died aged 99 years (A.D. 177, Mosheim, vol.
1, p. 120), hence aA.p. 87-177. |(His Chiliasm is evident from the churches
of Lyons and Vienne, over which he presided, being Chiliastic, from his
associate Ireneus being his successor, who describes the uniformity of
faith, Adv. Heres, 50, 1. 10.) (2) Justin Martyr, about a.pD. 100-168
(although others, as Shimeall, give A.D. 89-165). (He needs no reference,
as we largely quote him. Comp. Semisch’s Art. on him in Herzog’s Real
Encyclop.) (8) Melito, Bh. of Sardis, about a.p. 100-170, a few fragments
alone preserved. (Shimeall, in his Reply, says,‘‘ Jerome and Genadius
both affirm that he was a decided Millenarian.’’) (4) Hegisippus, between
A.D. 130-190. (Neander, Genl. Ch. His., vol. 2, pp. 480, 482, designates
him ‘‘ achurch teacher of Jewish origin and strong Jewish prepossessions,”’
and an advocate of ‘“‘ sensual Chiliasm.’’) (5) Zatian, between A.D. 130-
190. (He was converted under Justin, and is designated by Neander as
‘“ his disciple.”’) (6) Irenwus, a martyr (being, Mosheim, Ch. His., vol. 1,
Amer. Ed., note, p. 120, ‘‘ born and educated in Asia Minor, under Sa
carp and Papias, must therefore be), about A.D. 140-202. (We frequently
496 THE TIHEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PROP: 75,

and largely quote from him.) (7) The Churches of Vienne and Lyons, in
«letter A.D. 177 (which some attribute to Ireneus and others to a Lyonese
Christian—author unknown) has distinctive traces of Chiliasm in the al-
lusion to a prior or first resurrection. (8) Z'ertudlian, about A.D. 150-220.
(We frequently give his views.) ©(9) Aippolytus, between A.D. 160-240.
(Iie was a disciple of Ireneus, and—according to Photius—he largely
adopted Irenszus in his work against Heresies, and in his Com. on Dan.,
fixed the end of the dispensation five centuries after the birth of Jesus.)
(10) Apollinaris, Bh. of Hierapolis, between A.D. 150-200. (He is claimed
by us, and conceded by e.g. Hagenbach, His. of Doc., Sec. 139.) Nearly
every witness is a martyr.
b. Now on the other side, not a single writer can be presented, not even
a single name can be mentioned of any one cited, who opposed Chiliasm in
this century, unless we except Clemens Alexandrinus (see 3); much less of
any one who taught the Whitbvan view. Now let the student reflect:
here are ¢wo centuries (unless we make the exception stated at the close of
the 2d), in which positively no direct opposition whatever arises against
our doctrine, but it is held by the very men, leading and most eminent,
through whom we trace the Church. What must we conclude? (1) That
the common faith of the Church was Chiliastic, and (2) that such a general-
ity and unity of belief could only have been introduced—as our argument
shows by logical steps—by the founders of the Ch. Church and the Elders
appointed by them.
3. Pre-Mill. Advocates of the 3d Cent.
a. (1) Cyprian, about A.D. 200-258. (He greatly admired and imitated
Tertullian. We quote him on the nearness of the Advent, the Sabbat-
ism, etc. Shedd, in his His. of Doc., vol. 2, p. 394, says that ‘* Cyprian
maintains the Millenarian theory with his usual candor and moderation.’’)
(2) Commodian, between A.D, 200-270. (Was a decided Millenarian.
Comp. e.g. Clarke’s Sac. Lit. Neander, Genl. Ch. H:s., vol. 2, p. 448—
censures him as follows: ‘‘ The Christian spirit, however, in these ad-
monitions, which otherwise evince so lively a zeal for good morals, is dis-
turbed by a sensuous Jewish element, a gross Chiliasm ; as for example,
when it is affirmed that the lordly masters of the world should in the
Millennium do menial service for the saints.’? Neander overlooks how
early childlike piety might contemplate Ps. 149 :5-9; Isa. 60: 6-10;
Mic. 7:16, 17, and kindred passages.) (3) Nepos, Bh. of Arsinoe, about
A.D. 230-280. (Jerome, Whitby, Shedd, etc., make him a pronounced
Chiliast.) (4) Coracion, about A.D. 230-280. (Ile js always united with
Nepos by various writers, comp. Hagenbach’s J/is. of Doc.) (5) Voetori-
nus, about A.D. 240-303. (He is expressly called a favorer of Nepos and
the Chilasts by Jerome, de Viris Jil., ce. 74.) (6) Methodius, Bh. of
Olympus, about a.p. 250-311. (Of whom Neander—Genl. Ch. /Tis., vol. 2,
p. 496—says, he had ‘‘a decided leaning to Chiliasm.’’ Oonceded to us by
Whitby, HWagenbach, and others.) (7) Lactantius (although his works were
chiefly composed in the next cent., yet being contemporary with Chiliasts
so long in this century, we include him), between A.D. 240-330. (We quote
from him, although Jerome ridicules his Millenarianism. Prof. Stuart
calls him, ‘‘a zealous Chiliast.’””?) Others, whom we strongly incline to re-
gard as Millenarians, owing to their constant association with Chiliasts,
etc., we omit, because the remains and the statements that we have are so
meagre as to make it impossible to give a decided expression of opinion.
Prop. 75.] THE TITEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 497

b. In this century we for the first time, unless we except Clemens

Alexandrinus, come to opposers of our doctrine. Every writer, from the
earliest period down to the present, who has entered the lists against us,
has been able only to find these antagonists, and we present them in their
chronological order, when they revealed themselves as adversaries. They
number four, but three of them were powerful for mischief, and speedily
gained adherents (comp. Prop. 76). The first in order is (1) Caius (or
Gaius), Who is supposed, by Kurtz (Ch. His.), to have written about A.D.
210, or as Shedd (//is. Doc.), in the beginning of the 8d cent. (Much that
he is alleged to have said comes to us through bitter Anti-Chiliastic sources,
and must be correspondingly received with some allowance.) (2) Clemens
Alexandrinus, who succeeded Pantenus (died a.D. 202, so Kurtz), as pre-
ceptor in the Catechetical School of Alexandria, and exerted a powerful in-
fluence (on Origen and others) as a teacher froin A.p. 193-220. (Ile
became a Christian under Pantzenus, after having devoted himself to Pagan
philosophy, and only during the latter part of his life made the disciples,
who so largely moulded the subsequent interpretation of the Church.)’ (3)
Origen, about A.D. 185-254. (We shall refer to him under the next Prop.)
(4) Dionysius, about A.D. 190-265. (See next Prop.) There is no doubt
but others were largely led to accept of Anti-Chillastic teaching (seeing
what an opposition sprung up in the 4th cent.), but these are ‘he chan-
pions mentioned as directly hostile to Chiliasm. Now let the student
carefully weigh this historical record, and he will see that the Church
history indubitably seals our faith as the general, prevailing belief, for the
most that can possibly be said respecting the opposition is, that in the
closing years of the 2d century men arose who started an antagonism dis-
tinctively presented and urged in the 3d cent., and which culminated in the
4th and succeeding centuries. Hence, our Prop. is abundantly confirmed
by the doctrinal status of the early Church ; indeed, it is—if our line of
argument respecting the apostolic belief remaining unchanged concerning
the Kingdom is conclusive—the very position that the Church in its intro-
duction must occupy. Wow illogical and unscriptural, therefore, for men
to strive to weaken the testimony of those Fathers, and to apologize in
their behalf, by making them ignorant, superstitious, sensual, etc., thus
tracing the Church, established by inspired men and their selected succes-
sors, though ignorant, superstitious, and sensual believers, until the
learned, enlightened, and spiritual Clemens, Caius, Origen, and Dionysius
arose and brought light which ‘‘ the consciousness of the Church’’ appre-
ciated.
1 Prof. Shedd (His. Ch. Doc.) endeavors to take from us Clement, Ignatius, and Poly-
carp, on the ground of silence. To this Shimeall in his Reply has well answered, showing
the traces of Chiliasm by quoting, and laying stress on their associating familiarly with
Chiliasts. Indeed, the express manner in which Ireneus and Justin speak of the unity of
faith includes them, or else, in respect to persons so eminent exception would have been
made. Prof. Briggs (N. Y. Evangelist, 1879) is not satisfied with Shedd’s seizure, but ulso
claims, on the same ground, Hermas. But all this does not help the doctrinal status of
either Shedd or Briggs. If simple silence, in the briefest, fragmentary writings, is a test
of opposition or of Whitbyism, we have yet to learn this rule and the reasons upon which it
is supported. In reference to Polycarp, it may be added, that he is so referred to by
Trenceus in a letter to Florinus (Euseb., v. 1, ¢. 20), who professes to receive the same
doctrines held by him, that many class the master and disciple together. Prof. Briggs
is unfortunate in his efforts to take adherents from us, such as Cyprian, Apollinaris,
Melito, Methodius, Victorinus, and others, because the most unrelenting opponents
concede them to us, fully admitting their Chiliastic teaching. But such efforts should not
 498 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 75.

surprise us, when against the uniform testimony of ancients and moderns, as well as
the writings open to all, he even attempts to take Justin Martyr from us! A faith must
badly need propping when it calls for such desperate and suicidal efforts. Let the reader
ponder this fact, that neither Shedd nor Briggs can quote the direct language of any
writer of this period, and later, who advocates their modernized ideas of the Millennium.
This fact they artfully conceal.
2 We allow Clemens as against us, simply on the ground of his supposed influence in
making Origen Anti-Chiliastic, because he was his teacher. But we do this under a
protest. We find him enumerated as among the Chiliasts by a number of writers. It is
admitted, on all hands, that there is nothing decided from him respecting a Mill. theory
on the one side or on the other. Therefore he cannot be quoted by either party as
positively favoring Chiliasm or Anti-Chiliasm. On the other hand, he is claimed as
Chiliastic because (comp. Burnet’s Theory of the Earth, vol. 2, p. 188, Duffield On
Proph., p. 29, Prop. Times, vol. 1, p. 78, etc.) he still holds to the Chiliastic ideas of
the 7th Milliad introducing ‘‘ the Rest,” and of the Kingdom being introduced by judg-
ments. It is certain that more in harmony with Chiliasm can be quoted from him than
that which is hostile to it. But this serious objection inclines us to be sufficiently
generous to place his name in the limited list of our opponents, viz. : his system of inter-
pretation, which formed afterward, in the hands of Origen and his successors, such a
leverage against our doctrine. While Clemens could not, with the introduction of his
system, entirely rid himself of Chiliastic views on some important points, yet—-whether
he foresaw it or not—its entire tendency, as the development showed, was to form the
weapons subsequently so freely used in crushing our belief.

Obs. 14. When surveying the historical ground, which so accurately

corresponds with the Scriptural, we are forced to the conclusion that those
writers—both friends and foes—who insist upon the great extent of Chili-
asm in the Apostolic and Primitive Church are most certainly correct.
We, therefore, cordially indorse those who express themselves as Miincher
(Ch. His., vol. 2, p. 415), that ‘it (Chiliasm) was universally received by
almost all teachers,’’? and (pp. 450, 452) refers it, with Justin, to ‘‘ the
whole orthodox community,’’ summing up with this decided conclusion:
‘‘ With these observations, the result of criticism is manifest, that in the
Catholic Church the doctrine of the 1000 years’ Kingdom was the domo-
nant doctrine, and the rejection of it was regarded as an approach to Gnos-
ticism. That the defenders of Chiliasm were fewer than Justin has repre-
sented—as Schroeckh asserts—is a position which cannot be historically
maintained.’’ With this statement every unbiassed, wnprejudiced mind
must coincide when regarding the historical facts which support it.
It is worthy of notice, that men, who, like Newman, Pusey, etc., make much of tradi-
tion, elevating it to a Romish position, are very careful—following thus the Romish
Church—to reject the earliest tradition pertaining to the Kingdom. Chiliasm, being so
hostile Lo their exclusive Church-Kingdom view, which forms the foundation of their system,
is particularly unwelcome and offensive. This is true of all who are inclined to a mystical,
Romish belief of Church authority and salvation. But here is an evident and palpable
inconsistency, taking their own doctrinal position for granted, because they forsake the
earlier tradition for the later, and deny that to be orthodox which once was promulgated
as a test of orthodoxy. This only indicates that for the sake of some system of belief,
sincerely held, and filling the mind with prejudice, not only the plainest Scriptures but
the most evident historical facts will be ignored or set aside. They even iu their ardor for
the later tradition pronounce Chiliasm a ‘‘ heresy,” when it is noteworthy, as Chilling-
worth, Lardner, Greswell, Neander, and many others have observed that these very
Chiliastic Fathers were the bulwark of the Church against all kinds of error, especially
ees in all its forms, several having specially written against heresies then pre-
vailing.
 LAVERNE COLLEGE LIDKANT
LAVERNE, CALIFORNIA
Prop. 76.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 499

Proposition 76. Zhe doctrine of the Kingdom was changed

under the Gnostic and Alexandrian influence.

What the doctrine was in the first churches, viz. : a belief that
in the millennial age, still future, Christ would personally come and
reign, restoring the Davidic throne and Kingdom and fulfilling the
covenant promises, has been shown; now to prove the defection
indicated in our Proposition, in order to strengthen our argument,
we shall rely upon the testimony of writers who are not in
doctrinal sympathy with us. It would be an easy matter to bring
a large number of witnesses to testify, but a few, prominent for
learning and ability, will suffice to show the truthfulness and force
of the same.
Obs. 1. The student will carefully notice that with the view the early
church had of ‘* the Christship,’’ of the Kingdom as expressly covenanted
and predicted, of the postponement of the Kingdom to the Sec. Advent, of
the speedy Coming of the Messiah to inaugurate the Kingdom, of the
period of trial intervening, etc., it was simply impossible for the early
believers to identify the church as, in any sense, the Kingdom of God as
covenanted and prophesied. It was only when the Scriptures and the
promises were spiritualized, when, under the influence of release from per-
secution and incoming churchly prosperity, the church itself was exalted
through civil patronage, that the Primitive doctrine was gradually but
surely set aside, and the church itself was made (as by Oxigeni “* the mystic
Kingdom of heaven,’’ or (as by Eusebius) ‘‘ the very image of the Kingdom
of Christ,’’ or (as by Augustine) “ the City of God.”
Brookes (Maranatha, p. 536) quotes Bengel as saying: ‘‘ When Christianity became a
worldly power by Constantine, the hope of the future was weakened by the joy over the
present success.”’ Auberlen (Daniel, p. 375) remarks : “ Chiliasm disappeared in pro-
portion as Roman Papal Catholicism advanced. ‘The Papacy took to itself, as a robbery,
that glory which is an object of hope, and can only be reached by obedience and
humility of the cross. When the Church became a harlot, she ceased to be a bride who
goes out to meet her bridegroom ; and thus Chiliasm disappeared. This is the deep truth
that lies at the bottom of the Protestant, anti-papistic interpretation of the Apocalypse”’
(see next Prop,—this allusion is made here, because the principles of interpretation flow-
ing from Gnosticism and Alexandrianism led to such a development and application).
Andreas (Lardner’s Credibility, vol. 5, p. 79) fully admits (a.p. 550-600) the primitive view
as sti]l entertained by some, as follows (On Rev.) : ‘‘ Others think that after the comple-
tion of 6000 years shall be the first resurrection from the dead, which is to be peculiar
to the saints alone ; who are to be raised up that they may dwell again on this earth,
where they had given proofs of patience and fortitude ; and that they may live here a
thousand years in bonor and plenty, after which will be the general resurrection of good
and bad.” He says that the Church (his portion of it) does not receive it, holding to a
reign in the third heaven, etc., and advocating this interpretation : ‘‘ By the thousand
years we understand the preaching of the Gospel, or the time of the Gospel dispen-
sation.”
500 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 76.

Obs. 2. The Ency. Amer., Art. ‘‘ Mill.,’’ briefly states the case: ‘‘ The
Gnostics, despising matter, were adversaries to the dogma of the Millen-
nium. . . . And ultimately the philosophical school of Alexandria.’’
Mosheim (Zccles. His., Cent. 3d, sec. 12), after declaring: ‘‘that the
Saviour is to reign a thousand years among men, before the end of the
world, had been believed dy many in the preceding century, without
offence to any,’’ adds, ‘‘in this century the Millenarian doctrine fell into
disrepute, through the influence especially of Origen, who strenuously op-
posed it, because 2¢ contravened some of his opinions.’’ In his Com. of
the First Three Cen. (vol. 2, sec. 38), he observes: ‘‘ Among the Jewish
opinions to which in this age philosophy proved detrimental, the most dis-
tinguished was that of the reign of Christ a thousand years, with the saints
restored to their bodies. ‘This opinion, I believe, was introduced into the
church near the commencement of the Christian commonwealth. And
down to the times of Origen, all the teachers who were so disposed openly
professed and taught it, although there were some who either denied it, or
at least called it into question.' But Origen assailed it fiercely ; for it
was repugnant to his philosophy ; and by the system of biblical interpreta-
tion which he discovered, he gave a different turn to those texts of Script-
ure on which the patrons of this doctrine most relied.’’ ‘‘ J¢ is certain
that in the second century, the opinion that Christ would reign a thousand
years on the earth, was diffused over a great part of Christendom, and that
the most eminent doctors favored it ; and no controversy with them was
moved by those who thought otherwise. ‘Tertullian speaks of it as the com-
mon doctrine of the whole church.’ ‘‘ It is certain, from Justin Martyr
and others, that very many, and they men of great influence, thought as he
did (i.e. were Millenarians), nor were they on that account taxed with cor-
rupt doctrine.’’ ‘‘ But in the third century the reputation of this doc-
trine declined ; and first in Egypt, through the influence especially of
Origen. . . . And yet it could not be exterminated in a moment; it still
had respectable advocates.’’ Mosheim proceeds in various places to show
how, by a philosophizing, most violent, system of interpretation, which
began *‘ most wretchedly to pervert and twist every part of those Divine
oracles which opposed itself to their philosophical tenets or notions,’’ the
literal interpretation was finally crushed. He thus contrasts the interpre-
tation adopted by the two systems : ‘‘ He (Origen) wished to have the lit-
eral and obvious sense of the words disregarded, and an arcane sense, lying
concealed in the envelope of the words, to be sought for. But the advo-
cates of an earthly Kingdom of Christ rested their cause solely on the nat-
ural and proper sense of certain expressions in the Bible.’’ 2
'The student will notice the evident reluctance manifested by the qualifying word
“ near,’’ and that while some (Gnostics, etc.) may have denied it, it is utterly impossible for
Mosheim to produce, or quote, a single orthodox writer who did this at that period. Such
softening expressions are to be found in respectable works, of various writers, but not
one has yet produced his authority for such assertions ; and, therefore, we are forced to
conclude that the wish is father to the statements. The concessions, partially given in
frankness, are all that our position requires, and we feel under obligations to Mosheim, and
others, for presenting them, although in direct opposition to their own doctrinal tenets.
* Neander follows in the main Mosheim enlarging on many points, and is equally
decisive in tracing the gradual overthrow of the once prevailing doctrine to Gnostic and
Alexandrian influence. Quotations from him will follow. Kurtz (Ch. His., p. 146)
remarks : ‘‘ Since the time of Papias the expectation of a Millennial reign of glory at the
close of the present dispensation had been fondly cherished by the Christians, who,
under their continued persecutions, looked for the speedy return of the Lord. Only the
Prop. 76.] THE TIIEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 501

spiritualists of Alexandria (Clement, Origen, etc.) opposed these views, and, by allegorical
interpretations, explained away the Biblical arguments in favor of them.’’ Gibbon (Decl.
and Fall, vol. 1, p. 535), with his usual sarcasm, after alluding to the doctrine that ‘‘ it
seems so well adapted to the desires and apprehensions of mankind, that it must have
contributed in a very considerable degree to the progress of the Christian faith,” remarks:
“* But when the edifice of the church was almost completed, the temporary support was
laid aside. The doctrine of Christ’s reign upon earth was at first treated as a profound
allegory, was considered by degrees asa doubtful and useless opinion, and was «at lengih
rejected as the absurd invention of heresy and fanaticism.’’ Beaven (Account of Lrenceus,
p. 200), after reviewing the ground, says ; ‘‘ There is no writer of any importance down
to the time of Urigen, who impugned the doctrine of the personal reign of Christ on earth.’
Olshausen (favorable to Millenarianism, but somewhat disposed to spiritualize the
Kingdom in its application to the church) remarks (Com. on Matt. 3 : 2): ‘‘ Even in the
apostolic times sprung up the germs of the Gnostic idealism, which, in its doctrine of the
Kingdom, denied any future real and outward manifestation of the divine dominion.’’
He also shows how the Alexandrian school developed this ideal teature.

Obs. 3. Gnosticism, with its varied forms and subtle modifications, was
early prevailing, and whilst nearly ail the doctrines of Christianity suffered,
more or less, under its moulding influence, that of the Kingdom especially
became, under its plastic manipulations, one widely different from the
Scriptural and early church doctrine. In its dualistic theories, its inter-
mediary existences, its evolutions of the Divine, etc., it struck a heavy blow
at the promised kingship of the Son of Man as David’s Son ; tt changed the
royal title of ‘‘ the Messiah,’’ ‘‘ the Christ’’ into a mere name equivalent
to that of Jesus ; 7¢ discarded as foolish, or received as containing @ hid-
den meaning, the prophecies relating to this future Kingdom ; and with
its peculiar tenets of making man rise to God Himself—a becoming identi-
fied with Deity—vt rejected altogether the notion of such a Kingdom con-
tained in the letter of Holy Writ, and believed in by contemporary Chris-
tians. Emanation then, as now in its Pantheistic form, has no sympathy
for the early Patristic Kingdom. Asceticism, the belief in the inherent
corruption of matter, and its kindred brood, then, just as now, was antag-
onistic to it. While Docetism, the outgrowth (so some writers) of one
form of Gnosticism, denying as it did the reality of the human body of
Jesus, the Christ, effectually closed all access to an understanding of the
Kingdom, spiritwalizing not only the body, but everything else relating to
Him as Messiah. One party, impelled by their principles, not only
ignored Judaism as antagonistic to Christianity, but insisted that the Old
Test. contained error and should-be rejected as a true exponent of the will
of the Supreme God. (The Old Test., while true in itself, was only a his-
tory drawn up under the guidance of the Demiurge—hence inferior and
liable to deceive ;—comp. Neander Ch. His., vol. 1, p. 383). The Chiliasts
maintained the contrary, largely quoting from the Jewish Scriptures. To
reconcile these opposite tendencies, another and succeeding party arose,
who assumed that reason occupied the position of umpire, and from the
deductions of reason instituted a medium between the two, retaining some-
thing from both Gnosticism and Chiliasm, so far as interpretation was
concerned, but also spiritualizing the Ningdom, applying it to the church,
etc. From this arose the rejection of the peculiar and distinguishing
characteristics belonging to both Chiliasm and Gnosticism. Hence, it was
the relationship that error sustained to Christianity—adopting the phrase-
ology of the latter but with other meanings attached, wearing the garb of
friendship and even of piety—that gradually undermined the formerly re-
ceived doctrine of the covenanted Kingdom.
 502 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 76.

Precisely the same tactics were exhibited in that period, that we find to-day in the
writings of Free-Religionists, etc. Gnosticism, in some of its phases and workings, is
far from being extinct, as evidenced in a refined Pantheism that finds its advocates even
among the professed orthodox.

Obs. 4, It is well to keep in view the direct means employed fo get rid of
the Chiliastic idea of the Kingdom. (1) Caius (or Gaius) and Dionysius
first cast doubt upon the genuineness and inspiration of the Apocalypse, it
evidently being supposed that the appeals made to it—in view of its corre-
spondence with preceding Jewish ideas—could not otherwise be set aside.
(2) By rejecting the literal sense, and substituting a figurative or alle-
gorical ; this effectwally modified covenant and prophecy. (3) Such portions
of the Old Test. as literally taught the doctrine, had their prophetic in-
spiration discredited, as in the Clementines (comp. Neander on them). (4)
Accepting all the prophetical portions, and what could not be conveniently
allegorized and applied to the church, was attributed to heaven for fulfil-
ment (as seen in Origen and his followers). (5) Making promises directly
given to the Jewish nation as such, either conditional in their nature or
else merely typical of the blessings accruing to Gentiles. These, after
what has been written, need no comment.
The student will also observe another cause mentioned by Gibbon, Mosheim,
Neander, etc. It appears from the testimony of history that Chiliasts—under the
pressure of persecution from which they earnestly sought deliverance, and under the
misapprehension that Antichrist was already exhibited in the Roman power, hoped for
the speedy Advent of Christ and the coming of the Kingdom. Now, this view of the
Roman Empire, and this hope of a speedy anticipated deliverance caused them to feel
unwilling to engage in wars of conquest, or even to enter into the civil service of the
Empire. This feeling and resultant conduct, based, rightly or wrongly, upon their view
of the Empire and its expected destruction under the coming Messiah and Kingdom,
was naturally most offensive to the Roman Emperors and their adherents, and also to that
portion of the clergy who were for conciliating the existing temporal power. This became
the more so, when the church began to realize the protection of the State preparatory
aha union of the two, and the reaction without due discrimination, made Chiliasm itself
offensive.

Obs. 5. Another deadly, most effective weapon was the philosophy of

that period. At first it was only represented as ‘‘ the wall and the hedge
of the vineyard,’’ but it was—notwithstanding apostolic warnings—ver
soon assiduously cultivated as part of the vineyard itself. The first insid-
lous approach was, that this ‘‘ wall and hedge’’ was so run as to exclude
from the vineyard of truth whatever human reason regarded as objection-
able ;the second followed as a necessary (through human infirmity and
shortsightedness) result, error itself was graciously accepted, diligently
planted, cultivated, and grown, The crop was abundant.
It is only necessary, in confirmation, to direct the student to the able histories of
Neander, Mosheim, Kurtz, Geissler, etc., for abundant proof in reference to the fatai
influence of philosophy as then taught, ‘* which” (as Mosheim) ‘struck at the very vitals
of religion, and tended, in no small degree, to affect the credit of those sacred writings on
which the entire system of Christian discipline relies for support.” It is a sad coni-
mentary on human frailty that no important doctrine existed which did not suffer
more or less, from this spirit of Rationalism and Apostatizing. It is only fair to say that
the tendencies and teaching of some are far more destructive than that of others ; but
viewed as a whole, injury to the truth resulted both from the extremists and from those
who sought to diminish the extravagances of the former. The same still holds true
to-day, for the most determined opponents that we have are those who endeavor to bend
religious doctrine to some favorite system of philosophy.
PRop. 76.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 503

Obs. 6. Eccl. Nistory informs us that Philosophy obtained the victory

in this struggle between the ancient and later system of interpretation and
resultant doctrine of the Kingdom. ‘This mainly arose from two causes :
1. It has been truly observed, in tracing the rise and progress of ideas,
that “‘ideas obtain authority and dominion, not altogether from their
intrinsic truth, but rather from their constant asseveration, especially when
they fall in with the common hopes and fears, the wants and necessities
of human nature. The mass of mankind have neither leisure nor abil-
ity to examine them ; they fatigue and so compel the world to acceptance”’
(Milman’s Latin Chris., vol. 3, p. 437). hus repetition blone is often
the parent of faith, and then of authority, especially if the continued re-
hearsal is done (a) by the learned, whom the vulgar regard with great re-
spect ; (0) by those in civil or ecclesiastical authority, whom the common
people reverence ; (¢) by persons who are in a condition to enforce the
same by the extension or withdrawal of patronage and emoluments; (d)
by individuals and communities in order to accord with popular views and
prejudices (which may be seen by contrasting the Alexandrian notion of
the Kingdom, heaven, etc., with the heathen ideas of the same) in Escha-
tology—being thus more in sympathy with preconceived notions, popular-
ly entertained, than with that of the doctrine of the covenanted Kingdom.
2. The Origenistic system of interpretation, being, more or less, under
the patronage of the learned and great, the ambitious for civil and eccle-
siastical preferments, the flatterers of the Emperors and of the Empire,
became intrenched in the church, because of tts adulation of the church,
turning if into the covenanted Kingdom, it paved the way for increased
power and riches. With its pliant aid, it was easy to get rid of the pro-
phetical denunciations which seemed derogatory to the Kmperors and Em-
pire—to remove the belief of a Kingdom to come which involved the sup-
posed dignity and perpetwation of the Roman power, to emasculate the
prophecies pertaining to the future, which now could be applied—even the
New Jerusalem state (as by Eusebius)—to the then present period. The
Alexandrian substitution of the Kingdom, surrounded by talent, wealth,
power, influence, and catering to the wishes, hopes, and ambition of
humanity, prospered and extended itself. As time progressed, it was fos-
tered and cherished by mystical and scholastic tendencies, and finally
strengthened and confirmed by various philosophical systems.
Admitting the valuable results that may have flowed from some of these systems thus
connected, in resisting Rationalistic influences running to an extreme and in counteract-
ing the subtle arguments of infidelity, yet so far as the doctrine of the Kingdom (which
is the point constantly aimed at in our argument) has been concerned, their constant
aim has been to apologize for, or to ridicule, or to crush, the apostolic view of the Kingdom.
Their influence in this direction (with but few exceptions, as e.g. in later systems, as
Rothe’s, etc.) has only been disastrous. In league with the spirit of Alexandrian inter-
pretation, in sympathy with the old monkish notions of the Kingdom, in fraternization
with mystical and scholastic ideas, they have endeavored to make out the existence of a
Kingdom in unison with these ; and churchly men, pious and talented, believing that
they could be moulded into effective instruments to elevate and defend the church as the
divine Kingdom of promise, have seized, used, and perpetuated them, not realizing their
destructive nature. Human wisdom has been substituted for the divine, and even dared’
to become the measure of, or the standard for, the divine. Philosophy, with its boasted
standing, leavened with Origenistic ideas, imbued with a refined Gnosticism, sympathiz-.
ing with the Ideal or the Pantheistic, has mistaken either the Sovereignty of God or the
Church for the covenanted Kingdom; others, not seeing the blunder, accept of its teach-
ings until, at present, this teaching séems to be imbedded in the churches as a fundamental
truth. This could be the more readily effected seeing that philosophy takes into its,
504 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 76.

train men of intelligence and deep thinking, of leadership in literature and religion,
while the mass of mankind, unaccustomed to laborious thought and relying upon
such men for guidance, blindly follow their lead. But the days even of such a fetter-
ing philosophy are fast numbered, because there is abroad an independent mode of
thinking (alas, too often running into unbelief and the wildest extremes) that receives
the declaration of no one without weighing or testing. Two modes of thinking can
only now largely affect and control the masses: one is dealing with truth and proving
it to be such by the most reliable testimony—either from Scripture (for those who
believe in it), or trom history (for the student), or from nature (for the naturalist), or
from science, art, etc. (for the scientist). The other is to cater in some form to
the corrupt nature of man (and this even may be brought into an unnatural alliance
with the other), and the more this is done under the garb of order, love, liberty, etc.,
the better it will be received. The love for the truth and the love for self-indulgence are
the two leading motives to be appealed to ; and we are assured from Scripture that, so
far as this dispensation is concerned, the latter will constantly gain the victory as to num-
bers. We should, therefore, cautiously receive the utterances of man, unless they come
to us with the imprint of truth, fortified by ample scriptural proof. Especially so when
they come to us under the philosopher’s cloak, for then if a fallacy exists, it is much
more difficult to detect it, being enshrouded in a garb to unclasp which requires skilful
hands. What Luther, and many others said respecting the influence of philosophy in
the Church can be truthfully repeated to-day, at least in reference to the subject of the
Kingdom philosophy, whatever its mission may be intellectually and morally, is not
necessary tc an understanding of this Kingdom (Prop. 9). The Kingdom is founded on
covenant and prophecy, and not on human speculations. We find this Kingdom only in
the Scriptures and not in human systems (Prop. 10). We do not even require its aid in
ascertaining the sense or meaning of Scripture (Prop. 4). Philosophy, if she is (as some
claim, and justly too) a handmaiden to Christianity, is a very humble one, that has too
often, under the desire to serve, inyured her mistress, Her true position is not the one
assigned to her by many, as a kind of guardian (often changing, as seen in successive
phases and stages) of the inner shrine, but that of a mere servitor sweeping the outer
court. She has, through her friends, arrogated to herself the chief seat ; in a discussion
of this kind, when the appeal doctrinally must be to the Scriptures, she, if a true and
valuable servitor, must descend from the same, acknowledging the supremacy of Holy
Writ, and submitting to its authority.

Obs. 7. Another cause which operated largely to diminish the belief in

the doctrine of the Kingdom was the coldness and enmity which arose
between the Jewish and Gentile Christians, when they separated into
parties antagonistic to each other. History conclusively shows that the
peace formerly maintained between them through the wise, prudent, and
conciliating conduct of the early leaders, was ultimately removed. Noth-
ing contributed so largely to this as the removal (through Gnostic and
Alexandrian influence) of the distinctive Jewish idea of the Messiahship
and resultant Kingdom, the bond of faith that had united Jew and Gentile
into fraternal believers. We need not enter into the saddening controversy
—a mournful commentary on human frailty and passion—but one of the
results arrests attention, viz.: that the Gentile Christians in their animos-
ity to Judaism, which sought to impose its legality and ritualism, finally
were carried to such an extreme that, without discriminating between
what was abrogated and the things of God that remained in force, every-
thing that savored in their estimation of Judaism was cast aside, including
of course the long-entertained Jewish notion of the Kingdom. :
As already intimated, a mystical, transcendant philosophy, a spiritual system of inter-
pretation, aided them in getting rid of the hated Jewish forms, traditions, and beliefs,
Epithets, a frnitfnl source from whence moderns still draw an ample supply, were heaped
on the doctrine of the Kingdom as once entertained, including such as ‘gross,’ ‘‘ car-
nal,” “‘ inaterial,” ‘* degrading,” ‘‘ fleshly,” ‘‘ sensual,’’ ‘‘ earthly,’’ etc., which still flow
so readily from the pens of a certain class —‘‘ heresy-hunters.”’
Prop. 76.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 505

Obs. 8. Notably, the conversion of Constantine, the deliverance and ex-

altation of the church, and finally the union of State and church under Im-
perial supervision and protection, served to make Millenarianism wnpalata-
ble. This has been remarked by numerous writers, and the fact is incon-
trovertible. We leave others, who have no sympathy for our doctrine,
testify. Thus e.g. Smith (New Test. His., p. 723), after stating that
‘* the interval between the apostolic age and that of Constantine has been
called the Chiliastic period of Apocalyptic interpretation,’’ proceeds:
‘‘ Immediately after the triumph of Constantine, the Christians, emanci-
pated from oppression and persecution, and dominant and prosperous in
their turn, began to lose their vivid expectation of our Lord’s speedy
Advent and their spiritual conception of His Kingdom, and to look upon
the temporal supremacy of Christianity as a fulfilment of the promised
reign of Christ on earth. The Roman Empire, become Christian, was re-
garded no longer an object of prophetic denunciation, but as the scene of
a Millennial development. This view, however, was soon met by the figura-
dive interpretation of the Millennium, as the reign of Christ 7m the hearts of
all true believers.’’ Kurtz (Ch. His., vol. 1, sec. 40, par. 8), after refer-
ring to the opposition of Clement, Origen, Dionysius, adds: ‘‘ But as the
aspect of outward affairs changed under the reign of Constantine the
Great, these views (Chiliastic) lose their hold on men’s minds. The church
now prepared for a long-continued period of temporal prosperity, and the
State church of that time forgot the Millennial glory of the future.”’
The remodelling of the Church by Constantine, to conform it to the government of the
State (compare Mosheim and Neander) ; the endowment of it with wealth and worldly
honors ; the constituting it the easy road to preferment, rank, power, and riches for
the aspiring ; the making it through imperial favor the popular channel of religion, so
completely intoxicated men—not apprehending the serious calamities to result from the
same—that instead of looking for the Messianic Kingdom to come, they now supposed and
taught that the prophecies relating to the Kingdom were fulifilling—that the Kingdom itself
was already established under Constantinian splendor, and that some, like Eusebius, dared
even to apply the predictions relating to the new heavens and new earth fo this eva. An
amazing change took place in the minds of men, when, forsaking the plain teaching of the
Word and the early faith, they permitted themselves to be blinded by the outward popu-
larity, the State-union and the imperial friendship conferred upon the Church. The
reader will find in Brooks’s El. Proph. Interp., Elliott’s Ilor@ Apoc., and numerous Mil-
lenarian works, abundant references to this cause of decline in our doctrine. We can
only briefly notice the remarkable change of opinion resulting from the change in the
Church’s external condition. Before Constantine, the Church, under Chiliastic leading,
had always associated the idea of Antichrist with Rome, and that the Roman power would
certainly be destroyed at the expected Advent of the Messiah. This was taught down
even to Lactantius (De Jnstit., ch. 15), and was so imbedded in the minds of many that
Jerome himself (Com. on Dan. 9), giving the testimony of the Fathers on this point, could
not contradict it as false. All this was humiliating to a professed Christian emperor, to
the subservient followers of imperial honors, and to the hierarchical seekers of office,
and ‘‘ the convenient explication was discovered and adopted by many that Antichrist
was pagan Rome, and that from the date of Constantine’s conversion the millennium com-
menced.”’ (A view that has been revived by Grotius, Bush, etc., thus caricaturing the
magnificent prophecies of the Millennium by applying them to a period disastrous to the
Church, full of bitter discussions and persecutions, pregnant with deceit, violence, and
entailed evils.) Shimeall (Hschatalogy, p. 49) says: ‘‘ The policy of Constantine, while it
tended to eradicate the last remaining vestiges of the primitive landmarks of Christianity
and the Church, contributed also to pander to the ambition of an aspiring clergy after
‘the pre-eminence.’ Hence the gradual suppression of that (Millenarian) doctrine,
which the open hostility of some, and the timid, temporizing policy of others, succeeded
to effect. This was brought about by their adoption of the Origenic rule of interpreting
the teachings of Isaiah and St. John on the one hand, and the explaining of them in
accordance with the theory of Eusebius, which made Rome the New Jerusalem of the
506 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 76.

Apocalypse on the ground that Constantine turned the heathen temples into Christian
churches, etc., on the other.’’ Dr. Schaff (His. Ch. Church, vol. 1, pp. 299-301) presents
the same testimony as Neander, Mosheim, Kurtz, etc., respecting the extent of Millena-
rianism in the Prim. Church, saying, for example: “ The most striking point in the
Eschatology of the ancient Church is the widely current and very prominent Chiliasm, or the
doctrine of the visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thou-
sand years,’ etc. After referring to the Fathers who taught it, he then remarks : ‘‘ In
the age of Constantine, however, a radical change took place in this belief. After Chris-
tianity, contrary to all expectation, triumphed in the Roman Empire, and was embraced
by the Cesars themselves, the Millennial reign, instead of being anxiously waited and prayed
for, began to be dated either from the first appearance of Christ, or from the conversion of
Constantine, and to be regarded as realized in the glory of the dominant imperial State Church.”
Certainly it was not in the selfish nature of ‘‘ Patriarchs,’’ ‘“‘ Metropolitans or Arch-
bishops,” ‘‘ Bishops,” and others, who received princely endowments, to desire the Coming
and Reign of the Christ—they rather wished their stations, honors; and emoluments to
remain in perpetuity.

Obs. 9. Another method, pointed out by Brooks, Mede, etc., which

materially aided im removing our doctrine, was the suppressing of Mille-
narian works. Thuse.g. the works of Papias, several from the pen of Ire-
neus, the Treatise of Nepos against the Allegorizers, Tertullian’s on Para-
dise, and others, were successfully removed. Indeed the writings of some
of the Fathers were so totally obliterated that it is only by intimations
in the writings of opposers that we know that they were Chiliastic in sen-
timent. While the ravages and changes of time, the destructiveness in-
cident to age, may account for the removal of some, yet the extent of the
suppression (together with corruptions, omissions, substitutions of other
writings) clearly indicates the animus of aversion and hostility.
Then it was also customary to speak of Chiliastic adherents as if they taught a most
gross doctrine, well knowing that the means of refutation were not at hand. At times,
however, they contradict themselves, speaking in one place well of the men whom they
in another stigmatize. This is true of Papias and others. We give another illustration
referred to by Mede and others. Eusebius says of Nepos that he taught ‘‘a Mill. of
sensual luxury on earth.” But in the same chapter he makes Dionysius, who wrote against
Nepos, to say : “J greatly reverence the man,” and ‘‘ greatly love Nepos both on account of
his faith and industry, and his great study of the Scriptures’ —which he scarcely would
have said if Nepos was as ‘‘ sensual” as Eusebius reports. “The complacency with
which Neander and others relate Eusebius’ story of Dionysius converting Coracion and
a large number of Chiliastic clergy at a conference held for a disputation at Arsinoe is
remarkable —a story which bears on its very face the evidence of being a concocted one,
having no substantial basis. Observe (1) that Eusebius was exceedingly bitter against the
Chiliasts, and untruthful (as Mede and others have shown) in other statements respecting
them. (2) Such a unanimous yielding of an entire conference of opponents is a result
opposed to human nature and experience. (3) This story was concocted some time after
the alleged occurrence took place, and we have none of the marvellous argumentation
which produced such a result given. (4) The statement is utterly inconsistent with the
principles of interpretation mutually held, and with the Scriptures held by Chiliasts,
which are not so readily set aside. (5) The story very flippantly takes it for granted
that Millenarians have but little Scriptural foundation for their belief, and that the
spiritualistic interpretation is all powerful. (6) We have no statement of Coracion or
of any of the alleged converts, of such a result. (7) We know that, notwithstanding the
stated conversions, many in Egypt and other places remained Chiliasts. (8) If Diony-
sius had such extraordinary success and was really so powerful in argument, it is pre-
sumable—as Chiliasm was extensive—that this line of reasoning and arguments would.
have reached beyond Arsinoe. Now absolutely nothing that has reached us from him
has any Anti-Chiliastic force, which’a tyro could not meet.

Obs. 10. While it may justly be regarded invidious to attempt to lower

the character or position of opponents in defence of a doctrine (which has
Prop. 76.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 507

been largely done against us), yet in self-justification—seeing that many

writers (as Jones, Shedd, etc.) wnduly exalt the first opponents of Chiliasm
to the prejudice of the Millenarian Fathers—it may be well, briefly, to allow
impartial (because in no doctrinal sympathy with us) testimony demon-
strate to whom we are indebted for the decline of our doctrine. Respecting
Origen (comp. Luther’s view of, Prop. 4, Obs. 1, note 1; Michelet’s Life of
Luther, p. 273, and Ap. p. 419, ete. ; and Milner’s, Mosheim’s, Pressense’s,
Prop. 4, Obs. 6), notwithstanding his learning and ability, the ablest writers
coincide in saying that his mode of handling the Scriptures resulted most
disastrously te thechurch. In reference to Clement of Alexandria, Dio-
nysius, and all of the Alexandrian school, it is sufficient to refer the reader
to the temperate remarks of Neander, and other historians, on the entire
tendency of the Alexandrian school, which was unfavorable to a correct
interpretation of Scripture. Regarding Jerome and Eusebius, it will suf-
fice to say, that the same historians, admitting the value of their labors in
some directions, also state their unreliability in controversy, their devo-
tion to asceticism (Jerome’s), and their gross misinterpretation and mis-
application of Scripture.
It is not our desire to detract from the honor due to Origen (as e.g. in his labors on
the Hexapla, Treatise against Celsus, etc.), Jerome (as e.g. in his Latin version of the
Old Test., etc.), and others. But the tendencies of their Scriptural interpretations and
expositions being simple matter of history, and liberally animadverted on by our oppo-
nents, form a legitimate subject to be thus introduced. (Such animadversions are freely
given on our side in Brooks’s El. of Proph. Inter, Shimeall’s Eschatology, Seiss’ Last
Times, etc., and need not be repeated.) When Shedd (His. Ch. Doc.) and others shield
themselves under the bare statement that our doctrine was crushed under the influence
of the Alexandrian school (but carefully avoiding to tell us the practical and evil tendency
of this school in Biblical interpretation), it is but just to direct the reader's attention to
the same (comp. Prop. 4). Prof. Briggs in his series of articles decries all that are admit-
ted to.be Chiliasts, and eulogizes all that followed the lead of the Alexandrian school. In
view of his extravagant praise, we append a féw additional testimonies. First, as to
Clement of Alexandria, Killen (The Old. Cath. Ch., p. 10) says of him: “ His spiritual
taste was sadly vitiated by his study of the heathen philosophy, and his tendency to in-
dulge in allegorical interpretations renders him an unsafe guide as an expositor of thd
Scriptures.” On p. 374 he says of him that he “‘ allegorized Scripture in a way as danger-
ous as it was absurd,” and gives some specimens (with which compare those presented by
Fairbairn, Typology, who gives Luther's and Calvin’s opinion on such performances).
This estimate of Clement is substantially presented by every Church historian of emi-
nence —some even being more severe in their strictures. And we direct attention to the
fact that whatever retention of Chiljastic ideas he maintained, he was the one who
introduced this allegorizing system at Alexandria, which proved co fatal not only to
Chiliasm but other doctrines. In view, therefore, of his disastrous influence in adopting
Philo’s method and introducing it into the Church, we present the following estimate of
his system of interpretation in the Art. ‘‘ Alexandrian Christianity” (The North Brit. Rev.,
Aug. 1855): ‘‘ If we are asked how Clement understood his Bible, we must answer, pace
tanti viri, very badly indeed. In interpretation he is a mere disciple of Philo ; as that
writer had dealt with Moses, so he deals with the prophets and the writers of the New
Test. ; and he applies his principle apparently without any fixed rules at all. He imag-
ined that every passage of Scripture undoubtedly contained a hidden meaning, or rather
any number of hidden meanings: the same passage might mean this, that, and the other
thing, all at the same time; and so he set to work at it, as children do at a charade, and
expected a discovery of hidden truth from God’s blessing upon piously intended
guesses.’’ His fame rests not in exegesis ; his admirers (Kingsley, etc.) praise him for
his philosophy and earnestness. As to Origen, Killen (above, p. 374) says of his using
this system and departing from the literal sehse : ‘‘ In this way the divine record may be
made to support any crochet which happens to please the fancy of the commentator.”
The writer in the North Brit. Review (above) remarks : “ His (Origen’s) principles of
Scriptural interpretation are Philo’s, reduced to a still completer system ; and the most
remarkable feature in it is his bold avowal of his belief that the simple literal meaning
508 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 76.

is often not only untrue but impossible. On the strength of this expression Strauss claims
him as anally. But the views of the two men are totally different. Origen believed in
the complete inspiration of every word of Scripture, and he thought that the allegorical
sense, which was the most precious, was always strictly true ; but that God inserted untruths
and impossibilities in the literal teat in order that the reader might not be content with it,
but look beneath it for the deeper and more precious truth. Indeed, in order to recom-
mend this allegorical theory he even immensely exaggerates the discrepancies of the lit-
eral text, and find sdifficulties where no one else would have thought of finding them.”
(‘‘ For example, he pronounces the text, ‘ If any man smite thee on the right cheek, turn
to him the other also,’ to be very absurd in its literal meaning ; not because, as some
have thought, it exaggerates the duty of submissiveness, but because, since a man naturally
uses his right hand, he could not possibly strike his adversary on the right but on the left
cheek. We wish one of his pupils had been saucy enough to give him a practical proof
of the superiority, in such cases, of experiment over theory.”) The Hncy. Brit. says of
Origen (De Princip., 211, s. 2) that he described those who refused his views as such,
who ‘‘ refusing the labor of intelligence, followed the superficial mode of literal interpreta-
tion.’’ Hase (His. Ch. Church, p. 94), after having referred to the characteristics of the
Alexandrian theology in bringing out “ a hidden sense’ by means of ‘allegorical interpre-
tation,’’ which should develop a ‘‘ signification worthy of God,’’ adds: ‘‘ It was through
his (Origen’s) influence that the expectation which then prevailed with respect to a near
approach of Christ’s Second Advent, and a Millennial Kingdom, began to be regarded as
heretical, or atleast fanatical.” Rees’ Cyclop., art. ‘‘ Mill.,’’ admits that the ancient belief of
the doctrine ‘* touching the new Kingdom of Jesus Christ on earth, after the resurrec-
tion, was held for near three centuries before it was charged as erroneous, as appears from
Eccles. History’’ (quoting M. Launoy as authority), speaking of it as taught ‘* by several
of the greatest men among the Primitive Fathers,’’ and then thus refers to the decline
brought about, ‘‘ principally through the influence and authority of Origen, who opposed it
with the greatest warmth, because it was incompatible with some of his favorite senti-
ments.’’ (Comp. arts. on ‘‘ Origen” in Herzog’s Real Encyclop., M’Clintock and Strong’s
Cyclop., ete.) The disciples of Origen, such as Dionysius, Hieracus, and others, carried
out his system, and, of course, assisted in the decline. Among these later on may be
especially enumerated Gregory Thaumaturgus, who (Panegyric in Orig., ch. 15, quoted
by Neander in Genl. Ch. His., vol. 2, p. 491) most extravagantly eulogizes Origen as spe-
cially favored ‘‘ by communion with the divine Spirit,’’ ‘‘ so that this man had received
from God that greatest of gifts, the call to be to men an interpreter of the words of God ;
to understand God’s Word as God speaks it, and to announce it to men as man can
understand it.’’ Men now imitate Gregory, and profess to go into ecstasies over Origen’s
astounding interpretations. Prof. Briggs (N. Y. Evangelist, 1879) writes in the highest
terms of the Alexandrian school and its followers, simply because they are Anti-Chiliastic.
To such we commend the rebuke given by a writer (in the North Brit. Review, May, 1858,
p. 273) to D’Aubigné (in Christianity in the First Three Cents.) as follows : ‘‘ We are sorry
to see Dr. Merle D’Aubigné eulogizing Origen as ‘ the greatest luminary of ecclesiastical
antiquity.” Concede to Origen learning, fervor, and a self-sacrificing life ; but do not
canonize as a luminary one who did more to darken Scripture and to obscure some of its funda-
mental truths than any Father of the first five centuries.”’

Obs. 11. The opposition to our doctrine, when once inaugurated, was
greatly aided by the talent and ability of a few great names. Conspicu-
ously among these is that of Augustine. Probably no work has appeared
that had such a powerful influence in overwhelming the more ancient doc-
trine, as Augustine’s leading one, The City of God. 'This was specially de-
signed to teach the existence of the Kingdom of God in the church beside or
contemporaneous with the earthly or human Kingdom. The proof for
this isremarkably weak ; the supposed fact being largely taken for granted,
and a superstructure erected upon a hypothetical foundation.
Let the student carefully read ‘‘ The City of God,’’ and he wil! find that Augustine to
make out his theory (vol. 1, p. 436) arbitrarily quotes Ps. 87:3 ; 48 : 1, and 46 : 4, which
do not apply (as we shall show hereafter) to the church in this dispensation ; and (vol. 2,
p. 202) in his eagerness he actually has the marriage of the Church with Christ already
consummated, thus violating the order Jaid down in the Bible. Indeed, the proof alleged
‘Prop. 76. | THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 509

by him is so slightly inferential, and so loosely applied, that it is scarcely worthy of even
a serious refutation. The book never could have exerted so wide an influence, if it had
not accorded so fully with the already favorite Church-Kingdom theory. We give an
example of his exegetical proof : thus (b. 18, ch. 31) he adduces Obad. 21, which he ren-
ders, “ And those who are saved again shall come up out of Mt. Sion that they may
defend Esau, and it shall be a kingdom to the Lord.’’ His comment is: that Mt. Sion
is Judea where Christ was and is ; Mt. Esau is the church of the Gentiles, and that the latter,
being depended, becomes a kingdom. Similar far-fetched and puerile inferences are scat-
tered over his pages, while (Husebius-like) the Millennial predictions, the utterances of
Habakkuk’s prayer, ete., are all indiscriminately assigned to the church in this dispensa-
tion, and as now existing. Having a Kingdom on hind to portray, it must be eulogized
at the expense of the Scriptures and stern facts. The truth is, when looking over the
writings of Augustine, Origen, Jerome, and others, who so largely contributed to bring
our doctrine into disrepute, we are forced to the conclusion that, however valuable they
may be in other respects, the line of reasoning (for surely argument it cannot be called)
and inferential proof adopted to sustain their own views of the church being the then coin-
stituled Messianic Kingdoin of covenant and prophecy, is entirely and purely of human
origin, finding no support in Scripture, but being actually in open antagonism to the oath-
bound covenant of God. It is a fact, also, that neither Origen or Augustine could entirely
give up all the characteristics of Chiliasm, but still received some of its features, as will
be seen trom the quotations, hereafter given, from them. It is in consequence of the
retention of some features belonging to Chiliasm, that Bh. Taylor (Lib. of Proph., sec. 5)
ranks Origen, notwithstanding his decided opposition, a Millenarian, and this it is sup-
posed (by Brooks) ‘‘ because Origen lets drop his expectation of the renovation of all
things in the seventh millenary of the world.” How largely Augustine moulded the
Church can be seen in our Church histories, the recent works of Mozley, Dorner, etc., on
Augustine.

Obs. 12. The cessation, in almost a total manner, of the conversion of the
Jews, also materially aided in extinguishing the doctrine of the Kingdom.
Spiritualizing and allegorizing both the covenants and prophecies, chang-
ing the significant title of ‘‘ The Christ’? into a mere doctrinal name,
heaping upon Gentiles the promises belonging to the Jews, substituting
the church for the Messianic Kingdom in its true covenanted Theocratic
form, the conversion of Jews was arrested, and, as a result, the advocates
(for the Jewish mind posted in the promises of the Old Test.) of Chiliasm
were proportionately lessened.
After the Gnostic ideas and the Alexandrian school obtained the ascendency, the
preaching of the Kingdom, so widely different from that previously proclaimed by the
Fathers, was no longer effective with the Jews, for the simple reason that it was opposed
to the Kingdom presented in covenant and prophecy. The“ Gospel of the Kingdom” as
given e.g. by Barnabas, Irenzus, or Justin, was widely different from “‘ the Gospel of the
Kingdom’ as presented e.g. by an Augustine, Jerome, or Eusebius. The former corre-
sponded with the Old Test. delineations ; the latter could only be engrafted upon the
Old Test. by the most eatravagant spiritualizing and perversion of Holy Writ—by «a flat denial
of the plain grammatical sense and the substitution of a sense which the words do not
properly and primarily bear. This, of course, repelled the Jewish mind and bore its fruit |
in a continually diminished number of Jewish conversions until they almost entirely
ceased. The great link which united Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus as ‘“‘ the
Messiah’’ (which embraced the hope of the same kingdom at the Sec. Advent) was rudely severed
when the Chiliastic doctrine was discarded. So long as the hope was held out to the
Jews in ‘‘ the Gospel of the Kingdom” that Jesus would come again tofulfil the Abrahumic-
Davidie covenant, to rebuild the very tabernacle of David fallen down and in ruins, to veslore
all things, fo verify the prophetic promises based on the covenants just as their obvious
sense conveyed—so long were many of the Jews accessible, and joyfully received Jesus of
Nazareth as *‘ the Messiah,’’ and looked for His Coming the second time unto the pre-
dicted salvation. But when this hope was taken away and denounced as ‘‘ carnal” ; when
it was ridiculed, and, as Baronius informs us, was “ hissed from the stage’? under a preten-
tious Gnosis ; when in place of the restored Davidic throne and Kingdom, a real Theo-
cratic rule on the earth under the Messiah, men palmed off the Church, which in no
510 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. (PROP Gl

respect bore any resemblance to the promised Kingdom, as this predicted Kingdom—then
the only bond of union and of sympathy, through which the Jews could be easily
reached, was also removed. The sad and calamitous results naturally followed, from
which the lover of mercy, justice, and humanity sorrowfully turns.

Obs. 13. This enables us to dispose of the historical inaccuracy of those

who, overlooking the causes of decline mentioned, tell us that the decrease
of Chiliasm is due to the influence of the Pauline Theology superseding the
Petrine or Johannine. Learned disquisitions, abounding with mere asser-
tion, are given on this point ; but to sustain this philosophical conceit, it
is requisite to close the eyes to well-known facts that utterly disprove the
theory. It isa cleverly contrived plan to throw, if possible, an apostolic
mantle over a later broached theory of the Kingdom.
This cannot be true, since (as has already been shown) both Paul and Peter taught the
same covenants and promises, the basis of Chiliasm, and confirmed the same hope by
numerous utterances ; since such a position takes it for granted (there being no proof)
that there is a conflict doctrinally between Paul and Peter, the one bringing forth doc-
trine more suited to Grecian culture, and the other doctrine more adapted to Jewish;
since the Fathers, East and West, taught Chiliasm and were utterly unaware of the modern
notion of such a conflict or contemplated substitution. Neander, himself too strongly
attached to this theory and often pressing it to an extreme to favor his pet development
theory, comes nearer to the truth and the facts as they existed, when he traces the causes
of this decline to the allegorical spirit of the Alexandrian school, and hostility to Mon-
tanism. No writer can do justice either to the early Fathers who were Chiliasts, or to
tie real causes which affected Millenarian doctrine, who ignores how the Abrahamic and
Davidic covenants were comprehended and embraced in the faith of the Church, and by
what means they were eliminated or spiritualized.

Obs. 14. The abuse that this doctrine received undoubtedly alienated
the minds of some who were not able to discriminate between the true and
the false, or who associated doctrine with the personal character of its ad-
vocates instead of determining its truthfulness by Holy Writ. . Bh. Newton
(On Proph., Dis. 25) observes: ‘‘ This doctrine grew into disrepute for
various reasons. Some, both Jewish and Christian, writers have debased it
with a mixture of fables ; they have described the Kingdom more like a
sensual than a spiritual kingdom, and thereby they have not only exposed
themselves, but (what is infinitely worse) the doctrine itself to contempt
and ridicule. It hath suffered by the misrepresentations of its enemies,
as well as by the indiscretion of its friends; many, like Jerome, have
charged the Millenarians with absurd and impious opinions which they
never held ; and rather than they would admit the truth of the doctrine,
they have not scrupled to call into question the genuineness of the book
of Revelation,’’ etc. There is no doubt but that the fact that Chiliasts
also belonged to various already arising, and antagonistic, parties had a de-
cided influence with many in rejecting the doctrine, as e.g. the Montanists,
the Apollinarians, etc.
The candid student, however, well knowing both how true doctrine may become allied
with error and how men may be charged with error when innocent of the same, will care-
fully consider such a point in all its bearings before deciding. To do this properly
respecting the charge of Montanism, preferred against Tertullian, it would be well not
only to notice what enemies have said on the subject but also friends. The excellent
remarks of Neander, Lee’s His. of Montanism, Brooks’s statement, and others, are worthy
of attention. It must not be forgotten, that if men, under the influence of personal feel-
ing and passion, allied this doctrine with that which is erroneous, others, through whom
the orthodox church is properly traced by every Church historian, held to this Kingdom
Prop. %6.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 511

in its strictly covenanted form, excluding the idea of sensualism or corruption, and
teaching the enjoyment of spiritual blessings in it. Dr. Seiss, Ap. Note E., p. 335, etc.,
of Last Times gives an interesting detail of ‘‘ Millenarian views of the spirituality of
Christ’s Kingdom,” quoting from Ireneus, Justin, Melito, and Tertullian, to show that
they did advocate ‘‘ spiritual good as a leading characteristic of the Kingdom to come,’’ and
then gives Dr. Greswell’s testimony, directing attention also to the spiritually-minded
men who have hitherto received it, and concluding by exposing the art which, as Hartley
says, some men have of bringing truth into disrepute, as follows : ‘‘ Among the many
arts practised in order to bring any truth into discredit, none is more popular than that
of exhibiting it to public view joined with the absurd tenets of some that have espoused
it, and which is not improperly called dressing up truth in a fool’s coat on purpose to make
it ridiculous ; and this often succeeds with the undiscerning vulgar, who judge only by
the outward appearance of things.’’ These tactics were practised in old times by Origen,
Jerome, Eusebius, and others, and they are repeated in modern times by a Corrodi,
Stuart, Sanborn, Seyffarth, Briggs, and a host of others. It has prejudiced thousands
against us then and now, who failed to see the lack of candor, honesty, and justice in the
unscholarly procedure. No doctrine, however precious, but can be thus caricatured.

Obs. 15. The prophetical teaching, in explanation of certain prophecies,

engrafted upon the apostolic and quite early Chiliasm, had its weight in
detaching many from the doctrine, forgetting that the elucidation of de-
tails or the opinions of fallible men respecting the manner of fulfilment,
could not possibly affect the grand outlines or the heart of the doctrine,
because the former proceed from men liable to mistake, but the latter is
fixed, trrevocably in the oath-bound covenant and the predictions resulting
from the same. ‘Thus, to illustrate: many writers have shown that the
Chiliasts, more or less, down to Constantine’s conversion thought that
Rome would be the seat of the Antichrist and the Roman power would be
destroyed. This was widely circulated, and finally became a part of the
Chiliastic creed, impressed by persecution and the hope of deliverance, and
was so regarded by its opponents. Now the prophecy as believed, instead
of being verified, seemed to be utterly vain and idle when the Empire
became professedly Christian. The result was, that the failure of a portion
of the Chiliastic scheme, as then entertained, was deemed, without examina-
tion, to be sufficient proot of the unsoundness of every other part, and the
whole was rejected.
Precisely as men do to-day. Because Bengel, Cumming, or Baxter, or some others in
the explication of some prophecies, have made prophetic statements which time has
proved to be mistaken ; because Flemming, Pareus, Wood, and others misapprehended
dates and events, the whole doctrine is rejected with ridicule and laughter, just as if the
doctrine depended upon the interpretation of the precise time of the Advent or the
course of certain events, and not upon the solemnly covenanted Word given with precise-
ness and unmistakable distinctness. Good men may indeed be mistaken in details or in
the exact order of events, or in the application of prophetical time und announcements,
owing to our limited knowledge of the future, and yet all this does not affect the founda:
tion of our doctrine, which stands imbedded in “‘ the everlasting covenant,’’ ‘‘ the sure mer-
cies of David.”

Obs. 16. The opposition that Chiliasts maintained against various errors
and the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, excited hostility against
them, and contributed to aid in the suppression of the doctrine.
In this discussion it is important for the student, in order to form a correct estimate of
the early Chiliasts, of their doctrine, and of the opposition excited, to notice whom they
doctrinally opposed. This has been candidly done by the researches of Neander (who
clears them from unjust charges imposed by later enemies) and others, but a succinct
statement is still needed. In addition to what has been said, a passing remark on a
number may be illustrative of our meaning. The Chiliasts opposed the Ebionists, the
512 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. '76.

ultra, extreme Jewish sects, mainly on the ground because the latter denied the pecul-
iar, distinctive person of Christ demanded to fulfil the Abrahamic-Davidie Kingdom.
They combated all who were tenacious of the observance of the Mosaic ceremonial,
abrogated through the founding of the Christian Church. They opposed the Oriental
Theosophists because they spiritualized the letter entirely away, thus, among other
things, rendering the fulfilment of the covenants, as they read, impracticable. They
resisted what is called by some, ‘‘ The Aristocratic element,’’ as manifested in various
Gnostic systems, the incorporation of Platonic and Oriental ideas, the combinations of
false reasoning and a subtle philosophy in so far as they denied a literal, grammatical
interpretation of Scripture (especially of the covenants), and a divine and supreme
authority of Holy Writ. They materially aided in rooting out Cerinthianism, not only
on account of its Christology contradicted by the covenants, but by reason of its un-
biblical (if correctly reported, being dependent on later and hostile testimony) Chiliasm,
seeing that none of the Fathers favored such a sensual system. They contradicted vari-
ous forms of doctrine, having its advocates as e.g. the denial of the resurrection of the
body, the disbelief in the future glorification of the body, the rejection of the final
removal of the curse and of evil, the inherent eternal evil of nature, the unbelief in the
restitution of all things, etc. They withstood the Basilideans owing to its Christology
and to its giving to the ultimate deliverance of man, the race, and creation, a form
different from that specified in the prophetical. They resisted the Saturninians with
their denial of a real body to Christ, their notions of the Kingdom and way of life.
They combated the Marcionites, the Bardesenites, Tatianites, Valentinians, Carpocra-
tians, Origenists, besides others who were regarded as heretics. They resisted, on the
one hand, a gross materialism, and, on the other, an encroaching Idealism. It appears,
from these contests and the faithful devotion to the essential truths of Christianity, that
the Chiliasts were esteemed as strictly orthodox. This honorable feature is given to
them both by enemies and friends—even their most violent opponents, as Origen, Diony-
sius, Jerome, and others, do not deny their orthodoxy. Indeed, after the declarations of
Trenzus and Justin, that those who were exactly orthodox held to our doctrine ; after the
continuous line of Fathers through whom the Christian Church is traced, it would be both
unsafe and unjust to give them any other position. But all this necessarily created
opposition against them, and as this resistance finally accorded with the prevailing
adopted Alexandrian influence, various parties united in decrying them and in treating
their doctrine with contempt. The manner in which the primitive doctrine was grad-
ually crushed reminds us of the parasite in Cuba or India, which enfolds and strangles
the life out of the lofty tree. The tiny, silken threads grew into strong compressive
cables and trunks encompassing the hapless victim, until he yielded to the long-accumu-
lating pressure,
Prop. 77.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 518

Proposition 77%. The doctrine of the Kingdom, as held by the

early church, was finally almost exterminated under the teach-
ing and power of the Papacy.
This is so plain a historical fact that it needs no special evidence
to sustain it. Roman Catholic writers, ecclesiastical historians,
and others, have repeatedly recorded the statement, and no denial
of it has ever appeared.
Rome, once Chiliastic, became intensely Anti-Chiliastic. Renan, in the Second Lec. of
the Four recently delivered in London (at the request of Dean Stanley) on early Church
History, deciares that the church at Rome was of Jewish-Christian foundation, directly
sprung from the church at Jerusalem, and strongly attached to Millenarianism. The reasons
for the change have been already presented in detail. The writer on ‘‘ Revelation’ in
M’Clintock & Strong’s Cyclop. (and who cannot be charged with Chiliastic sympathies)
thus candidly says: ‘‘ Immediately after the triumph of Constantine, the Christians,
emancipated from oppression and persecution, and dominant and prosperous in their
turn, beyun to lose their vivid expectation of our Lord’s speedy Advent, and their spirit-
ual conception of His Kingdom, and to look upon the temporal supremacy of Christianity
as a fulfilment of the promised reign of Christ on earth. The Roman Empire, become
Christian, was regarded no longer as the object of prophetic denunciation, but as the scene
of a Millennial development,’ with which comp. Prof. Bush’s “Mill.’’ If there is any pro-
priety and force in the position of the Romish Church, and in the reasoning of Bellar-
mine, Bossuet, Mohler, and others, that tradition should be authoritative with Scripture in
deciding doctrine, then surely the traditions of the first centuries ought to have made,
by their overwhelming weight, the Romish Church Chiliastic. But in this case ambi-
tion, pride, conscious power, the possession of honors and wealth, etc., override tradi-
tion, as they often have done Scripture (comp. Obs. 4). Chillingworth’s reasoning on
this remains, and ever will remain, ununswerable.

Obs. 1. The Papacy has been ever hostile to our doctrine, owing to the
Chiliastic opposition to its pretensions, its provisions looking to futurity,
its hierarchical endowments, corruptions, and bold assumptions of being
the promised Kingdom. The early Millenarians, without exception, re-
garded the Roman Empire and the rising Papacy with distrust because of
their belief that the Antichrist would in some way or form be identified
with one or the other. Before the union of Church and State, the Empire
was the object of suspicion ; after the union, while the belief was still con-
tinued respecting Rome, men began to surmise, as the hierarchical tenden-
cies were more and more developed in the increasing power of the Bishops
of Rome, that those Bishops themselves were paving the way for the
Roman Antichrist. This opinion was strengthened by the conduct of
some of the Popes, so that they were plainly designated either as Anti-
christs or forerunners of the Antichrist. This view, of course, would be
offensive to the heads of the Romish Church, and naturally resulted in
their decrying Chiliasm and condemning it as derogatory to the honor of
the church. Pride, dignity, ambition, power, could not tolerate a view
which, necessarily brought with it, expressed, or even implied, reproach.
514 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 77.

Various writers have expressed this as follows: Bh. Newton (On Proph., Dis." 25)
remarks : ‘‘ Wherever the influence and authority of the church of Rome have extended,
she hath endeavored by all means to discredit this doctrine ; and, indeed, not without
sufficient reason, this Kingdom of Christ being founded on the ruins of the Kingdom
of Antichrist.” Dr. Burnett (Theory of the Earth, vol. 2, p. 193), after showing how the
Romish church discountenanced the doctrine, and that he never met with a Popish
doctor who regarded it with favor, concludes: ‘‘ The Millennium being properly a
reward and triumph for those who come out of persecution, such as have lived always
2 pomp and prosperity can pretend to no share in it or benefit by it. This has made
the church of Rome have always an ill eye upon this doctrine, because it seemed to have an
ill eye upon her. And as she grew in splendor and greatness, she eclipsed and obscured
it more and more, so that it would have been lost out of the world as an obsolete error,
if it had not been revived by some of the Reformation.” Cox (A Millenarian’s Answer, p.
43) says : ‘‘ The grand chasm in the history (of Chiliasm) seems to be those awful cen-
turies of Rome’s supremacy, when almost every truth was hidden. Indeed, some of the
parasites of Constantine, like Ahab’s Zedekiah, did not scruple to say that the 21st and
22d chapters of Revelation were fulfilled in his time. Thus did Satan mimic the King-
dom God had promised, and, as one has well observed, constitute the Pope his
Melchisedec, his high priest to rule over the nations.” Brooks (Hl. Proph. Interp., p.
51) writes : ‘‘ When the Christian Bishop of Rome came, in progress of time, to be
elevated to the high rank which he attained under the papacy, the inconvenience of
explaining Rome to be the capital city of the Antichrist and the ‘Babylon’ and
‘Harlot’ of the Apocalypse, was more sensibly felt than ever ; because it could not be
asserted without giving occasion for the very obvious conclusion, that the Bishop of
Rome would some day apostatize, together with the church in general over which he
was the head. Accordingly, from the time of Justinian, efforts were both openly and
clandestinely made to get rid of the doctrine altogether, by removing or corrupting the
evidence in its favor, or by affixing to it the stigma of heresy.” Seiss (Last Times, p.
246-7) declares : ‘‘ It is a sad fact, however, that from the fourth century until the
sixteenth, this doctrine gradually lost its hold upon the minds and hearts of professed
Christians, and went down into almost absolute neglect. But withit went down the great
doctrine of justification by faith, and nearly everything that is distinguishing in gospel
religion. Jt fell only as Popery arose ;, and it is only as it rises again that Popery shall
shrink and quail. So long as men think they see and hear Christ in the Pope and
believe that they are worshipping and honoring Christ by serving and obeying hier-
arzhies regarded as jure divino, we need never expect them fo believe that Christ will ever
reign here in person. The two ideas are fundamentally antagonistic. If Christ is Him-
self to reign here in universal empire, He has not given that Empire into the hands
of a vicar ; and if He has made the Pope the supreme Lord of the world, it is settled
that He will never reign here otherwise than by the Pope. Hither proposition confutes
the other. The two cannot live together. And this puts into our hands the key
to the true explanation how the church has come to lose sight of the primitive
and apostolic faith upon this subject.”’

Obs. 2. In the very nature of the case, the Chiliastic Kingdom of the
Abrahamic-Davidic covenant as taught by the Fathers, the hope in the con-
stantly expected Advent of Jesus to establish such a Kingdom, the antict-
pated struggle with an Antichrist in ecclesiastical-political power, the view
entertained respecting the church as a struggling, tried body awaiting
deliverance and triumph alone through the personal Advent of the Messiah
—these prevented aspiring prelates and the ambitious learned from indors-
ing it. It was an easy matter, by adopting the Origenistic interpretation
of several senses, to reject the covenanted restored Davidic throne and
Kingdom under a personal Messiah, and to substitute in its place an ezist-
ing Kingdom under the rule of appointed hierarchs, and claim that in
and through them Christ was already reigning in His promised Kingdom.
This caricature of the Messiah’s Kingdom was varnished over by the most
laudatory and fulsome language (even applying to it the predictions alone
applicable to the mighty Theocratic King) which self-interest and vain-
glory could suggest. Very soon, too, these declarations were summed up
Prop. 77.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM, 515

and declared to be ‘‘ the voice of the church ;’’ the later Fathers supersed-
ing those who previously entertained Chiliastic doctrine, now so detractive
and humiliating to Popish presumption.
It is noticeable that Romanism pronounces only such ‘‘ Doctores Ecclesia” who have
no decided leaning to Millenarianism, leaving Chiliasts like Papias, etc., simply ‘‘ Scrip-
tores Ecclesiastici’’ (Ueberweg’s His. Philos., vol. 1, p. 275). Those who spiritualized
the faith of the Primitive Church were in the highest odor of sanctity. Dr. Pise, in the
Introd. (p. 7-8) to Rutter’s (Rom. Cath.) Life of Jesus Christ, exalts the ancient Fathers
as in unity with Roman Catholicism (without, however, intimating how the more ancient
in many points disagree, as abundantly shown by Barrow, Chillingworth, Cumming,
etc.), and then, by way of contrast, points out how Luther, Calvin, Mélanchthon, Peter
Martyr, Beza, Dudith, etc., depreciate them (without noticing that they mainly objected
against the later who departed the most from the Primitive doctrine, and that they
received them when in accord with the Scriptures). It is those very ‘‘ doctores” that
the Reformers found had departed the farthest from the ‘‘ old paths,’’ so that e.g. taking
Jerome, Luther (Table Talk, ‘‘ Of the books of the Fathers,’’ ch. 135) remarks : ‘‘ Jerome
should not be numbered among the teachers of the Church.” ‘This reminds us that this
Father, so eulogized by some of our opponents because of his one sided Anti-Chiliasm, is
thus presented in ‘‘ The Old and New,” Sep., 1871, Art. ‘‘ Jerome,’’ which after acknowl-
edging his merits in several respects, sums up the ‘‘ Jerome of quarrelsome memory”’ as
follows : ‘‘ As supporter of the ciaims of the rising Papacy, as satirist of marriage and of
the holiest laws of nature, as compiler of monkish legends and defender of monkish
practices, as defamer of the earliest Christian Protestantism, and apologist for the martyr
worship and paganized ceremonies of the Roman Church, Jerome must be classed with
those who have hindered the progress of the race in morals and religion,”’ etc.

Obs. 3. When a church arrogates to itself the great honor of showing

forth within its borders the predicted millennial glory (ase.g. Eusebius and
others, dating its inauguration from Constantine, or Augustine and others,
dating the same from the First Advent of Christ); when it enforces the
belief by a wholesale appropriation of prophecy without the least regard to
its connection, covenant basis, prospective attitude, relation to the Jewish
nation, union with the Sec. Advent, etc.; when it hedges this around by a
confessional barrier, and calls for all its membership to receive it as the
truth—then, especially when it has the ecclesiastical and civil power under
its control to compel obedience, it is not strange that the doctrine, so hostile
to these arrogant assumptions as ours, should be hated and depressed.
The Hierarchy could not, as a matter of mere consistency, receive the notion of a
Kingdom (viz. : that of the reign of the Messiah in the covenanted Theocratic-Davidic)
which protested against and condemned its substitution. Hence Shimeall (Eschatology,
p. 49) correctly observes : ‘‘ Then, too, the Popes, in after ages, discountenanced Mille-
narianism, inasmuch as it militated against their anti christian usurpation and dogma, that
the Millennium commenced with Romish domination in the church.” Dr. West (/iis.
Pre-Mill. Doc.) says: ‘‘ By union of church and state, and perversion of victory, the
foundation was laid in the Empire for a carnal and a Satanic caricature of the Millennial
Kingdom of Christ on earth before the time—a Millennium sunk in the gross material-
ism and idolatry of a medieval, political, and military Christianity. By union of Church
and State the martyr doctrine itself was martyred, no council resisting, and vanished from
view with the departing glory and last remnant of a suffering, but pure apostolic
ehurch.” How the union of Church and State, introducing an antagonism of view
utterly irreconcilable with Chiliasm, facilitated the overthrow of Millenarianism, is
also briefly noticed by Hagenbach, His. of Doc., vol. 1, sec. 139. Dr. Fisher, Art.
“ Mill.’ M’Clintock & Strong’s Cyclop., although a Post-Mill., most candidly says: ‘‘ It
(the Mill. doctrine) was still common, however, in the time of Jerome, who himself was
one of its opponents. But gradually the tenet which had so widely prevailed became
obnoxious and proscribed. One great reason of this remarkable change of sentiment is
to be found in the altered condition and prospects of the Church.” The latter, he re-
marks, led to the idea of bringing the world into subjection to the Church. It is the
just view of many that Constantine’s conversion and the results were not productive of
BIe TILE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 77.

good. In addition to writers quoted, see Stanley’s Life of Arnold, vol. 1, p. 52, Mackin-
non’s His. of Civ., vol. 1, p. 77, ete.

Obs. 4. Chillingworth (Works, Dis. 5)—of whom Prof. Bush declares,

“‘ Certainly there are few persons more competent to pronounce on the
fact’’—makes a strong argument against the Church of Rome, in its refus-
ing to accept of our doctrine when professing to receive by tradition the
pure doctrines of the primitive and apostolic age. He conclusively proves
the generality of the doctrine entertained ; that for some time it was un-
contradicted ; that all the Fathers, Hast and West, held it; that they pro-
fessed not only to teach it ‘‘ as doctors but as witnesses ;’ that it was
esteemed as an ‘‘ apostolic tradition’’ received by persons in personal com-
munication with apostles and elders; that it was regarded as the faith of
orthodox believers ; and then, in the light of all this accumulated evidence,
argues that, in this matter at least, the Roman Church “ has grossly falsified
the creed of antiquity, inasmuch as there is ample evidence that the doctrine
of the Chiliasts was actually the Catholic faith of more than one century.”’
Bowers (His. Popes), in his life of Damasus, takes the same ground, for,
after describing the Millenarian doctrine and its extent, he remarks :
‘“« And yet such a doctrine 7s now rank heresy inthe Church of Rome. But,
by declaring it such, have they not overset their own system, which places
tradition upon a level with the canonical books of the Scripture? Can
they allege a more ancient tradition, one more universally received, or
equally countenanced by Scripture, in favor of the many traditional articles
of faith which they have obtruded upon the world? Papias declares he
received the above-mentioned doctrine of those who had learned it anme-
diately of the apostles. If such a tradition be rejected as false, what other
has a right to be adnutted as true ?”’
Judge Jones (Essays on the Com. of the Kingdom, Ess. 5), after declaring “‘ that the
system of Popery, morally speaking, could not have been established, except upon the
virtual or practical denial of this very doctrine,’’ remarks : ‘‘ Hence it is that while most
Romanists have treated the doctrine as a heresy, others feeling their traditions inust
fail, if Papias, Ireneus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Lactantius, and their contempo-
raries, should be denounced as heretics, endeavor to escape the dilemma, by making a
distinction between what these fathers have said in the name of the church, and have
delivered as the doctrine of the church, and what they choose to consider their per-
sonal opinions and conjectures. Some of them trace the doctrine to certain passages
in the Apocalypse, which they suppose these fathers misinterpreted ; while others
affirm that they borrowed it from Plato. The answer given by Chillingworth to this
mode of getting over the difficulty is conclusive.’’ If may be here observed (what Jones,
Cox, and many others have noticed) that it is not only the church of Rome that is, in
view of its organization, ambitious projects, etc., hostile to our doctrine, but this ap-
plies to all those religious bodies having ‘‘ « Migh-Church” tendeney, and making much
of ‘‘ tradition’’ (as e.g. Episcopalian High Churchism, Mercersburg Theology, Pusey-
istic party, ultra Symbolical Lutheranism, etc.), which tells us, with insidious and
subtle reasoning, that the Bible is to be interpreted by the past faith of the Church,
and yet which, with all its professed churchliness, obstinately and utterly discards
this once generally received faith of the church. The same is true, in sadness we write it,
of all churches that are highly prospered in extension, wealth, and influence (except-
ing alone individual members, who have faithfully entered their protest), to whom
our doctrine is unwelcome for reasons already sufficiently assigned. Ruling in an
existing Kingdom, it does not suit the spirit and aims of a multitude to receive a
doctrine which necessarily is humbling and derogatory to their pretensions and predic-
tions of the future.

Obs. 5. It may then be briefly stated as aself-evident fact, that the entire
spirit and aim of the Papacy is antagonistic to the early church view,
Prop. 77.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 517

being based on coveted ecclesiastical and secular power, on extended juris-

diction lodged in the hands of a Primate. When episcopal palaces with
their palatial endowments were erected under the fostering care of the
Emperors ; when the rulers of the church enjoyed the rich vestments,
emoluments, and honor of office ; when magniticent churches, with altars
and walls adorned and enriched by the costly gifts of its devotees, were
built all over the Empire ; when ambitious men, under the cloak of an
established Messianic Kingdom, formed the idea of a universal govern-
ment ; when men addicted to pleasures tasted the enjoyments afforded by
rich revenues and the servile honor paid to them by the multitude ; when a
system was founded which decided that the reign of the saints had already
begun—that the Bishop of Rome ruled on earth in Christ’s place ; that the
deliverance from the curse would only be effected in the third heaven;
that in the church, as a Kingdom, there was “‘ an aristocracy’’ to which
unhesitating obedience must be rendered ; that the prophetical announce-
ments respecting Messiah’s Kingdom were fulfilling in Romish predomi-
nance, splendor, and wealth; that the rewarding and elevation of saints
was not dependent upon the Sec. Advent, but upon the power lodged in the
existing Kingdom, etc., etc.—then it was that Chiliasm, so distasteful and
obnoxious to these claims and doctrines, fell beneath the powerful and
world-pervading influence exerted against it.
Judge Jones (Essays on Com. of Kingdom) observes: ‘‘ Ungodly men, allured by
ambition, and who desired nothing less than the coming of Christ, got influence in the
church, and they constructed a system, every part of which speaks in language not to
be misunderstood, ‘ My Lord delayeth his coming.’’’ See also in the same connection
his remarks, how this is found, more or less, in Protestant churches. It is a sad truth,
that our most bitter enemies are those who are fostered by endowments looking to a per-
petuity of present agencies, etc. It is but just to add, that while Jones is correct in
specifying ‘‘ ungodly men,” yet it is also true that many sincere and pious hearts were
drawn, by fallacious reasoning and the trust that they were aiding the truth and Christ’s
glory, in receiving and extending this opposition to Primitive doctrine, position, and
usage. For we must not forget that aside from selfishness and personal interest seriously
affecting our doctrine, mysticism, in all its forms, with its higher inner light and lower-
ing of written revelation before spiritual contemplation, has ever disastrously—in
Romanism and Protestantism—manifested ils scorn at Chiliasm, owing to the influence
of its devotees. A glance at church history is decisive, for such men as Hilary, Maximus,
Bernard, John Scotus Erigena, Hildegard, Francis, Eckhart, Tassler, Thomas 4 Kempis,
Molinos, and even such as Fénelon, Pascal, Madame Guyon, Law, and a multitude of
others, could not possibly accept our doctrine, seeing that their fundamental principles
and their method of interpreting Scripture were utterly opposed to it. Thus a variety
of powerful influences (comp. preceding Prop.) were at work, hand in hand.

Obs. 6. The institution of monkery exerted a powerful influence in caus-

ing the rapid decline of our doctrine. They formed, owing to their privi-
leges, numbers, sanctity, etc., the most effective allies in upholding Papal
claims and doctrines, and, of course, in decrying, with the populace, all
antagonistic utterances. From the fourth century down, they greatly
moulded or impressed the sentiments and views of the church, and, there-
fore, the student, in estimating the causes leading to a suppression of Chil
jasm, must not forget to estimate the leverage exerted by monkery.
It is unnecessary to discuss monkery, as Mosheim, Neander, etc., have presented
their vast influence in building up the Papacy, etc. Yet it is noticeable that the earlier
favorers of monasticism, like Jerome, while rejecting our doctrine, were still unwilling to
brand it as a heresy ; this spirit of toleration, with increasing bigotry and ignorance,
finally ceased.
518 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 77.

Obs. %. The authority of Councils in the interest of hierarchical tenden-

cies materially aided in obscuring thé doctrine of the Kingdom. Indirect-
ly, by exalting and confining the kingship of Christ to His Divine nature,
and correspondingly lowering the human, forgetting that the covenanted
kingship is given to ‘‘ the Son of Man’’ who is of the Davidic lineage.
This resulted mainly from the Arian and other controversies respecting
the natures of Christ, when one extreme led to its opposite. Directly, by
indorsing the polity of the church and state, the ambitious projects aiming
at universal power, and the supposed Kingdom as exhibited under the
leadership of one Bishop. The decisions of Councils were finally elevated
to an equality with the Scriptures, and thus aided in crushing the doc-
trine.
What these Councils were (i.e. of what fallible persons composed, what indications of
weakness, passion, bitterness, etc.) has been ably and satisfactorily shown by various
writers (Mosheim, Neander, Killen, Stanley, Justin, etc., too clearly teach us that the
majorities were only too often composed of bigoted, fanatical, and domineering prel-
ates, whose only desire was to compel all men to believe in all things just as they did,
to exalt their church by any means, even to the anathematizing of all who would not
submit). After the Council of Nice, none gave utterance to anything in sympathy with
Chiliasm. In the first General Council of Nice (a.p. 325), being nearly related in time
to the preceding Chiliastic Fathers, we have the following : in addition to the definition
of the faith and the canons, the Council set forth certain forms of ecclesiastical doctrine.
Gelasius Cysicenus (His. Act. Von. Nic.) has recorded the latter, and among them is the
one on the last clause (viz. : “ I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the
world to come’’) of the Nicene Creed. It reads: ‘‘ the world was made inferior because
of foreknowledge ; for God foreknew that man would sin. Therefore we expect new
heavens and a new earth according to the Holy Scriptures ; the Epiphany and Kingdom
of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ then appearing. And as Dan. says (ch. 7 : 18)
the saints of the most High shall take the Kingdom. And there shall be a pure and holy land,
the land of the living and not of the dead: which David, foreseeing with the eye of faith,
exclaims, I believe to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living—-the land of the meek
and humble. Blessed, saith Christ (Matt. 5 : 5) are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
And the prophet saith (Isa. 26 : 6), The feet of the meek and humble shall tread upon it.”
This is quoted by numerous writers, such as Mede, Burnet, Brooks, Seiss, Cox, Hartley,
Shimeall, Investigator of Proph., etc. Brooks remarks that Dupin, the Romish his-
torian, calls this into question, while others of the same church contend for its correct-
ness. Ifit is to be received as genuine (as many contend, seeing that it is to the Romish
interest to detract from it), it would appear that many, at least, of the three hundred
bishops composing the Council were Millenarian—for this statement is purely Chiliastic—
and that the influence and teachings of Lactantius (who was then an old man and died
about that time) and others were not forgotten. Let us add: that the extract is still
valuable in indicating how anciently such expressions in the Creed which simply ex-
pressed a belief in the resurrection of the dead, were understood, viz. : not necessarily
to imply a simultaneous resurrection of all at one and the same time. This again
shows, as we Shall argue hereafter, that the leading creeds, as the Apostles’ and Niceno-
Constantinopolitan, as well as the brief formulas of Ireneus and Tertullian (comp. note
to Murdoch’s Mosheim His., vol. 1, p. 81, Harper’s Ed.), were in direct sympathy with
Chiliasm (over against Shedd’s, Sanborn’s, and others’ statements to the contrary), seeing
that Millenarians cordially embraced the same, and even thus tersely expressed a great
truth without entering into details respecting the order of the resurrection. Besides this :
while giving this as proof that (aside from Lactantius and others) at this period Mil-
lenarian doctrine was not yet extinct, yet, we confess, that we are not great admirers of
a Council called and presided over by such a man as Constantine, and in which were men
(comp. Dunn, Stanley, Killen, etc.) who evinced by their conduct that they were pas-
sionate and frail. Our doctrine is not based on Councils ; and we do not quote the latter
to give it any authority, but only as a historical fact bearing on the continuance of its
extent, at a time when abuses came trooping in and the doctrines heretofore held were
beginning to fade before the incoming Hierarch. Uhlhorn (Conflict of Chris. with
Heathenism, p. 352) shows that after the Church introduced hierarchical tendencies and
dreams of conquest, then “‘ the hope of the speedy Advent, which shone so brightly in the
Prop. 77.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM.. 519

early days, has now become dimmed,” and while ‘‘ the earlier period had no thought of
any victory but that which Christ was to bring at His Coming,” the church now entertained
hopes of victory over the Empire and the world. This was largely aided by Councils,
aided and supported by imperial patronage and power.

Obs. 8. Theology, under the constant surveillance of a church jealous of

its delegated kingly authority, in its more systematic arrangements, was
entirely controlled so as ¢o favor the substituted Kingdom. We find, there-
fore, in all such works, running down through the scholastic age to the
Reformation, a set apologetic defence of the Romish notions of the King-
dom, Starting with the idea—often taken for granted as a settled premise
or inferred by far-fetched inferences—that the Romish Church is the pre-
dicted Kingdom of the Messiah, everything is made ¢o bend to that theory.
The utterances of later Fathers, the decrees of Councils, and the self-in-
terested statements of Popes and Prelates, are appealed to with unbounded
confidence, just as if, in so fundamental a matter, the fallible utterances of
man were equal, if not superior, to Scripture itself ;—and as many of these
thus quoted had been canonized by the church they favored, their saint-
ship corroborated, in the eyes of many, the claims and doctrines indorsed.
To oppose such a swollen stream, guarded by thousands upon thousands of
devoted adherents, was simply to risk reputation and life.
We reproduce the language of a valued friend. Dr. Seiss, Last Times, p 290, says:
‘< T have proven to you that such (Chiliastic) were substantially the hopes of the church
before Christ came as the child of Mary ; tnat Jesus and his inspired apostles spoke of
these hopes as deeply founded in the purposes and promises of God ; that they were
entertained, preached, and gloried in by those who received their instructions from
apostolic lips, and by the Luthers, and Arndts, and Paleys, and Baxters, and Wesleys,
and Halls, and Edwardses, and Chalmerses of the first three hundred years of the
Christian Church ; that no Christian ever disputed them previous to the time of
Origen ; and that they are now held and proclaimed by hundreds and thousands among
the purest, the most eloquent, the most learned, and the most useful of the children of
God on the face of the earth. How the church came to lose sight of these hopes, I have
also indicated. It was Popery that obscured them and cast them into darkness. First
came Origen’s fanciful method of interpreting the Scriptures, casting uncertainty
upon the clearest statements, and introducing a way of exposition which all men unite
in lamenting and condemning. Then came the desire to render the Christian faith
palatable to a Roman Emperor, and then to the papal usurper, leading to a repudiation
of a part of the Bible, and the mutilation and interpolation of the writings of the
fathers. And thus, as the joint work of Origen’s vagaries and the sycophantic spirit and
corrupt principles of some who came after him, a disposition was made of these great
anticipations from which every good man should recoil with horror. It was a stroke of
Satan to cheat the Bride of Jesus out of her sublimest dowry. To this day the church
is more or less under the influence of that deception. Nor can we do duty to ourselves
or to the truth of God, and yet patiently acquiesce in a decision brought about in a
way so unchristian and unwarrantable. Nay, I feel confident, that when once we have fairly
examined this whole matter the pure Millenarian doctrine will be held and preached as
one of the most glorious articles of our most holy faith.” So Dr. Willis Lord (The
Blessed Hope, p. 79) remarks : ‘‘ In the Apostolic and Primitive Church it is certain that
for more than three centuries the Sec. Coming of Christ was expected to take place
before the Millennium, and that the bliss and glory of that period would flow from His
presence and reign. Especially was this so while Paganism still held the seat of power,
and the church was despised and persecuted. Most keenly did she then feel the sorrows
of widowhood, and long for the return of her absent Lord. That return would bring the
day of her redemption and joy. When, however, Constantine mounted the throne, and
the church with him, her spirit and her faith changed. Favor with men, and increasing
flatteries, honors, wealth, and power, made the world seem less barren, and more
attractive. Gradually, but surely, the blessed hope gave way to the power of present
possession and enjoyment ; the once desolate widow became elated, proud, and self-
520 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PROPDT7.

sufficient ; and she said in her heart, ‘I sit as a queen, and shall have no sorrow.’ For
many generations, it would have been the dread of the visible church to have the Lord to
come.”

Obs. 9. The historical fact that Millenarianism was thus crushed is far
from being dishonorable to us. Indeed, we rather glory in the occurrence,
as indirect proof of the truthfulness of our position, seeing that as a defec-
tion from the truth was predicted by the apostles to take place, that very
form of doctrine departed from—provided once generally held, and con-
tained (even in the literal sense) in the Word—it must be regarded as ap-
proaching the nearest to sound doctrine. ‘The warnings specially given re-
specting this doctrine in its leading feature of the Sec. Advent, etc., wn-
mistakably indicate a foreseen denial of its characteristics. Hence, we have
corroborating evidence in its favor, when we hear the Roman Catholic
Baronius telling us: ‘‘ The figments of the Millenaries being rejected every-
where, and denied by the learned with hisses and laughter, and being also
put under the ban, were entirely extirpated.”
The reader will observe that if our doctrine had always remuained the generally received
doctrine of the church it would not meet the requirements of prediction respecting the
lack of faith in Christ’s coming, the attitude of professed servants who say that Je
delayeth His coming, the abounding of unbelief and apostasy, etc. This same Baronius says
(Bowers, His. Popes, vol. 1, p. 97) that Damasus condemned the Millenarians in the
Council of Rome, a.p. 378. But Bowers shows that he is wrong, since after that Council
“many eminent men in the church held it, and Sulpicius Severus among the rest, wilhout
being deemed heretics on that score.” Mede, Brooks, etc., evidently (saying that
Damasus condemned the Millenarians, and Mede, Works, p. 664, also says that Damasus
suppressed the works of Victorinus and Sulpicius) took this either from Buaronius, or
from Lorinus, the Jesuit (Lorinus in his Com. on Acts 1:6, refers to “the heresy of
Chiliasm, which Pope Damasus had condemned in Apollinaris’’), and both Baronius and
Lorinus were misled by the condemnation of Apollinaris, who with views that the
Pope reprobated, also entertained Chiliasm in some of its features. After looking over
all the testimony avaiable on the subject, it is our decided opinion that the suppression
of the doctrine was luter than the time of Damasus, and that Bower is correct in his
opinion. In confirmation of this, it is only necessary to say that Apollinaris was not
condemned as a Chiliast but for other alleged error, and that Jerome (with whom
Damasus was intimate, and who upheld and praised Damasus) himself—opposed to
Chiliasm—duares not condemn it as heresy (saying that ‘‘ many Christians and martyrs had
affirmed the things (Chiliasm) which he denied ; and that a great multitude of Christians
agreed in them in his own day, so that though he could not follow them, he could not
condemn them”), which he certainly would have done, or intimated, had the Bishop, his
personal friend, decreed it. Suppose, on the other hand, that Baronius is correct, that
we admit his statement (‘‘ the heresy, however, loquacious before, was silenced then, and
since that time has hardly been heard of’’), and that Damasus, with the aid of the
Council, suppressed Millenarianism. It certainly cannot be flattering to the prevailing
view, that this was done by a Pope with the character of Damasus, and by a clergy which
sustained the reputation given to them at that time.* It must, indeed, be purticularly
gratifying to some of our opponents that the charge of ‘“‘ heresy” preferred against us
comes from such a source, so that e.g. Dr. Hamilton declares : ‘‘ Yet this doctrine of
the Chiliasts was condemned by the church—since that time all are accounted heretics
that maintained it.’’ In our reading, this charge has been found repeated again and again

*Comp. e.g. Bowers, His. Popes, noticing the statements of Baronius and others. The
character of Damasus is very far from being saintly, if we are to credit Roman Catholic
writers. It is a strange contrast to notice Jerome’s time-serving spirit thus brought
out : Jerome himself had called Damasus a ‘‘ virgin doctor of the virgin church,” but
after his patron was dead and he had left Rome, ‘‘ the virgin church’ was suddenly trans-
formed into ‘‘ the scarlet whore,’ and the clergy, into ‘‘ the senate of pharisees.’’ <A toler-
able specimen.
Prop. 77.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 521

by respectable writers, but none of them dare to tell us by what class of men this was
done, for such an exposure would blunt the edge of their weapon and make it recoil
upon themselves. The fact is, that Millenarians esteem it an honor that their doctrine
was first suppressed by prelates possessing the character, etc., that history accords to them.
The truth is, that while our doctrine was obnoxious to, and detested by, the Bishops,
and many of the leading clergy, through partisanship, yet it was not so early authorita-
tively condemned, seeing that such a condemnation would involve a disastrous con-
troversy respecting the regular perpetuation of the church. The Bishops and Prelates
were too shrewd to do this, seeing, as they did, that this would involve so many of the
Fathers that it would be difficult and hazardous, yea, impossible, to trace the true church
unless through ‘“‘ heretics.” Hence the cautious policy was adopted, not to.condemn it in
any regular decree, but in establishing as the faith of the church its opposite, and
making all submit to the latter as the truth, What must we think, however, of the spirit
animating Prof. Briggs (NV. Y. Evangelist, 1879), who, with evident relish, approvingly
quotes Baronius’ declafations, and eulogizes the Popish doctors, and even praises the long
“dark ages’ of triumphant Popery, pronouncing them ‘“‘ the heroic ayes,’’ and then
wallows in the old slander of associating Chiliasm with fanatics, outside of ‘* the
historic church.” The scholarly certainly cannot be influenced by it.

Obs. 10, Baronius and others have asserted that for a long time the
doctrine was ‘‘ entirely extirpated.’? This is no¢ strictly correct. It cer-
tainly was brought into such disfavor by a ruling Romish Church that
during ‘‘ the dark ages,’’ down to the Reformation, 7 was scarcely known.
Still we have intimations, plain and decided, that 7¢ was held by individu-
als (as e.g. Jerome mentions in his day, what Lorinus, the Jesuit, says of
Tully Crispold, quoted by Brooks, H7. Proph. Interp., p. 60; comp. Bernard,
etc., quoted by Seiss, p. 26, in A Question in Eschatology, etc.), and, at least,
in some of its features, by the Vaudois or Waldenses, Albigenses, Lollard,
or Wickliffites, and the Bohemian Protestants (comp. the extracts, some
of which will hereafter be given, presented in Elliott’s Hore Apoc., Taylor’s
Voice of the Church, etc.). This testimony could, undoubtedly, be ex-
tended, if we only had the opinions of many who fell under Romish con-
demnation, and of whom it is said that they were detested and rooted out
on account of opposition to Romish doctrines. But even if all such in-
timations were lacking, it would only indicate how wide-reaching the apos-
tasy had grown, how fearfully prediction on the subject was verified, and
how important it was for the old truth to be revived.
Prof, Briggs (N. Y. Evangelist, 1879) exults in the fact that ‘‘ the great churches of
Rome, Alexandria, and Asia Minor condemned the heresy,’’ and that ‘‘ the consolidation
of Christian faith in creed and liturgy, effectually excluded Chiliasm more and more
from the church, until it was banished for many centuries.” Admit the crushing of our
doctrine, and then ask by whom was it done, and how it was accomplished, and the
historical answer certainly cannot be flattering to our opponents. The period of time,
the many centuries, when it lay depressed, is sufficiently delineated by Romish and
Protestant writers to set aside the extravagant eulogies bestowed upon them by Prof.
B. in order to sustain his bitter anti-chiliastic preudices. But it does seem strange for
a Protestant, and a professed scholar, to so far forget himself, that, in order to make a
doctrine odious, he will exalt those who have been the most unrelenting persecutors of the
forerunners of principles and a liberty in which the Protestant Church to-day rejoices ;
and to correspondingly degrade, as unworthy of the least attention, men who advocated
those principles and that liberty, because they held to ‘‘ Chiliastic notions.” Those
who opposed the encroachments of the Papacy and resisted its abuses, are to be derided,
because they said (D’ Aubigné’s His. Ref., vol. 3, p. 415) in their helplessness ; ‘‘ Let us
lift up our heads, looking to the Lord, who will come and will not tarry.” Individual
members of the Romish Church, as well as protesting communities outside of it, who
denounced hierarchical tendencies, resisted usurpations, and expressed a belief in a
speedy Advent to remove existing evils and introduce a Sabbatism, are to be judged
only as estimated by their cruel enemies, because they expressed sentiments too much allied
with the Chiliastic. Why not go a step farther, and include the Reformers themselves, who
 522 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 77.

also expressed such views, utterly antagonistic—as we shall show—to modern, Whitbyan
theories of the Millennium ?
Under the preceding Propositions reference has been made to this continuation, and
Jerome's statements respecting many holding it in his day. Later on the traces are
rarer, until they cease, unless we regard those testimonies that Déllinger has given in
Prophecies of the Middle Ages, as favoring Chiliasm in some of their aspects. We pass
them by for this reason : although opposed to the Romish, general, view of the Millen-
nium, yet there is such an admixture of error that they cannot properly be regarded as
Chiliastic. Let us e.g. take one of the most noted, the Prophecies of Joachim, and the
Evangelium eternum of the Fratricelli, and these were widely removed from the Primitive
Chiliasm, losing sight entirely of the specific covenanted Theocratic Kingdom of the
Messiah, which was the idea of the early Church. A brief mention of the scheme enter-
tained, is sufficient to demonstrate this fact. These held that we have had a dynasty of
the Father extending from Adam to the First Advent ; then followed a dynasty of Jesus
Christ, lasting 1000 years or more from that Advent ; this last, iry,which they lived, was
to be succeeded by the dynasty of the Holy Spirit (golden age), which was indefinite or
limited, at the pleasure of the believer. A number of views, hostile to the prevailing
Augustinian, may, for aught we know, have arisen from the remains of Chiliastic belief
still existing here and there. Some of the former advocates of the Papal doctrine
renounced it for Chiliastic views, as Le Pére Lambert (a French Roman Catholic,
whose ‘‘ Expositions,” favoring a Pre-Mill. Advent, restoration of the Jews, and reign of
Christ, was translated into German by Von Mayer), Lacunza(Ben-Ezra, a Spanish Jew,
whose work, “The Com. of Messiah in Glory and Majesty,” was translated by Edward
Irving), John Baptist Pagini (a Roinan Cath. Priest, in his work, ‘‘ The End of the World,
or the Sec. Com. of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ). The fact is that some Roman-
ists could not drift so far away from the old landmarks, but what they would revive
sentiments and the idea of the Millenaries, more accordant with Chiliastic antecedents
than the Popish notion, but these feeble utterances were crushed under the weight of
Church authority. Here and there we have intimations of the continued existence of
the doctrine even down to the 16th century. Thus e.g. Appleton’s Cyclop., Art. Moise
Amyrant, a French Calvinist theologian, born 1596, who “acting in concert with
Richelieu, aimed at a reconciliation between the Protestant and the Catholic Church,”’
wrote a work, ‘‘ Against the Millenarists.’’ Although knowing nothing of the contents of
the work, its title implies that a growing class must have existed, or it would not have
been issued. One thing is certain that no union could be effected between Protestants
being Millenarians and Romanists.

Obs. 11. Various writers in tracing our doctrine have, through inadver-
tency or misapprehension of our belief, made the wnscholarly mistake of at-
tributing a revival of our faith to the extended belief in the Advent of
Jesus to judgment about the year A.p. 1000 and succeeding dates, and,
with evident relish, endeavor to make our system accountable for the
calamitous results (so graphically described by Mosheim). But this belief
arose from the Romish view, and not from Millenarianism. The proof is self-
evident, and the least knowledge of the facts will make it apparent to every
one. The Augustinian theory, so generally adopted by the Popish doc-
tors, commenced the Millennium with the First Advent of Christ, and con-
sequently, in agreement with this view, when the one thousand years, dated
from the First Advent, expired, Popery, driven to a conclusion by dts own
adopted, Millennial theory, looked for the Coming to Judgment, and, with
its doctrine of the end of the world, etc., for a general destruction of all
sublunary things. Now this was the opposite of Millenarian views, which
made the Millennium future, to be introduced by a resurrection, and to be
followed by a glorious restoration of all things. The misapplication of the -
Millenary (making it Pre-Advent) and of the Sec. Advent (making it Post-
Millennial) is purely Romish error, and, in view of the extent in which it
was held and the miseries that it entailed, is decisive proof how largely
Millenarianism had been obliterated.
Prop. 77.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 523

This mistake has been incorporated in several cyclopedias (as Appleton’s, Brit., etc.)
and also Millerism which lacks the purely Chiliastic features of a future Millennium, the
doctrine of the Kingdom, etc. (although the parties sprung from Millerism have in most
cases, as the majority of Sec. Adventists, returned to a more pure Chiliastic doc-
trine). Writers against our belief introduce this Romish observation derived from Au-
gustinian teaching, most offensively against us, never regarding in the least the numerous
replies made by us in explanation. In illustration: one of the most unfair and un-
charitable performances is Prof. Sanborn's Essay on Millenarians (Bib. Sac,, July, 1855),
in which among other mistakes we are charged with the extravagances of the middle
ages (when our doctrine was really buried under a cloud of darkness) introduced by
Post-Millennialists, and with the errors of men who were Anti-Millenarians. Strange that
learned men, when our doctrine is so accessible and history is so plain in describing our
views and that of others, cannot discriminate between our Pre-Millennial position and
that occupied by Post-Millennia] and Anti-Millennial advocates. We sometimes are almost
led to suspect that the oversight is inlentional, but, in charity, trust that it results
through simple misapprehension. As one (Brookes) has well expressed it : “ the fanatical
crowds that were so alarmed were not Pre-Millennialists, but Post-Millennialists.’’ Hence
it is unjust to burden us with the vagaries that belong, as all history attests, to our
opponents. As this accusation is constantly repeated, we append several testimonies,
which present the truth in the matter. Hagenbach, His. of Doc., vol. 1, sec. 202, quot-
ing Liicke, etc., shows that the Augustinian view adopted to avoid Millenarianism
‘as
formerly entertained, was the cause of the expectation and commotion. Dr. Fisher,
Art. ‘‘ Mill.,” M’Clintock & Strong’s Cyclop., justly traces this expectation of Advent to
Augustine’s views, saying: ‘‘ As the year of our Lord 1000 approached, it was a
natural corollary that the judgment and end of the world would then occur.’’ This
is true, because the Mill. was then supposed to end, and the Popish ideas of judgment
and its results were then to be realized. Compare Faber’s Inquiry into History and
Theol. of the Anc. Vallenses and Albigenses, p. 389, etc., Guizot’s Civ, in Europe, p. 95, and
the Arts. in Herzog and other cyclops.
524 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 78.

Propvosition 78. The early church doctrine was revived after

the Reformation.
Several hundred names, including some of the most eminent,
learned, and pious in the church, are given in such works, as
Taylor’s Voice of the Church, Brooks’s El. Proph. Interpretation,
Seiss’s Last Times, Elliott’s Hore. Apoc., Shimeall’s Hschatology,
Cox’s Millenarian’s Answer, Anderson’s Apology, Time of the
End, West's Hssay on His. of Doc., and various others, embracing
many living after the Reformation, who again revived the early
faith of the church in the Kingdom of Christ still future, and to be
set up at the Sec. Advent.
The works alluded to give many interesting extracts confirmatory of the Chiliastic
views held at this revival of the doctrine. Bh. Newton (Dis. On Proph., No. 25). after
referring to the suppression of the doctrine through the influence of Rome, says : ‘‘ No
wonder, therefore, that this doctrine lay depressed for many ages; but it sprang up
again at the Reformation, and will flourish together with the study of Revelation.”
Appleton’s Cyclop., Art. ‘* Mill.,’’ with all its one-sidedness, frankly remarks : ‘‘ The
Reformation of the 16th century gave a new impulse to Millenarian views,’’ that the
Anabaptist movement was only a ‘‘ caricature of the old Christian doctrine,’’ that ‘* it
was preached with enthusiasm by many sects and theologians of the 16th and 17th
centuries,’’? mentioning Wiegel, Comenius, Jurieu, Mede, Bengal, Oettinger, Hahn,
Stilling, Lavater, and also Hass, Rothe, Hoffman, Delitzsch, Kurtz, Hebart, Thiersch,
Nitzsch, P. Lange, Ebrard, Irving, Cumming, and others, as its advocates during this
period and later. Abbott and Conant (Dic. of Relig. Knowledge) say : “ These views
(Chiliastic) may be traced to the earliest history of the church, and were advocated by
the fathers up to the 4th century. They then declined, lill:ihe Reformation gave them a
new impulse, since which time they have prevailed through the entire church to a large
extent.

Obs. 1. Candor requires of us to state this peculiarity attached to those

who were thus Chiliastic. (1) Some held strictly to the Primitive view, as
contained in our argument, believing only in one Kingdom (while acknowl-
edging the general Divine Sovereignty, etc.), still future, which was fo
accord with the Davidic covenant and related prophecies. ‘The church,
exceedingly precious, was regarded as only provisional and introductory
to this Kingdom. (2) Others, with a cordial faith in such a future King-
dom, also upheld a Kingdom as present existing in the church—a kind of
prelude to the coming one—thus retaining In part. the Origenistic or
Augustinian idea. (3) Some declare for a present Kingdom in the church,
and also for a future one here on earth at the Sec. Advent, but incorporate
with the latter mystical conceptions or spiritualizing deductions (which de-
tract from the early view), as e.g. making the reign of the Messiah invisi-
ble, retaining the Son of Man during this period in the third heaven, etc.,
thus violating the express terms of the covenant and promises. (4) Others,
again, with or without a decisive Church-Kingdom theory, have adopted
certain salient features of Chiliasm (as e.g. the nearness of the Advent, the
restoration of all things, the rise of the Antichrist and his destruction by
 Prop. 78.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 525

the personal coming of Jesus, the first resurrection literal, the Sabbatism,
etc.), so directly antagonistic to prevailing views and so much in harmony
with our doctrine that they may be classed as, at least, partly Chiliastic.
The first three, and some of the fourth class, reject the notion that the
present dispensation, 17 any sense, contained the covenanted, predicted
Kingdom of the Messiah ; they all looked, however they may regard the
church as provisional and even an introductory reign, to the Sec. Advent
for the realization of the glorious Kingdom as promised by the prophets,
as covenanted by God, and as believed in by the early church. This King-
dom, pre-eminently Messianic, they all believed was introduced by a per-
sonal Advent and a prior resurrection of the saints.
Hence on the great outlines they are a unit, however they may differ as to details.
For they are all Pre-Millenarian in view, and look to the Kingdom to be set up here on
earth after the Sec. Advent for the fulfilment of covenant and prophecy. In a subject so
‘vast and complicated, it is reasonable, owing to human weakness and infirmity, to expect
a divergence of view as to details, the order of events, and the meaning of various pre-
dictions. A greater divergency and antagonism of view, even pertaining to fundamentals,
exist among our opponents, but this is no reason why we should reject their views,
seeing that no doctrine of the Bible has escaped such treatment. It is therefore unfair
to (as Brown) object to our doctrine because differences of opinion exist as to the fulfil-
ment of details, and conceal the greater differences prevailing on their own side. Besides
this, as our argument progresses, it will be shown that these differences largely and
almost invariably result from a departure from the oath-bound covenants and the plain
grammatical sense of the Word. The truth is, that some Pre-Millenarians are so largely
leavened by the prevailing spiritualizing interpretations, that they cannot entirely
rid themselves of its influence. It is also true, as the crudeness of the works indicate,
that some Pre-Millenarians, without a careful study of the subject, have rushed into
- print and presented but a meagre and one-sided aspect of the doctrine, utterly failing to
observe the force of the fundamental covenants.

Obs. 2. While some of the Reformers entertained partly Chiliastic views,

others expressed themselves in a way contradictory to pure Millenarianism.
But whatever their sentiments, not one of them believed in the modern Whit-
byan view of the Millennium. ‘Those who were not Chiliastic, at least sup-
ported, as we shall show, the Chiliastic position thus far, that they did not
adopt the idea of a Millennium still future, to be ushered in before the Sec.
Advent. They were Augustinian in doctrine, and utterly refused the
modern prevailing doctrine as anti-Scriptural and delusive (comp. e.g. the
quotations from them ander Prop. 175).
In reference to the Reformers we give place to no one in deep respect for them as
devoted men of the church, but we have greater esteem for the authority of Scripture
(Props. 9 and 10). The Reformers, with all their greatness, were fallible, and differed
among themselves. Now it is the distinguishing feature of the Protestant Church in
opposition to the Romish that when men differ among themselves the question of such
difference is to be decided by an appeal, not to church authority, or to the weight of
any man’s writings, but to the Scriptures. This was the position of the Reformers
themselves, and they frequently asserted that they themselves should only be followed in
so far as their views corresponded with the Scriptures. They themselves acknowledged
their liability to error ; that many things in the Bible were still obscure to them ; and
that by study, prayer, continued application, progress would be made in the knowledge
of the truth. A pompous amount of quotations might be adduced from them to sustain
these points, but we think no one will dispute a fact that is so apparent and essential
to progress.* For, if we blindly believe and only believe what some great and good men

*Comp. e.g. Mosheim Ch. His., vol. 2, p. 19, and Schlegel’s note, Kurtz's Ch. His.,
vol. 2, sec. 20, D’Aubigné’s His. Ref., Schmucker’s Lutheran Symbols, and writings of
Auberlen, Sprecher, Conrad, and a host of others.
526 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 78.

have said, we (a) yield the liberty of private judgment given by God ; (b) set ap an
infallibility unrecognized by the Word ; (c) render ourselves liable to error; (d) dishonor
the doctrinal position of Holy Writ ; (e) remove advancement in the knowledge of the
truth ; (f) and place the writer whom we indorse in a false position. Augustine has so
happily and delicately expressed this, when he answered a Donatist who had quoted
the authority of Cyprian against him, that it may properly be introduced as illustrative
of our opinion : ‘‘ But now seeing that it is not canonical which thou recitest, with that
liberty to which the Lord hath called us, I do not receive the opinion, differing from
Scripture, of that man whose praise I cannot reach, to whose great learning I do not
compare my writings, whose wit I love, in whose speech I delight, whose charity I
admire, whose martyrdom I reverence.”’
2. It has been asserted by numerous writers that the Eschatology of the Reformers is,
more or less, defective. Thus e.g. Auberlen (Div. Rev., p. 224, seq.) says, that ‘‘ the
Eschatology of the elder Protestantism is now generally admitted to be imperfect”
(comp. Dorner’s His. Prot. Theol., vol. 2, p. 170, etc., also Art. 2, Evang. Quarterly Review
for Jan., 1875, written either by Dr. Brown or Dr. Valentine, one of the editors,
Martenson, Ch. Dog., etc.). Various reasons are assigned for this by different writers,
such as, that the defectiveness arose from their recent emergence from Popery (being
unable to rid themselves entirely from its influenc2), from the bias obtained through
the teaching of the later Fathers, especially Augustine, from their being trammelled by
the popish notion of the church, from their attention being specially diverted to other
subjects at that time more the objects of controversy, from their not being placed in a
favorable position for the developing of the truth in this direction, etc. However
explained, the fact remains, and their language, whatever the reason may be, sometimes
implies doubt, sometimes a feeling after the old paths, and sometimes it is con-
tradictory.*
3. After the Reformers occurred what they themselves were directly opposed to, viz.:
their writings and confessions (especially the latter) were elevated to an authority equal
to that of the Scriptures. All historians sadly testify to this unfortunate procedure.
The impartial student must acknowledge that there is justice in the strictures of
certain writers respecting the course taken by some of the followers of the Reformers. -
Thus e.g. Hallam (Introd. Lit. of Europe, vol. 2, p. 200) alludes to the right of Private
Judgment, as an essential principle of Protestantism, but which was afterward con-
stantly violated by the stringent imposition of Confessions, in the understanding of which
Confessions no liberty was allowed, even in non-essentials, This gave force to one of
the reproaches cast upon the Reformation by the adherents of Rome (and reproduced
by Free Religionists, etc., of the present day), viz. : that after according liberty of
judgment to reject the authority of the Romish church and form others, it then with-
draws that liberty and devotes all who dissent from them to obloquy, heresy, and even
to bonds and death. Hallam remarks: “these reproaches, it may be a shame for us
to own, can be uttered and cannot be refuted” (comp. Milner’s His. Literature, etc.).
Hence it has been said (vol. 1, p. 370) that the Reformation‘‘was but a change of
masters’; and if we are to credit certain rigid symbolists of our country and Europe,
these old confessions (with a mass of swperadded matter) are still to be our masters, to
be received unqualifiedly, placed on a Romish footing of equality with the Scriptures.
This spirit necessarily excluded proper development and true advancement ; fettered by
a bigoted confessional of standard by which everything drawn from the Scriptures is to

* Compare also on this defectiveness Dr. Lange, in his Introd. to Rev., and p. 401 ; also
the Art. “ Antichrist,” in Herzog’s Encyclop., the remarks of the Com. in Lange’s Com.,
1 Thess., p. 24, and Dr. Lillie’s note, etc. Dr. Kling, Art. “Eschatology,’’ in Herzog’s
Encyclop., declares that the Reformers while resisting, on the one hand, the fanatical
Anabaptist view, and, on the other, Popish errors, still held to a defective Eschatology,
the original doctrine not being correctly held, but which was restored as the church
advanced in her prophetical studies. The best proof of such a defective Eschatology is
found in the fact that the most ultra-symbolists, who specially pride themselves on a
strict adherence to Reformation doctrine, do not hold the Eschatology as given by the
Reformers, as e.g. the time of the Millennium, the nearness of the Advent, the non-
conversion of the world, and the Antichrist. Such, while opposing us, are very careful
to conceal their own defection from the Reformer’s teaching. Accusing us of a departure
fs if it were fatal—they themselves are open to the same accusation, if it has any
orce.
Prop. 78.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 27

be measured, the Confessions became the measurer of Scripture. But this is only part of
the truth ; for however extended this spirit, yet good and true men, followers of the
Reformers, endeavored to restrain this spirit, so fatal to advance in knowledge.
German, English, French, and other theologians of eminence have protested against this
extreme confessional observance, and have shown that, owing to this proscription and the
virulent controversies engendered by it, a fruitful source of continued ignorance upon
various points, and a shutting of the door to advance in the truth, have been entailed.
Hallam and others overlook this protest, because in the earlier period it unfortunately
proved itself a small minority, which by degrees, however, has swelled to a large number.
It is somewhat remarkable, illustrative of human prejudice and passion, that while, on
the one hand, it was acknowledged that such confessions were fallible—the then ex-
pressed understanding of the Scriptures by their authors—they still were, on the other
hand, held as certain, from which there could be no dissent without meriting censure
and punishment. From all this (comp. Prop. 10) we learn, that while it is a duty and
pleasure to honor the Reformers and their utterances (in so far as they accord with
truth), we cannot, without detracting from our Christian manhood, and from the honor
due alone to the Scriptures, elevate these men and their works to the position of the
inspired prophets and apostles. If God had intended the Scriptures to be circumscribed
by such assigned limits, provision undoubtedly would have been made to secure to us a
confession not evidencing in its very construction the marks of human workmanship.
4. Simply as a reminder to our opponents (as e.g. Seiffarth) who urge the Reformers
as if they were infallible, we illustrate the fact that, with all their greatness and valuable
labors, they may also be in error in their interpretation of Scripture. Thus e.g. both
Luther (Table Talc) and Melanchthon (Initia Doctrine Physica), as shown by White (The
Warfare of Science; and see his references to Bretschneider, Lange, and Prowe), op-
posed the Copernican system by appeals to Scripture, Joshua, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes,
etc., proving that the earth is the centre of the universe. In their conscientiousness
Luther calls Copernicus ‘‘ an upstart astrologer” and ‘‘ fool,” while Melanchthon pro-
nounces him guilty of “a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly.’’
This teaches us that good and great men may misjudge and misinterpret, under the
impression that they are doing God’s service.

Obs. 8. The subject requires that we should more particularly allude to the
views of the Reformers, and those after them, who were not directly Chilias-
tic in doctrine.’ They (as e.g. Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Calvin,
and Knox) occupied the Augustinian or Popish position (see works giving
extracts from their writings, such as Elliott’s Horw Apoc., Taylor’s Voice
of the Church, etc.), viz. : that the church, in some sense, was the King-
dom of God (preparatory to a higher stage), and that the Millennial period
(one thousand years) included ¢his dispensation or gospel period (some of
the Millennial descriptions being applicable only to a future period either in
heaven or the renewed earth), and hence was nearing its close. But each
of these recorded their belief, in the duty of every believer to be constantly
looking for the Advent, in a speedy Advent, in there being no future Millen-
nial glory before the coming of Jesus, inthe church remaining «@ mized state
to the end, in the design of the present dispensation, in the principle of
interpretation adopted, in unbelief again extending and widening before
the Advent, in the renewal of this earth, etc.—doctrines in unison with
Chiliasm. The simple truth in reference to them is this: that they were
not Chiliasts, although teaching several points that materially aid in sus-
taining Chiliasm (as e.g. in those enumerated), and in some, as Luther and
Melanchthon, holding that at the end of the 6th Chiliad—the close of six
thousand years—Christ would appear and introduce a glorious Sabbatism
(Prop. 143). They were thus really Anti-Millenarianin the sense of ex-
pressing faith in a proper Millennium yet to come, or in that of believing
ina Millennium already past, and this can be abundantly proven from their
writings, in their declarations of the future anticipated condition of the
 528 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 78.

world, in their hopes of an Advent drawing nigh, and in their emphatic

denial of a conversion of the world prior to the expected Advent. ‘Lhere-
fore it is that neither Millenarians (excepting in the features stated) nor
Whitbyans (i.e. believers in a future Millennium brought about without
the Advent through present agencies) can wholly claim them.’
1 Because Millenarians quote Luther, etc., to sustain certain features of our doctrine,
we are sometimes unjustly charged as if we referred to them as express Chiliasts ; and
this too notwithstanding the explicit statements given by us respecting their doctrinal
position, Many Millenarian works (as Elliott's, Brooks’, Cox’s, Seiss’, Taylor’s, and
others) allow in full their Augustinian position, but only refer to them (1) to show that
nowhere do they endorse the modern Whitbyan doctrine ; (2) that they pointedly condemn
the present prevailing view ; (3) and that, in important points, they fully and unreservedly
coincide with our Millenarian attitude. Our opponents of the Whitbyan school cannot
claim them, seeing that their position is directly hostile to that of the Reformers. In the
course of extended reading, we have vet to find a single sentence in the Reformer’s
writings, that our opponents can directly quote in their behalf as being in sympathy
with the Whitbyan hypothesis. Our ability to do this in behalf of some of our views
seenis to be a tender matter with Whitbyan folowers.
Our opponents very artfully quote from the Reformers such matter as they suppose is
Antichiliastic, but are very careful to avoid two kinds of utterances given by the same
men : (1) those that are in cordial sympathy with Chiliastic doctrine ; (2) those that are
in direct conflict with the modern, Whitbyan notion. Prof. Briggs, in the V. Y. Hvangel-
ist, 1879 (republished in the Lutheran Quarterly), endeavors, by w concealment of the actual.
facts, to leave the impression that the Reformers were in accord with the prevailing
modern view. Articles like these—and they are nunmerous—are insidiously constructed,
and well calculated to prejudice the ignorant or unwary. Our opponents, when driven
to the wall, fully acknowledge that the Reformers were wrong in their Eschatology
relating to the Millennium. Scarcely any theologian adopts their view to-day, it having
been discarded for the futurity of the Mill., is a question no longer debated. Con-
sequently the Reformers are immensely more in agreement with us than with our opposers,
as we show by our quotations from them. No one denies that the Reformers held to a
present spiritual Kingdom preparatory to a future one (as many Millenarians also do), or
that they rejected a proper Mill. age in the future (which is just as hostile to our Post-
Mill. friends as it is to us), for the simple fact, which colored their Eschatology, is that
they, more or less, adopted the Augustinian notion of a past, present, or existing Mill.
age, identifying it with this dispensation. That the Reformers were opposed to the
carnal, fanatical Anabaptist inovement is what every Chiliast does, on the ground of
locating the Mill. age after the Advent and after the res. and translation of the saints.
Whitbyans, certainly, ought not to seek the shelter and authority of the Reformers in
this indirect method (which is both unscholarly and dishonest, because it seeks by the
suppression of their real views to make them seem favorably disposed), when, in the most
fundamental things pertaining to their theory, they were directly in antagonism (comp.
quotations from them e.g. under Prop. 175). It is strange that men have not the acute-
ness to see that when they endeavor to array others against us who have less sympathy
with their own theory than with ours, they are only heaping up material condemnatory of
their own views. What service is gained, or what proof is obtained in behalf of the
Whitbyan ‘‘ hypothesis,’’ by showing that certain persons were not favorable to Chilhasm
proper (although they adopted and taught certain prominent Chiliastic doctrines), when
the same persons plainly reject the Whitbyan theory as unscriptural and misleading?
What weight should -be given to such testimony, which forms the staple of numerous
essays against us? Compare for the Reformer’s views Elliott’s Hora Apoc., and Arts.
in Herzog, M’Clintock & Strong, etc. Lange, Introd. to Rev., p. 67, etc., refers to
Luther’s view as that “ the thousand years extend from the time of the Apocalyptist to
Gregory VII.,’’ and this is stated in numerous Pre-Millenarian works.
> The same is true of many theologians who followed the Reformers, for while opposed
to the direct ancient Chiliasm of the Primitive Church they, adopting the views of the
Reformers, held to no future Millennium before the Advent of Christ. Thus to illus-
trate :for example, Quenstedt (Theolog. Didactico-polemica, 4, p. 649), Hunnius (Epit.
Credendorum, pp. 266, sex. 291), Hutter (Compend., p. 171), and others given by Dr.
Seiss (A Question in Eschatology), with which compare Schmid’s Dogmatics, etc. The in-
telligent and careful student will also notice (what happens frequently in late commen-
taries, etc.) that some theologians of this class while stating succinctly their belief in no
Prop. 78.] THE TIEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 529
future Millennium before the Advent of Christ, in other places drop expressions which
either make their utterances contradictory or leave the impression that they were in
doubt respecting their own position. The fact, however, as stated by us is this: that
such a view is held by but few at present. The Protestant position has (as noticed by
Hengstenberg, Apoc., vol. 2, p. 3384, Stuart, Apoc., vol. 2, p. 463), in view of its Apocalyptic
application to the Papacy, approached a Chiliastic one, and locates the 1000 years’ reign
in the future, after the overthrow and destruction of the Antichrist. It is unnecessary,
because of the almost universal rejection of their Millennial theory, to enter into a de-
tailed statement. Under other Props. will be shown (e.g. Prop. 158, etc.), the Scriptural
and historical reasons which lead, inevitably, to its abandonment. The advocates of this
view are mentioned e.g. by Lange, Introd. to Rev., and the denouncement of these ‘‘ servile
adherents to orthodoxy,” etc., is given p. 401, ete.

Obs. 4. In noticing the history of Chiliasm, it is very important for the

student to discriminate between the varioxs beliefs in antagonisin to it.
By overlooking this some writers have made serious mistakes, (1) in calling
those Millenarians who, before the personal Advent and the resurrection of
the saints (both cardinal doctrines in our system) look for a Millennium
(as e.g. Anabaptists, Shakers, Swedenborgians, etc.); (2) in making out
those favorable to the Whitbyan theory (a) who oppose us and are really
Anti-Millenarian, or (6) who decry Chiliasm, but are themselves Post-Mil-
lenarian, or (¢) in producing those who are Millenarians as if opposed to
it, as e.g. in quoting from their writings, as in the case of Bunyan and
others, the belief in the conversion of the world, without knowing that
when they come specifically to explain the manner of its accomplishment
it is purely in the Chiliastic order. Hence the careful writer on the sub-
ject will distinguish between the various theories: (1) Pure Chiliasm as
entertained by the early church, which held as distinguishing characteris-
tics that the church was no¢ the Kingdom, but that the Kingdom was de-
pendent on a Pre-Millennial personal Advent, a Pre- Millennial resurrection
of the saints, etc., when, after such an Advent and resurrection, ¢he per-
sonal reign of Christ and the saints would be introduced ; (2) mixed
Chiliasm, (a) holding to the eariy view as stated, with the exception of
making also the church a preliminary Kingdom, and (0) receiving all of
the second, including the personal Advent and resurrection, but making the
reign one in heaven, or invisibly ; (3) the Augustinian or Popish view,
which makes the church in this dispensation the Kingdom, and does not
look for one to come in a still future Millennial period ; (4) another Popish
view, indorsed also by a few Protestants (Grotius, Prideaux, Bush, Vint,
etc.), that the church is the Kingdom, and that the Millennial era is to be
dated from Constantine’s conversion ; (5) the Anti-Millenarian theory,
which, without any Millennial doctrine (or else making the Millennial de-
scriptions apply to heaven), regards the church as a Kingdom, and denies
that there will be any Millennium in the future ; (6) the Post-Millennial
view (which adopts cither 3 or 4), but extends the church already (as Swe-
denborgians) into aNew Jerusalem state ; (7) the view of those who regard
the church a Kingdom, but (as Shakers, etc.) have it in Millennial glory in
their own organization ; (8) the doctrine of such, who, without any Chili-
astic Kingdom—also making the church a Kingdom—simply teach the
nearness of the Advent and the destruction of the world (as Millerites,
etc.); (9) the singular opinion of some (as Seventh-Day Adventists), who,
also teaching that the church isa Kingdom, declare the nearness of the
Advent, but consign the reign of the Messiah and of the saints during the
one thousand years to the third heaven, to be followed by a renewal, etc.;
530 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 78.

(10) the Whitbyan hypothesis, which makes the church a Kingdom, and
looks for a higher stage of it in the future Millennial age, merging ulti-
mately into the heavenly Kingdom ; (11) the opinion of a few, that the
church is no Kingdom, but will ultimately be incorporated into one in the
third heaven ; (12) the development theory, which teaches that, while an
invisible Kingdom exists in the church, the church will still more and
more develop itself into the outward form of a Kingdom, without noting
any particular era for the same ; (13) the Rationalistic view, that the church
is no Kingdom, and none, in any proper sense, is to be expected ; (14) and
the notion of some (as Anabaptists, Fifth Monarchy men), that prior to
the Advent and resurrection they could, through violence, etc., introduce
the Kingdom of Christ in its Millennial greatness.
The reader will observe that nearly all in this list are based on the Alexandrian in-
terpretation, and are the offshoots of the Origenistic system, discarding a grammatical
interpretation of covenant and prophecy. Hence their direct antagonism to the Davidic
covenant, and the promises founded on the same, and which is sought to be reconciled
by special spiritualizing to suit the theory.

Obs. 5. A number of writers have sought to bring discredit on our doc-

trine by declaring that it never was embraced in any public and acknowl-
edged confession of the church, either before or after the Reformation.
A few remarks, indicative of the facts, may be in place, in order that the
reader may decide for himself what weight is in the objection.
1. Even if this were true, two things are worthy of attention: (1) That
Creeds and Confessions do not circumscribe the Word of God, or prevent «a
deeper and more Scriptural insight in Divine things, seeing that they are
simply the expression of the understanding that certain persons or bodies
have of the truth at a particular period. The fallibility of these Confes-
sions is apparent, in that no two of them cotncide in all particulars, and
that one 1s antagonistic to another. (See Props. 9 and 10.) (2) Our op-
ponents who present. this objection weaken their own cause by urging it,
because some of these Confessions contain Chiliastic features, or are in
greater sympathy with our doctrine than with their own, and none of the
leading ones itndorse the Whitbyan theory. The objection would have
force if the Confessions directly taught their own Millennium doctrine,
but as this is 2o¢ the case, it can only prejudice the ignorant or unreflect-
ing.!
2. If we take the quite early creeds, the Apostolic and the Nicene, we
find them held equally by Chiliasts and Anti-Chiliasts, for they contain
nothing respecting the Kingdom or Millennium. If weare to take Gelasius’
(Prop. 77, Obs. 7, note 1) explanation of the Nicene, then they were re-
garded as embracing Chilastic views. Writers of ability have traced the
Apostles’ Creed to express Chiliasts, as e.g. to Ireneus and Tertullian.
One thing, at least, is very evident to the student, that the brief allusions
to Eschatology are of such a nature that both parties can heartily adopt
them, since they only embrace some salient features without attempting fo
explain how, or in what order, they are to be realized.*
3. Coming to later confessions, we find them, the leading ones, to ex-
press Eschatology in such a form (as e.g. the fact of a resurrection, of an
Advent, of a judgment, etc.) that Millenarians, Post- and Anti-Millenari-
ans can cordially subscribe to them. It is, however, alleged that some have
been specifically hostile to Chiliasm, and two, with evident relish, are
 Prop. 78.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 531

brought forward as evidence, viz.: the Augsburg Confession and the Eng-
lish C_nfession of Edward VI. :
(1) The Augsburg Confession. Knapp, Schmid, Shedd, and a number
of writers assert that the Augsburg Confession positively condemns Chili-
asm. On the other hand, Semisch, Auberlen, Floerke, Delitzsch, Spener,
Bengel, Crusius, and others affirm the contrary. The intelligent reader
will, in such a discussion, be influenced by the statements of eminent men
who disinterestedly, and after mature consideration of the subject, declare
that the Confession does not reprove and reprobate ancient Chiliasm as
held by the Fathers, but only the form of doctrine as advocated by the
Anabaptists. We refer in illustration to the paper drawn up by members
of the Faculty of the University of Dorpat in reply to questions proposed
by the Lutheran Synod of Iowa. It is signed by Drs. Havernach, Kurtz,
Von Oetengen, Von Engelhart, and Volck, and fully answers the ques-
tion, whether Chiliasm is in conflict with the Confession and the Lutheran
Church, in the most decisive negative.*
(2) The Confession of Edward VI., brought forward by Shedd and others,
can only be fairly and scholarly treated by considering : (a) That the Art.,
adopted in 1553, to which they refer, was only nine years afterward with-
drawn (which fact they are very careful to keep from their readers), thus
indicating that any censure intended was fully revoked. (6) That in the
later revisions it continued to be omitted, thus showing that a condemna-
tory spirit was not indorsed. (c) That in immediate connection with the
Confession was published ‘‘ The Catechism of Edward VI.,’’ drawn up by
his Prelates (said to be Cranmer, Burnet’s His., vol. 3, B. 4; or Neale,
His. Puritans, vol. 1, p. 68, Poynet, afterward Bh. of Winchester),
which contains, on the questions respecting ‘‘ Thy Kingdom come,”’ the
strongest Chiliastic views (see them given e.g. by Brooks, Cox, Taylor,
etc.). (@) And that prominent Prelates (as Bh. Latimer, Arch. Cranmer,
Bradford, etc.) who received the Confession entertained Millenarian doc-
trine.* (3) Coming to other Confessions, we find upholders of our doctrine
and opposers of it, doth holding to the same. Thus e.g. the Westminster
Assembly. In proof of our position we refer to the fact stated by an
Anti-Millenarian (hence disinterested), Dr. Baillie, that ‘‘ the most of the
chief Divines here’’ (meaning the Assembly) ‘‘ not only Independents but
others, such as Twiss, Marshall, Palmer, and many more, are express
Chiliasts.’’®> Again, if we refer to the Belgic Confession, produced by
Shedd, Millenarians can most cordially subscribe to the Art. respecting the
time of the Advent and the completion of the number of the elect. he
same is true of many others, and it appears as if the language was pur-
posely guarded to allow a common confessional union, which could only be
done by avoiding direct Chiliasm or its opposite.
4, Several Confessions (confined to small bodies of believers) have Chili-
astic Articles. One of the most noticeable of these is that drawn up by the
Baptists (for since they form a large organization, the same is discarded,
or held only by individuals, or small portions of the Baptists) in a.p.
1660, and presented to Charles II., signed by John Bunyan and others
(said to have represented ‘‘more than twenty thousand Baptists’’), in
which the purest early Patristic Millenarian doctrine is contained, discrim-
inating the order of resurrection, making a literal first resurrection to occur
at the Sec. Advent, having a glorious Messianic Kingdom then established,
etc.°®
 532 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRrop. 78.

1 That they are directly opposed to the Whitbyan doctrine, looking for the righteous to
predominate in government, etc., is evident by looking at e.g. Augsburg Confession, Art.
17, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, and Articles of Smalcald (Muller's Symb.
Buch., p. 245, 298). The Latter Confession of Helvitia (Niemeyer’s Col. Uonf., p 485-6),
and the Confession of the Westminster Assembly, and others as given by Seiss in A
Question in Eschatology, pp. 33-40, with extracts. (Comp. Prop. 175.) The reasoning
therefore of Prof. Briggs, and others, is totally irrelevant, and if it has any force whatever,
must be decisive against themselves. For, while there is no creed or confession which
directly and positively teaches the Whitbyan theory, we have some creeds (which we
shall quote hereafter) that directly teach Chiliasm, and we have all the great leading ones
to directly present prominent Chiliastic doctrines held by us, and such as are ullerly irrec-
oncilable with the modern ‘‘ hypothesis.”’
2 Comp. King’s His. Apos. Creed, Bh. Pearson On the Creed, Mosheim’s Eccl. His., vol.
1, p. 79, and Murdock’s note, etc., and notice the reference to Irenzus and Tertullian.
Observe also that in the enlargement of the Creed, as now used, by the Romish Church
the same features are retained so that both partie could still receive it. The eschatol-
| ogy of the Athanasian Creed follows the others, with more of a leaning toward Romanism.
See the Creeds as given by Dr. Schaff in Creeds of Christendom. The Scriptural statements
(using the exact phraseology), or the general expressions (without any attempt to explain
order, etc.), were of such a nature as to allow both parties to adopt them as true ; the
difference and antagonism only appeared when the manner of fulfilment or realization
was expounded. Thus e.g. to believe in a res. of the dead is the faith of all, but when
the order and manner of the res. is afterward discussed (aside from the creeds) differ.
ences appear, ete.
3 The reply is so admirable in spirit that we append a few extracts. It has been pub-
lished in German as a Tract, and in English in the Kuang. Quarterly Reviews anc The Lu-
theran. Giving reasons drawnfrom Melanchthon, Luther, and others, for the declaration :
‘* There is no doubt that our Confession here (art. XVII.), has not in view the Old Catholic
Chiliasm in its various forms, but that of the Munzer Anabaptists, and the fanatical
errorists akin to them,’’ the writers proceed as follows: ‘‘ The fact, therefore, is incon-
trovertibly this, that the Augsburg Confession has only to do with the Anabaptist errors and
efforts of those times. It places affirmatively the chief eschatological facts, in their
principal features, over against the rejected error, without, for example, any special ex-
planation as to how we are to understand the Coming of Christ, or the Last Day, what
the Scriptures teach concerning the resurrection of the dead, and how the passage in
Rev. 20 : 1-6, in connection with the entire Scripture, is to be explained. Especially
has it not at all yet expressed itself concerning the precise substance of the last question,
namely : whether this prophecy must be looked upon as one already fulfilled, or as one,
the fulfilment of which is yet future. Each one may answer these for himself, in such
way as he may deem defensible by the Word of God and the concensus of church doc-
trine. We look upon these questions, neither as finally determined, nor as allowing, in
attempts to solve them, a departure from the prophetic and apostolic word; further,
that the attention which this subject commands is a characteristic feature, and one wor-
thy of notice of the Church and theology of the present day. They are, in fact, yet open
exegetical questions, every solution of which cannot be assented to; nor, on the other
hand, is every Christian and theological conviction, resting upon an earnest and
churchly-minded Scriptural investigation, which does not agree with old dogmatists, to
be at once rejected with fanatical Chiliasm, or even to be suspected as Chiliastic.” After
showing that church fellowship cannot Confessionally be denied to any one ‘‘ on account
of differences in the doctrine of the Chiliastic Kingdom, concerning which our confes-
sion has not at all yet expressed itself,” the writers continue : ‘‘ We are indeed not able to
see, under what churchly confessional claim it can be forbidden to the individual, and
especially to the theologian, in the Lutheran Church, fo search the prophetical Scriptures
in the manner designated, and upon their basis fo form a Christian and theological faith—
conviction concerning the final acts of redemption ; nor with what churchly right, inas-
much as our Church recognizes no evegeticul tribunal, we can refuse to regard similar
questions of doctrine, so long as the expressed saving faith remains, as anything else
than they really are, namely : open questions.’’ They add: ‘‘ It is our conviction, that
it is an error to suppose that there is nothing more given for faith and the Church to
search after and to learn ; or that it lies in the power of the Church, especially the more
she nears her final goal, to go out of the way of these questions.”’
That the reader can see for himself that it does not, and cannot, condemn the Chiliasm
of the Apostolic and later Fathers, we reproduce that portion of art. XVII. which is
alleged as condemnatory: “‘ they condemn those who spread abroad Jewish opinions,
Prop. 78.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 533

that before the resurrection of the dead, the pious will engross the government of the world
and the wicked be everywhere oppressed,’’--(the German : “ they condemn those who
circulate the Judaizing notion, that prior to the resurrection of the dead, the godly will
establish a world-dominion and all the wicked will be exterminated ”).* Now every one
can see that the form of doctrine here condemned is not the one entertained by the ancient
Chiliasts, for not one of them locates this Kingdom prior to, or before, the resurrection, and
not one of them teaches that this can be effected by the pious but only by the Sec. Advent
and the power of the Messiah. The error thus reprobated belongs to the Anabaptists,
and all that class (including also the Whitbyans) who teach that before the resurrection, and
consequently before the Advent, and before the end of this dispensation, the Church will
so advance, etc., that ‘* the pious will engross the government of the world,’’ institute a
‘* world-dominion,’’ and suppress the wicked. The Millenarian view, having for cardinal
doctrines a prior Advent and resurrection, is not chargeable with so gross an error ; and
those who urge this Confessional objection are not sufficiently candid to acknowledge that
it is condemnatory—if it has any logical force whatever—of the present prevailing Whitbyan
theory of the Millennium.
The reader is referred to an art. on the question, ‘*‘ Does the Augsburg Confession con-
demn Chiliasm ?” by Dr. Seiss in the Append. (Note D.) to The Last Times. He makes at
length the following points : (1) By name Chillasm is not condemned. (2) The descrip-
tion of the opinions condemned does not describe Millenarianism, for it is no doctrine of
ours ‘‘ that the pious are to have a separate Kingdom to themselves before the resurrec-
tion of the dead.’’ We look for a Kingdom only after the resurrection, and the authori-
ties in behalf of our doctrine are given. (3) Reference is made in the Confession to the
Anabaptists, and itis decisively shown from historical authorities that the doctrine of
the Anabaptists widely differed from the Millenarian. (4) The declarations of Luther,
Melanchthon, and others, are produced to indicate the same. (5) Millenarians of emi-
nence and ability are adduced, who subscribed to the Confession, such as Spener, Bengel,
and others. (6) That the Confessors did not sit in judgment over, and condemn the
Apostolic and Primitive Fathers, who were Chiliastic, for whom in other places they
profess esteem. :
It is unfortunate and misleading, that even in Cyclopzdias, His. of Doctrines, etce.,
efforts are made to link ancient and modern Chiliasm with the vagaries of Anabaptists
and the Fifth Monarchy men, and hastily to infer that when these are confessionally or
otherwise condemned by the Reformers and others, that this also is condemnatory of
Chiliasm in all its phases. Such a line of procedure if applied to other doctrine, would
leave but little for us to receive. The vagaries of Anabaptists, such as, that before the
Advent and resurrection the promised Kingdom is to be established, that it is to be set
up by human means and instrumenialities, that Christ will then reign through self-appointed
prophets, vicars, kings, ete.—which Chiliasm pointedly repudiates, are fully described by
Mosheim, Ranke, Hardwick, Miller, Walch, etc., so that a student cannot plead ignorance
when indorsing such an error. So also with the Fifth Monarchy men ; history (Burnet,
Wilson, etc.), attests, that the Fifth Monarchy of Daniel, they expected (with perhaps
few exceptions, as Tillinghast and others) to raise up through their own agency before the
Coming of Christ, and contended, therefore, that all power, civil and spiritual, should be
already given to them. Hence they entered into open rebellion against the existing
powers, etc., a principle utterly at variance with ancient and modern Chiliasm.
Numerous testimonies expressive of the intended meaning of the art. could be given.
And as our opponents persistently urge it as an objection, a few more are appended.
Dr. Lange in several places (e.g. Rev. p. 351, Amer. Ed.) refers to this misinterpretation
of the Confession, e.g. saying : ‘‘ The elder Lutheran theology continues most involved
in the toils of medizval tradition. The slavish theology of the letter has found a sup-
port in the view of John Gerhard in particular. The Apocalypse, Gerhard declares, is a
deutero-canonical book—the Kingdom of Christ will never on earth, not even at the end

* We refer the critical student to the incorrect usage of ‘‘ Jewish opinion’’ and ‘‘ Ju-
daizing notion” in the art. For, as we have abundantly proven, in former Props., in
quotations from our opponents, Jewish authorities, and recent works on the Doc. of the
New Test., it is not even correct to associate the Anabaptist error with Jewish views,
because the Jews associated a res. of the godly with the Advent of the Messiah and Mis
reign, etc. It is only true, when taken in a limited sense, expressed e.g. by Jews who
permitted themselves to be imposed on by false Messiahs. Here even it is proper to
discriminate, so that injustice is not done to the Jewish expressed faith. The Jews, as
a class, took no part in this movement.
584 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRrop. 78.

of the days, be one of external sovereignty (a sentiment dictated, doubtless by a misun-

derstanding of art. XVII, of the Augsburg Confession)—all the dead are to arise in one
day—there is to be but one general resurrection of the dead at the Parousia of the Lord.
Accordingly, it is further stated, the beginning of the Mill. Kingdom probably falls in
the time of Constantine—Gog and Magog are to be regarded as significant of the Turks.
A partiality for this prejudiced tradition can in general be regarded only as the sad fruit
of partyism.” (Comp. p. 401.) In Richter's Erklarte Haus Bibel, Tom. 6, 1134, in advo-
cacy of our views, it is said: “ The doctrine of the one thousand years’ Kingdom, or
Flower and Golden Time of the Church upon this present earth—which the prophets
have so amply pictured—is thoroughly in accordance with the Evangelical Church doc-
trine, for in the 17th art. of the Augsburg Confession there is not a syllable (steht kein
wort) about the one thousand years, nor about the one thousand years’ Kingdom,”’ ete.
So the Berlenberg Bibel, Tom. 6, pp. 397-399, advocates Chiliasm, and declares that the
art. is not in conflict with it, but that “a mere carnal, world-kingdom is justly rejected.”
Thus others might be quoted, as Olshausen, Bengel, Steir, Auberlen, Delitzsch, Koppe,
Piscator, Spener, Ebrard, Lisco, Roos, Kohler, Bauer Fr., and many others. Mallery
(Prop. Times, vol. 5, p. 97) justly, in reply to Shedd, observes : ‘‘ What the Augsburg
Confession does condemn, is the now prevalent notion of a Millennium of righteousness
and goud government before the Lord’s coming. It condemns the notion of the conver-
sion of the world under the present dispensation, the idea now regarded as orthodox,
but one which Luther constantly condemned.” The student, too, will observe the force
of the word ‘ prior’’ or ‘‘ before’ used designedly, for, as we shall hereafter show by
numerous quotations, the Reformers did believe that after the resurrection and after the
Sec. Advent this earth renewed, etc., would be given to the pious and that they would glo-
riously reign—thus incorporating into their faith doctrines in sympathy with Chiliastic
views. As illustrative of view, we quote Koch (Das Tausendjahrige Reich), who says:
“ Here, first of all, the false Chiliasm advocated in the time of the Reformation by the
fanatical Anabaptists, is to be mentioned. They taught a future glorious Kingdom of
Christ on earth, but imagined that the immediute erection of this Kingdom was a matter of
the first importance to the Christian Church. By her own might, sword in hand, it must
be established, just as it was attempted by Thomas Munzer to overthrow the Christ-
opposed powers of this world (even as Israel overthrew the Canaanites formerly), in order
to proclaim the Kingdom of Christ as the Fifth Monarchy, which was to succeed the
four universal monarchies described by Daniel. Against this conception of the 1000
years’ Kingdom —and only against this—was the 17th art. of the Augsburg Confession
directed, which rejected the Jewish opinion that believers should enjoy on earth, before
the resurrection, a worldly kingdom, ufter a general crushing out of the wicked. But not merely
by the Augustana, but also by the Scriptures, is this false Chiliasm condemned, because,
as already shown, the erection of the Millennial Kingdom, according to the prophets’
words, is not the result of any such Church action, but comes only by means of the returning
Lord, an event which the Church awaits with patience, and which at last it can only
realize, not by works, but by suffering. Kindred with this false Chiliasm, is a conception
of modern theology, according to which the Kingdom of Christ is to be realized by means
of Church action, not, indeed, violently, but gradually and in a peaceful way. The sanc-
tifying influence of Christianity is to evermore powerfully extend itself, in ever-widening
circles, the power of sin evermore retreating before it, until, finally at the close of its
historical development, all humanity shall be glorified into a Kingdom of God. Even
this finer form of Chiliasm”’ (as e.g. given by Whitby, Edwards, Brown, Glasgow, etc.), ‘‘ like
the coarse form advocated by the Anabaptists, is condemned by the Apoc. of John. Ac-
cording to this, wickedness does not decline in the course of history, but rather ascends
to its most fearful antichristian height, while on the other hand, also, the Church is puri-
fied by means of her tribulation, in the last time. Not the preaching of the Gospel, the
moral influence of Christianity, puts an end to antichristianity, but the judgment of the
returning Lord, with which the glorious Kingdom of God on earth makes an entrance.”
(Compare Starke, Steffann and Ebrard, p. 440, Lange’s Com. Rev.)
4 Brooks’ Ei. Proph. Interp., Taylor’s Voice of the Church, Cox’s Millenarian’s Answer, The
Time of the End by a Congregationalist, Shimeall’s Eschatology, and other works give the
evidence respecting this Confession, and copious extracts from the Catechism and from
the Prelates indorsing it, unmistakably proving that many who were Chiliastic received
it; and that, therefore, the withdrawal of the article was intentional ‘‘ either’ (so
Brooks) ‘‘from the increase of Millenarian principles at this time ; or at least from the
conviction that they were not to be confounded with the extravagances of Cerinthus or
of Munzer.” Bickersteth (Prom. Glory, p. 93, note) refers to the opinion of the Reform-
ers (Tyndale, Bradford, Latimer, Becon) and of Edward YI.’s Catechism, and then to
PRop. 78.| THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 535

the speedy withdrawal of this art., adding : ‘“‘ The idea of a carnal Mill. of worldly pleas-
ures is justly denounced by all thoughtful Christians. The common idea of the Reform-
ers, derived from Rome and continued for some time after the Reformation, was, that
the Mill. was past, an opinion generally now abandoned. The 41st art. was wholly
withdrawn from the authorized Articles of 1562. The prevailing opinion of the Re-
formers was, that the judgment to come was to be expected speedily, without any interven-
ing Mill., and that our Saviour would soon return in His glory ; and hence the services
have nothing that interferes with our looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious
appearance of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ ; and have also many expres-
sions of confidence in His return, and the Kingdom then to be inherited by the saints.”
5 Brooks, El. Proph. Interp., p. 72, quotes the letter from Baillie (Let. No. 117, pre-
sented also in Anderson's Letler to the Author of Millenarianism Indefensible,’’ and quoted
in various works), and gives among the ‘‘ many more” known to have been Millenarian,
Ash, Bridge, Burroughs, Caryll, Goodwin, Gouge, Langley, and Sterry, all members of the
Assembly. To these as expressing Chiliastic views to some extent, Shimeall (Lschatology,
p. 89) adds: Selden, Ainsworth, Gataker, and Featly. No wonder that Baillie writes
that this ‘‘ error so famous in antiquity” is “‘ so troublesome among us.” Prof. Briggs in his
bitterness against Chiliasm affirms, most unjustly, that the Westminster Conf. rejects Pre-
Mill. as error and heresy (Dr. Macdill follows him closely in the same unhistorical charge) ;
now Dr. Craven in his reply to the grave charge (N. Y. Evangelist, Jan. and Feb. 1879),
makes the following points, which serve as a most ample refutation. (1) The majority of
the committee (viz. : Goodwin, Bridge, Caryll, and Greenhill—who had been members
of the Westminster Assembly), who framed the Savoy Confession, were express Pre-
Millenarians. (2) Pre-Millenarians prominently took part in framing the Confession, and
evidently—as a compromise—to preserve unity and harmony, so worded the same, giv-
ing general and Scriptural statements (without any intimation of order or manner) that all
could accept of it. (3) As a diversity of opinion existed relating to the events preceding
and connected with the Sec. Advent, the only basis of union was to avoid a discussion
of the order and manner of fulfilment, which was done. (4) The use of the phrases ‘‘ day
of judgment,” ‘‘ Kingdom,”’ etc., as well as the adoption of Scripture on controverted
subjects without explanation, did not forbid Pre-Mills. or Post-Mills. to accept of the same.
(5) That the adinission of Prof. Briggs that Pre-Mills. (as Sterry, Burroughs, and Good-
win) were in the Westminster Assembly, and utterly unconscious of being denounced and
condemned, is sufficient evidence in our favor. (6) Tnat these and other Pre-Mills.
labored. with Post-Mills. in the same Church, and were never tried and disciplined for
their doctrinal views, is conclusive proof how the same were regarded. (7) That Homes’
intensely Pre-Mill. work ‘‘ The Res. Revealed,’ was indorsed by a committee (Caryll and
Sterry) of the Assembly, is decisive that no condemnatory idea was ever entertained. (8
That the testimony of Baillie (Letters, vol. 2, p. 414-15), and of Masson (Life of Milton,
vol. 2, p. 146), both opponents, as to the extent of the belief, and the eminence of its be-
lievers, is irresistible to any unprejudiced mind. (9) That Twisse, ‘‘a thoroughgoing
Pre-Millenarian, should have been selected for the position of Moderator,’’ is evidence either
of the esteem in which Chiliasts were held, or of the number of Chiliastic adherents in
the Assembly, or of both. (10) Caryll, as one of the committee to whom Homes’ Chilias-
tic work was given, not only pronounces the book “‘ very useful for the saints and worthy
of public view,’’ but states that its doctrines have “‘ gained ground in the hearts and judg-
ments of very many, both grave and godly men, who have left us divers essays and discourses
on the subject.” We leave the candid reader to say whether, in view of such facts, there
is the slightest foundation for Prof. B.’s uncharitable deductions ; and whether the latter
do not spring more from the heart than from the mind. The feeling and opinion even
later is illustrated e.g. in the Life of Hd. Irving (by Mrs. Oliphant, p. 335) ; it being stated
that the authorities of the Church tacitly admitted, by non-interference, attendance, etc.,
that the doctrine of the Millennium was ‘‘ open to a diversity of view.’’ We shall have
occasion to quote this Confession under another Prop., asin sympathy with some Chil-
iastic views, viz. : the looking for the Advent enforced as a duty without an interven-
ing Millennial age, and the nonconversion of the world,
6 The student is referred to Crosby’s Jiis. of the Baplists, vol. 2, App. 85. We give a
few extracts to illustrate. 'The Confession declares the unalterable faith of the signers,
saying, ‘‘for which we are not only resolved to suffer persecution to the loss of our
goods, but also life itself, rather than decline from the same ;’”’ and this enforces the
Chiliasm as a deliberate conviction. It then plainly announces : “ We believe that there
will be an order in the resurrection ; Christ is the first-fruits, and then next, or after, they
that are Christ’s at His Coming ; then, or afterward, cometh the end. Concerning the
Kingdom and reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we do believe that He is now in heaven
536 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 78.

at His Father's right hand, so we do believe that, at the time appointed by the Father, He
shall come again in power and great glory ; and that at or after His coming the second
time, He will not only raise the dead, and judge and restore the world, but will also take
to Himself His Kingdom, and will, according to the Scriptures, reign on the throne of His
father Duvid, on Mount Zion, in Jerusalem, forever.” ‘* We believe that the Kingdom of our
Lord will be an universal Kingdom, and that in this Kingdom the Lord Jesus Christ
Himself will be alone, visible, supreme God and King of the whole earth. We believe that as
this Kingdom will be universal, so it will be also an everlasting Kingdom, that shall have
no end, nor cannot be shaken ; in which Kingdom the saints and taithful in Chiist Jesus
shall receive the end of their fuith, even the salvation of their souls ; where the Lord is they
shall be also. We believe that the New Jerusalem that shall come down from God out of
heaven, when the tabernacle of God shall be with them, and He will dwell among them,
will be the Metropolitan City of the Kingdom, and will be the glorious place of residence of both
Christ and His saints forever, and will be so situated as that the Kingly palace will be on
Mount Zion, the holy hill of David, where His throne was.’’ The Confession insists on a per-
sonal Advent, upon Christ’s obtaining the government of the world, the saints reigning
on the earth with Him, applying Dan. 7 : 27; Rev. 19:16; Ps. 22 : 28; Zech. 14 :9,
etc., to this period. The contrast in the present and future condition of saints is thus
drawn: “‘ For unto the saints shall be given the Kingdom, and the greatness of the
Kingdom, under (mark that) the whole heaven’ (Dan. 7 : 27). Though (alas !) now many
men be scarce content that the saints should have so much as a being among them ; but
when Christ shall appear, then shall be their day, then shall be given unto them power over
the nations, to rule them with a rod of iron (Rev. 2 : 26, 27). Then shall they receive a
crown cf life, which no man shall take from them, nor they by any means turned or
overturned from it, for the oppressor shall be broken in pieces (Ps. 72 : 4), and their
vain rejoicings turned into mourning and bitter lamentations, as 1t is written (Job
VPN gore Os. 4 :
As to other Confessions, a number, indicative of the extent of belief, may thus be speci-
fied. The ‘‘ Free Chris. Church of Italy,” in Genl. Assembly at Milan, June, 1870,
adopted the following Chiliastic doctrine : ‘‘ Art. VIII. The Lord Jesus Christ will come
from heaven and transform our body of humiliation into a glorious body. In that day
the dead in Christ shall rise first, and the living who are found faithful shall be trans.
formed, and thus together shall we be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the
air, to be forever with the Lord ; and, after His Kingdom, all the rest shall rise to be
judged in judgment.” The “ Second Adventists,’’ in their public expression of Faith
(Taylor's Voice of the Church), declare their belief in the speedy Advent, the first and
second resurrections separated by an interval of a 1000 years, the reign of Christ and the
saints on the earth, etc. They are far more Chiliastic than the Millerites—the latter
being chiefly distinguished for belief in an immediate coming and fixing the time for the
same. ‘* The Catholic Apostolic Church” (a succession of the Irvingites) presents in its
Confession of Faith a strong Chiliastic belief, for which they are noted. Its leading doc-
trine is a belief in the speedy Coming of Jesus, and expresses it ‘‘ as the only hope of
deliverance to the sin-burdened and weary creation.’’ (Comp. art. on, in M’Clintock and
Strong’s Cyclop. It has extended itself in England, Scotland, Ireland, Switzerland,
France, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Austria, Germany, America, etc.) The ‘‘ Seventh-
Day Adventists,” entertain several of the Chiliastic tenets. ‘‘ The Brethren,”’ or ‘‘ Dunk.
ards,’’ as represented by Nead, in Nead’s Theolog. Writings (see ch. 20, on “‘ The Sec, Ad-
vent’’), hold to the personal return and reign of Jesus, to a previous fearful lack of faith
and persecution, to a restoration of the Jews, toa glorious Mill., to a first res. preceding,
and to a second res. at the end of the 1000 years, to a great battle between Christ and
His enemies, to the perpetuity of the race after the Advent, and to the removal of the
curse and the Sabbatism. Thus many of the essential points of Primitive and Scriptural
Chiliasm are incorporated. What number or particular body are thus presented the
writer does not know. A few copies of The Brethren at Work, a Brethren or Dunkard
neriodical published at Lanark, Ill., fell into my hands, and they contained the advocacy
of the Mill. and the personal reign of Christ (as e.g. March 21st, 1878), by James Wirt,
** The Church of God ”’ (see art. by Winebrenner, in Rupp’s Orig. His. of Relig. Denom.)
gives as an art. of Faith: ‘‘She believes in the personal coming and reign of Jesus
Christ, Matt. 24 : 42-44; Acts1:11; Phil. 3 : 20,21; 1 Thess.4:16,17; 1John3 :2 :
Rev. 1:17.”" “She believes in the resurrection ‘ both of the just and the unjust;
that the res. of the just will precede the res. of the unjust.’’ (In 1867, the Church num-
bered 11 elderships, 400 churches, 350 ministers, and over 25,000 members.) In con-
versing with ministers and members of this Church, they exhibited an intelligent Chilias-
tic belief, in marked contrast with many others. The ‘‘ Plymouth Brethren,’’ or Darby-
PRop. 78.| THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 537

ites, entertain a prominent Chiliastic belief, being one of their chief characteristics, as
any reference to their expressed faith will abundantly show. The ‘‘ Harmony Society,”
or the Rappists (followers of Rapp, settled at Economy, Pa.), hold Pre-Mill. views. The
nearness of the Millennium, introduced by the Sec. Advent, is a cardinal doctrine with
them. ‘The ‘‘ Mennonites” (art.in M’Clintock and Strong's Cyclop. says) ‘‘in the 16th
cent., held, in common with the Anabaptists, the belief in Christ’s personal reign during
the Millennium.’’ Buck’s Theol. Dic., art. ‘‘ Mennonites,” remarks, that Menno discarded
the extravagant views of certain Anabaptists, but retained the dcctrine of ‘‘ the Mil-
lennium, or 1000 years’ reign of Christ upon earth.” How largely this doctrine continued
among them, the writer is unable to say, for they now number altogether, it is supposed,
about 200,000, divided into several branches. The ‘‘ Apostoolians” (Ency. Itelig. Anwrel.),
one of the branches, is decidedly Millennarian. ‘The ‘‘ Christadelphians’’ have larvely in-
corporated Chiliasm, and make it essential to their system. It is most prominently pre-
sented in their published ‘‘ Principles,” and other works. Various offshoots of the
‘* Pietistic movement’’ weré largely affected by Chiliasm, as for e.g. the ‘‘ Society of
Korn”’ (art. on, M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclop.), which was under *‘ the Millenarian in-
fluence of Jung Stilling and Michael Hahn.’’ (The followers of Hahn in 1817 “ num-
bered 18,000.’’) The ‘‘ Moravians’’ favored Chiliastic views, however perverted by ideal
and mystical conceptions. Writers professing to give the faith of the “‘ Unitas Fra-
trum,’’ present the Millenarian view, as e.g. Bish. Spangenberg in his last ch. of Laposi-
tion of Ch. Doctrine. Various parties, imbibing Spener’s pietism and Oetinger’s thecs-
ophy, incorporated Chiliasm, as e.g. the ‘‘ Michaleans” (and in contrast with them the
** Pregizerians”’), of whom Kurtz (Ch. His., vol. 2, p. 291) says: ‘‘ They had a common
ground in their Chiliasm, and in the doctrine of restoration.” Chiliastic views are dom-
inant in small parties, as in the ‘‘ One-faith people,” in the adherents of Barbour, of
Rochester, N. Y., and in the followers of Russell, of Vittsburg, Pa., as well as in others
whose location has escaped the writer’s recollection. ‘Lhe same is true of some German
Millenarians near Tiflis, the capital of Georgia (Henderson's bib. Researches in Iiussia,
pp. 524-529, and Pinkerton’s Russia, pp. 143-151). The first attempt to form a Univer-
salist sect embraced distinctive features of Chiliasm allied with Universalism, as seen in
the ‘‘ Rellyanites or Rellyan Universalists” (Art. on, M’Clintock and Strong’s (Yyclop.),
whose theory of Restitution is in the main allied with Chiliastic views, revived by Bar-
bour, Russell, etc., in the Three Worlds and their respective newspapers. As this fact is
not generally known, we quote the following from James Relly’s (at one time connected
with Whitefield) and his followers’ belief : ‘‘ In general they appear to believe that there
will be a resurrection to life and a res. to condemnation ; that believers only will be
among the former, who, as firstfruits, and kings and priests, will have part in the first
resurrection, and shall reign with Christ in His Kingdom of the Millennium ; that unbe-
lievers who are after raised must wait the manifestation of the Saviour of the world un-
der that condemnation of conscience which a mind in darkness and wrath must neces-
sarily feel ; that believers, called kings and priests, will be made the medium of com-
municating to their condemned brethren, who, like Joseph to his brethren, though he
spoke roughly to them, in reality overflowed with affection and tenderness; that ulti-
mately every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that in the Lord they have right-
eousness and strength, and thus every enemy shall be subdued to the Kingdom and glory
of the great Mediator.’’ (Those who have recently revived this Restitution scheme,
change some features, as e.g. the obstinate and recalcitrant are given over to “‘ the second
death,’’ ete.) Even the Mormons, together with much that the Church receives in gen-
eral, incorporate Chiliastic features, Jos. Smith in his J/is. of the Latter Day Saints (Rupp’s
Orig. Lis. of Relig. Denoms.) says : ‘* We believe in the literal gathering of Israel, and in
the restoration of the Ten Tribes ;’ ‘‘ That Christ will reign personally upon the earth,
and that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaical glory.” But (Art. ‘‘ Mor-
mons,’’ M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclop.) teach a gross future, illustrated by the future
marriage, etc. (The influence that the association of Chiliasm with singular or fanatical
views has upon many—who overlook the fact that the most precious and fundamental
Christian doctrines are similarly treated—-will be treated under Prop. 179 )

Obs. 6. The Chiliastic doctrine is not confined to any one branch of the
Protestant Church. Its advocates are to be found tz all denominations,
more or less, and embrace men eminent for picty, abundant labors, and
ability. The lists that are given in various works include Meformers,
Martyrs, English Church Divines, Lutherans, Reformed, Westminster
SS
5388 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 78.

Assembly Divines, English Dissenters, New England Divines, Baptists,

Presbyterians, American Episcopal Divines, Congregationalists, Mission-
aries, etc., forming a noble band of adherents to the early faith.
The student is referred to the lists given in Brooks’s El. Proph. Interp., Taylor's Voice
of the Church, The Time of the End by a Congregationalist. Seiss’s Last Times, Shimeall’s
Eschatology, Elliott's Horce Apoc., McCanul’s The Old Paths, Wood's Believer's Guide, The
Investigator, 4th vol., Manford’s Apology for Millenarianism, Drummond’s Dialogues on
Prophecy, and Defence of the Students of Prophecy, Bryant's Millenarian Views, West’s His.
Pre-Mill. Doc., etc. Macaulay (Hssays onthe Jews, 1831) referred to this feature: ‘* Many
Christians believe that the Messiah will shortly establish a Kingdom on the earth and
reign visibly over all its inhabitants. Whether this doctrine be orthodox or not, we shall
not inquire. The number of people who hold it is very much greater than the number of
Jews residing in England. Many of those who hold it are distinguished by rank, wealth,
and ability ; it is preached from pulpits both of the Scottish and of the English Church.
Noblemen and members of Parliament have written in defence of it, who expect ‘‘ that
before this generation shall pass away, all the kingdoms of the earth will be swallowed up
in one Divine Empire.’’? While many of the names that we give are verified by a per-
sonal perusal of their works or extracts from them, many are presented on the authority
of others, and we may thus inadvertently place some of those who are more thoroughly
Millenarian with those who are less so, and the reverse. A complete list of writers, clas-
sified as to their exact views, is still a desideralum, and until this is done, injustice may
unintentionally be done to authors.

Obs. 7. After the Reformation, however, the Reformers and others in-
dorsed certain distinctive features belonging, as parts of the system, to
Millenarian doctrine, we are chiefly indebted to a few leading minds for
bringing forth a return to the old Patristic faith in all its essential forms.
Prominently among these are the following : the profound Biblical scholar
Joseph Mede (born 1586, died 1638), in his still celebrated Clavis Apocalyp-
fica (translated into English) and Hzposition on Peter ; Th. Brightman
(1644), Hxposittions of Daniel and Apoc. ; J. A. Bengel (a learned divine,
born 1687, died 1752), Haposition of the Apocalypse and Addresses on the
same ; also the writings of Th. Goodwin (1679) ; Ch. Daubuz (1730) ; Pis-
cator (1646); M. F. Roos (1770) ; Alstedius (1643 and earlier) ; Cressener
(1689) ; Farmer (1660) ; Fleming (1708) ; Hartley (1764) ; J. J. Hess (1774) ;
Homes (1654) ; Jurieu (1686) ;Maton (1642) ; Peterson (1692) ; Sherwin
(1665) ; and others (such as Conrade, Gallus, Brahe, Kett, Broughton,
Marten, Sir I. Newton, Whiston, etc.), materially aided in directing atten-
tion to the Millenarian doctrine and to influence persons to Biblical study
on the subject. When these were followed by men eminent for learning
and marked ability (some have been mentioned, others will follow) ; when
the leading poets and commentaries gave an additional impulse to Mille-
narian doctrine by their forcible portrayals and exegetical comments ; when
persons of the highest and lowest position, in all ranks and professions, of
undoubted piety and usefulness, thus united in expressing Chiliastic views,
the doctrine of the early church received correspondingly a revival and re-
newed strength in the hearts and hopes of believers.
The student is aware that when the revival of Pietism (a movement against a cold
Philosophical and Symbolistic tendency) took place under Spener, Francke, and others,
there was also a return to the Chiliastic faith. Admitting that in some cases it might
have been allied with fanaticism, as Mosheim (vol. 3, p. 381) intimates, yet Mosheim
(himself Anti-Millenarian) is uncandid when he says that they “ also recalled upon the
stage opinions long since condemned ; asserted that the reign of a thousand years, men-
tioned by John, was athand.’”’ The unfairness consists in this : (1) He seems to sanction
the condemnation of the doctrine by the Romish Church ; (2) he links this doctrine with
extravagances, as if inseparable ; (3) he forgets, having highly praised Spener, that Spener
PRop. 78.| THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 539
himself defended the Millenarian view as Scriptural, and not opposed by the Augsburg
Confession ; (4) that works, specially written to set forth what were the real views of the
Pietists (as e.g. Klettwich’s), were suppressed, and that their doctrine, in the bitter
controversies that ensued, was caricatured, etc. ; (5) Mosheim permits his spirit of hatred
to the doctrine (as e.g. in the case of Peterson, etc.) to appear on several occasions, and
hence is to be received with caution ; (6) the best devotional hymns and books, as well as
practical works on religion, have sprung trom that movement. It would be well, if the
detractors of the Pietists possessed their piety, sincerity, usefulness, and ability.
Dr. Fisher in Art. ‘* Mill.’’ (M’Chntock and Strong’s Cyclop.) remarks : ‘‘ The Mill. doc-
trine, in its essential characteristics, has had adherents among some of the mcst sober-
minded theologians of the Lutheran Church in later times. Of these, one of the most
distinguished is John Albert Bengel, the author of The Gnomon, who defended his opinion
in his Com. on the Apoc., published in 1740. He has been followed by other divines of
repute ; and the doctrine has not been without prominent supporters among the Luther-
ans down to the present time. One of the latest of their number who has discussed
this question is the Rev. A. Koch (Das Tausendjihrige Reich, Basle, 1872). This writer
endeavors in particular to refute the arguments adduced against the doctrine of a Mil-
lennium by the German commentators Hengstenberg, Keil, and Kleifoth.” (Comp.
Lange’s estimate of Hengstenberg, etc., in his Introd. to Rev.) The Dr. also says: ‘‘In
all the other various orthodox Protestant bodies, there are many who believe in the per-
sonal Advent of Christ for the purpose of establishing a Millennial Kingdom.”’

Obs. 8. There is a class of able men whose sentiments were favorable to

Millenarians—who either express these in their writings, or speak approv-
ingly of Chiliastic works—and yet by many, at the present day, are sup-
posed tobe the contrary. In illustration of this, a number may appropriately
be mentioned. John Wesley has often been claimed as Chiliastic (and is
so given by Taylor, Shimeall, and others), because of his chiefly adopting
Bengel’s views in Revelation, and of the views presented in some of his ser-
mons. This has been denied, and utterances seemingly contradictory pre-
sented in proof. But this has finally been settled by a Methodist historian,
Tyerman,in his Life of John Wesley, vol. 2, p. 523, etc. After giving
very candidly Hartley’s Mill. views from ‘‘ Paradise Restored” (affirming
the Pre-Mill. Advent, and the Mill. reign of Jesus, etc., which Wesley
indorsed, see Works, vol. 6, p. 743), Tyerman then gives the fact that John
Wesley read and approved of the same, writing (Meth. Mag., 1783, p. 498)
to the author: ‘‘ Your book on the Millennium was lately put into my
hands. I cannot but thank you for your strong and seasonable confirma-
tion of that comfortable doctrine, of which I cannot entertain the least
doubt, as long as I believe the Bidle.’’ Tyerman most frankly and honestly
(worthy of special notice) adds: ‘‘ With sch a statement, in reference to
such a book, there can be no doubt that Wesley, like his father before
him, was a Millenarian, a believer in the Sec. Advent of Christ to reign
on earth, visibly and gloriously, for a thousand years. This is a matter
which none of Wesley’s biographers have noticed ; and yet the above is not
the only evidence in support of it.”” He then refers us to a letter to Dr.
Middleton (published 1749), in which Wesley indorses Justin Martyr’s
Mill. views, saying: ‘‘ To say that they” (i.e. the Fathers of the second
and third cents.) ‘‘ believed this, was neither more nor less than to say
they believed the Bible.”? Reference is also made to an article, ‘‘ The Ren-
ovation of All Things,’’? in Wesley’s Arminian Mag., 1784, p. 154, ete.
The adoption of the Millenarian Bengel’s notes for the Apoc., in his Com.
on the New Test., his expressed views on the Judgment Day (which we
quote, Prop. 133), the deliverance of creation (which we quote, Prop. 146),
and related subjects, is ample testimony.!
540 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [Prop. 78.

Some few have denied that Dr. Chalmers was Pre-Millenarian, against the
express sentiments quoted by us of a Pre-Mill. Sec. Advent, a non-conver-
sion of the world preceding that Advent (see Prop. 175), the renovation of
the earth (Prop. 146). However he may have been influenced by some of
the vagaries of Irvingism not to give great prominency to his views on the
subject, yet, in behalf of the truth, his utterances are decided, as can be
seen e.g. by comparing his Sabbath Readings, vol. 1, pp. 311 and 108
(comp. Proph. Times, vol. 4, p. 110, etc., for detailed statement). So also
some have tried to claim Spener as Post-Millenarian, against the testimony
of history and his own writings. It is well known to students that Spener
defended Chiliasm, and showed that the Augsburg Confession was not op-
posed to a Scriptural doctrine. The enemies of Spencer made his Chilias-
tic views one of their points of attack, and Pietism (comp. Kurtz’s Ch.
His., Neander, Mosheim, etc.) was always, more or less, allied with Mil-
lenarianism. Some, attracted by his name, attempt to make out a very
mild form of Chiliasm, but Dr. Kling, Art. Eschatology in Herzog’s Ency-
clop., pronounces Spener a most decided Chiliast; inclined even to the fa-
natical. (?) Prof. Stuart, and many others of our opponents, concede him
tous. Dr. Brown of Gettysburg, in an Art. published in the Lath.
Observer, even attempted to take John Bunyan from us, but the Confes-
sion of Faith (with which compare him on the “ First Chapters of
Genesis’’) quoted under Obs. 4, is a complete and overwhelming answer.
As to Bish. Butler, it is sufficient to refer to his Analogy, Part 2, ch. 7,
and to his Memoirs, p. 298 (quoted by Taylor, and others), where occur
sentiments only in accordance with pure Chiliasm. In reference to Rey.
Hall, the celebrated Baptist, it is evident that in his early life he was op-
posed to Chiliasm, as 1s seen in the production ‘‘ Chris. Consistent with
Love of Freedom,’’ where occurs the phrase ‘‘ the long-exploded tradition
of Papias respecting the personal reign,’’ but in the closing years of his
life he materially modified his views, coming nearer to Bunyan’s Cozifes-
sion. For (Duffield On Proph., p. 259) Mr. Thorp, of Bristol, England,
conversed with him on the subject a few days before his decease, and he
“‘ regretted that he had not preached the Millenarian views he entertained.”’
(May not others be found in this category ; forthe writer personally knows
men who privately entertain Chiliasm, but never present it publicly).?
1 Tyerman unhesitatingly classes among Millenarians, Charles Wesley (as various hymns
evidence), Fletcher (as a letter to John Wesley positively asserts, written a.p. 1755,
Fletcher’s Worles, vol. 16), Piers, and others. John and Charles Wesley’s testimony is the
more disinterested and valuable, since on the one hand they had to resist the indiffer-
ence of others, and on the other, the fanaticism of Bell and others, who (so Tyerman)
predicted the speedy end of the world. Rev. Dr. Nast (himself a leading Methodist) says
(Art. “Christ’s Mill. reign,” in the West, Ch. Advocate, July 23d, 1879), after referring to
the able Pre-Mill. advocates in the various denominations : ‘‘ I admit that the Methodist
Church is not so largely represented, and that at present Pre-Mill. views are unpopular
among us, but it was not always so. Both John and Charles Wesley, Dr. Coke, as well as
Fletcher and Whitefield, occupied Pre-Mill. ground, and also, as I ara credibly informed,
in our day, the late revered Secretary of our Miss. Soc., Dr. J. P. Durbin.” Now in con-
trast we present the following: Prof. Worman, in his extended Art: “ Methodism’’
(M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclop.), says : ‘‘ The Sermons of Jno. Wesley, and his Notes
on the New Test., are recognized by his followers in Great Britain and America as the
standard of Methodism, and as the basis of their theological creed.’’ If so, then there has
been a wide departure on Eschatology. To indicate the same by way of illustration, we
copy this notice, without comment, from the Luth. Observer, March 1st, 1878 : ‘‘ The Rev.
Arthur P. Adams, Beverly, Mass., so Zion’s Herald states, has been suspended from
the Methodist ministry for holding and teaching doctrines at variance with those of the
Prop. 78.| THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 541

Methodist Episcopal Church. He held that Christ’s Sec. Coming is near at hand, and
that not uniil afler the resurrection occurs can the redemption scheme of Christ be com-
plete” (i.e. in results). It is proper to add, as Tyerman remarks, that Wesley was
guarded, so as not to give place to extravagances ; as e.g. on fixing the date of the Ad-
vent, Wesley (Meth. Mag., 1827, p. 392) says : ‘‘ I have no opinion at all upon when the
Mill. reign of Christ will begin ; I can determine nothing at all about it ; these calcula-
tions are far above, out of my sight.’”’ Tyerman then repeats: ‘“ Still, Wesley was a
believer in the certainty of such a reign, and so was Fletcher, as we have already seen, and
so was Wesley’s friend, the Vicar of Bexley, Mr. Piers, and so seem to have been the
writers of some of the hymns in the Meth. Hymn Book’’ (quoting several hymns with
Pre-Mill. sentiments). Charles Wesley’s Pre-Mill. hymns are quoted in detail in Proph.
Times, 1866, p. 111, etce., Taylor’s Voice of the church, Time of the End, etc., and they are
so decided in sentiment that it is a matter of surprise that any one should fail to appre-
ciate them.
* Others, who entertained distinctive Chiliastic features and located the predicted King-
dom of Dan. 2 and 7 after the Second Advent, might be mentioned, as Archb. Cranmer
(see the Catechism authorized by Edward VI., and written by him, on the phrase ‘‘ Thy
Kingdom come’’), Archb. Newcome (see Bickersteth’s Diss. on Proph., p. 106), Dr. Ben-
son (see Notes on Ps. 76 : 10-138, and 98 : 4-9), Rudd (see Time of the End, p. 325), Toplady
(see Sermons, Lib. 3, p. 470), ete. (Comp. Taylor’s Voice of the Church and Seiss’s Ap. to
the Last Times, from whom a large number might be added.)

Obs. 9. It would be interesting to trace the rise of Millenarianism in

this country. That it was carly incorporated into the belief of many of the
first preachers of this country is evident from the testimony of Cotton
Mather, who himself heartily indorsed it. Thus e.g. m the Magnalia he
testifies of Rev. John Davenport (died in Boston 1668), that he appre-
hended ‘‘ the true notion of the Chiliad,’”’ and ‘‘ preached and wrote’’ about
the ‘‘ coming of the Lord, the calling of the Jews, and the first and second
resurrection of the dead, which do now of late years get more ground
against the opposition of the otherwise minded, and find a kinder enter-
fainment among them that ‘ search the Scriptures ;’ and that’’ he asserted
‘*a personal, visible, powerful, and glorious coming of the Lord Jesus
Christ unto judgment, long before the end of the world.’’ Le calls Rey.
Thomas Walley (died 1679), ** our pious Chiliast, Walley,’? who was like
Mede, Davenport, Hook, and who understood ‘‘ the First Resurrection to
be corporeal,’’ just as ‘‘ some of the first and eminent teachers in the church
believed.’’ Reference is made to Rev. John Eliot (died 1690), as con-
stantly pressing ‘‘ the Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ ;’’ the same in-
timations are given respecting Whiting, Samuel Mather, Increase Mather
(Pres. Harvard College), himself, and others.
We append additionaltestimony. In the Preface to The Magnalia, Mather says : “ The
first and famous pastors in the New England churches did, in their public ministry, fre-
quently insist on the doctrine of Christ’s glorious Kingdom on earth which will take place
after the conversion of the Jews, and when the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in. It
is a pity that this doctrine is no more inculcated by the present ministry, which has in-
duced me the rather to preach and now by the press to publish, what is emitted here-
with.’’ And now that this must be understood in a purely Chiliastic sense, is evident from
both what Cotton Mather and his father, Increase Mather, have taught on the sub-
ject. Thus e.g. Increase Mather, in his Discourse on Faith (a.p. 1710), and The Mys-
tery of Israel's Salvation, teaches : ‘‘ He (Christ) will then (at Coming) remove His throne
from heaven to this visible world. Then will His visible Kingdom appear in the great-:
est glory ; when also there will be a@ personal reign and residence of Christ in this
lower world.’’ “ When they that corrupt the earth are destroyed, a new earth will suc-
ceed, in which shall dwell righteousness. Then will the kingdoms of this world become
the Kingdoms of Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever,” etc. But Cotton Mather
is more plain : “It is well known, that in the earliest of the primitive times the faithful
did, in a literal sense, believe the ‘second coming’ of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the
542 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 78.

rising and the reigning of the saints with Him, a thousand years before, the rest of the
dead live again,’ a doctrine which, however, some of later years have counted heretical ;
yet in the days of Irenzeus, were questioned by none but such as were counted heretics. It is
evident from Justin Martyr that the doctrine of the Chiliad was in his days embraced
among all orthodox Christians ; nor did this Kingdom of our Lord begin to be doubted
until the Kingdom of Antichrist began to advance into a considerable figure, and then it
fell chiefly under the reproaches of such men as were fain to deny the divine authority of
the Book of Revelation, and of the Second Epistle of Peter. He is a stranger to antiquity
who does not find and own the ancients generally of the persuasion. Nevertheless, at
last men came, not only to lay aside the modesty expressed by one of the first Anti-Mil-
Jenarians, namely, Jerome, but also with violence to persecute the Millenary truth as an
heretical pravity. So the mystery of our Lord’s ‘ appearing in His Kingdom ’ lay buried
in Popish darkness, till the light thereof had a fresh dawn. Since the Antichrist entered
into the last half-time of the period allotted for him, and now within the last sevens of
years, as things grow nearer to accomplishment, learned and pious men, in great numbers,
everywhere come to receive, explain, and maintain, the old faith about it.” In the Student
and Preacher, Mather is equally decisive : ‘‘ The Son of God, about to descend, will inflict
vengeance on them who know not God and obey not His Gospel ; but He will manifest
His Kingdom of the saints in the earth, which is to be possessed by our second and heavenly
Adam ; and this, we confess, is ascertained to us by promise, but in another state, as
being after the resurrection.”” ‘‘ They indulge themselves in a vain dream, not to say
insane, who think, pray, and hope, contrary to the whole sacred Scripture and sound reason,
that the promised happiness of the Church on earth will be before the Lord Jesus shall ap-
pear in His Kingdom.” ‘* Withoul doubt the kingdom of this world will not become the
Kingdom of God and His Christ, before the preordained time of the dead, in which the
reward shall be given to the servants of God and to those that fear His name.’’ “ The rest
of the saints, and the promised Sabbath, and the Kingdom of God, in which His will shall
be done on earth as it is in heaven, and those great things of which God hath spoken by
the mouths of His prophets, all prophesying as with one voice ; all shall be confirmed by
their fulfilment in the new earth, not in our defiled and accursed earth.’’ Rev. Joshua
Spalding (Lectures, pp. 221-2, etc.) speaks of “ many Christians, who were looking, not for
the modern Millennium, but for the Sec. Coming of Christ,’’ etc., and adds : ‘‘ I have had
the testimony of elderly Christian people, in several parts of New England, that within
their remembrance this doctrine was first advanced in the places where they lived, and
have heard them name the ministers who first preached it in their churches. No doc-
trine can be more indisputably proved to have been the doctrine of the Primitive Church
than those we call Millenarian ; and, beyond all dispute, the same were favorite doctrines
with the fathers of New England ; with the words of one of whom, writing upon this
subject, we shall conclude our observations upon their antiquity : ‘ They are not new, but
old; they may be new to some men, but I cannot say it is to their honor.’’’ In another
place (p. 191) he says: ‘* The doctrine of the Millennium is truth ; and the prevailing ex-
pectation, that it is fast approaching, and is now very near, is doubtless rational,’’ etc.
The same is true doctrinally of Thomas Prince (a.p. 1728 to 1758), pastor at Boston (so
Spaulding’s Lectures), of Dr. B. Gale (see Barber’s His. Collections of Connecticut, p. 531,
who also says: ‘* This (Millenarianism) appears to have been the belief of pious persons
at the time of the first settlement of New England,” etc.).
The same early Chiliasm is traceable in other denominations. Thus e.g. in the early
Lutheran and Reformed Churches quite a number of ministers entertained it. The
writer was informed by his grandparents and parents that they conversed with such and
heard them occasionally present Millenarianism. The brief biographical sketches re-
maining give us no idea of the form in which they held it, but a clue is obtained by the
fact that the works of Bengel, Stilling, and others like them, were favorites and largely
circulated. Books of German and English Chiliasts were held in esteem, and the writer
has often been surprised to find among old people a detailed and correct knowledge of
the doctrine, and on inquiry the reception of the same was generally attributed to the in-
struction of some old pastor or the reading of such works. In conversation with others,
they recalled similar reminiscences,

Obs. 10. The progress of Chiliastic doctrine in this country, while im-
mensely in the minority, has been highly respectable, as admitted even by
our opponents. It embraces many of the ablest, most devoted and schol-
arly men that the church has produced.
Prop. 78.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 543
The Luth. Observer (always, more or less, an opponent), in a notice (Oct. 25th, 1878)
of a Pre-Mill. pamphlet, ‘‘ Jesus is Coming,’’ by W. HW. B., says that our doctrine ‘‘ has had
eminent supporters in the Church. Such men as Sir I. Newton, Dr. Chalmers, Dean Al-
ford, and Dr. Breckenridge have been among its advocates. And among the signatures
to a call for a series of public meetings to be held in New York, in the month of Octo-
ber, are the names of learned and pious men representing all the denominations of Protestant-
ism.’’ Prof. Briggs, and a few others, evidently angry at the increase of Chiliasm in the
Presbyterian Church, suggested discipline on the charge of ‘‘ heresy,” to which Rev. Dr.
Mutchmore (quoted Messiah's Herald, Jan. 15th, 1879), of the same Church, replies : ‘‘ It
is best to allow our pastors to use their own judgment in preaching on the matter. What
are we to do? Some of our most eminent men are Pre-Millenarians, and we have no article
which is against the idea of Christ’s personal reign on earth. It is all a question of inter-
pretation, on which our highest bodies have never made any deliverance, and, in my
opinion, they never should.’’ Rev. Dr. Mackay, in his address at the Milday Conference
(1879), speaking in reference to Chiliastic advocates as observed in his recent visit to the
U.S. and Canada, said : “I thank God that in every city that I visited, in New York, Chi-
cago, and elsewhere, the most spiritual men are rousing up to inquire and look into these
things.”’ Many such declarations might be given, but the reader can soon satisfy him-
selt by glancing over the names following. We append a list-—imperfect at best—of
American and Canadian Chiliasts, according to their Church relationship as far as known.
Prot. Episcopal Church: Dr. 8. H. Tyng,sen., Dr. Tyng, jr., Dr. R. Newton, H. Dana
Ward, Rev. J. S. Alwell, Rev. E. T. Perkins, Rev. Th. W. Haskins, Rev. Rob. C. Booth,
Rey. L. W. Bancroft, Felix R. Brunot, Dr. Julius E. Grammer, Bh. T. H. Vail, Rey. T.
W. Hastings, Bh. W. W. Niles, Canon Baldwin, Canon W. Bond, Bh. Southgate, Dr. F.
Vinton, Rev. Morell, Bh. McIlvaine, Bh. Henshaw, Rey. E. Winthrop, Rev. Morgan,
Rev. Johnson, Rev. Farrer, Rev. Dobbs, Rev. Smith, Rev. Trenwith, Rev. Newton (Gam-
bier), Bh. Bedell, Bh. Hopkins, Bh. Williams, Bh. Huntingdon, Bh. Odenheimer, D. N.
Lord.
Reformed Episcopal: Bh. W. R. Nicholson, Rev. G. A. Reddles, Rev. W. V. Feltwell,
Rev. B. B. Leacock, Rev. M. B. Smith. ;
Presbyterian: Dr. C. K. Imbrie, Dr. 8. H. Kellogg, Dr. E. R. Craven, Dr. J. H.
Brookes, Rev. W. J. Gillespie, Rev. H. M. Parsons, Dr. N. West, Rev. W. J. Erdman,
William Reynolds, John Wannamaker, Rev. F. W. Flint, Rev. E. P. Adams, Rev. J. S.
Stewart, Rev. D. E. Bierce, Rev. C. C. Foote, Rev. L. C. Baker, Rev. W. B. Lee, Rev.
E. R. Davis, Dr. S. R. Wilson, B. Dubois Wyckoff, Rev. B. F. Sample, Rev. H. M. Ba-
con, Rev. D. Mack, Rev. E. P. Marvin, Dr. R. Patterson, Rev. R. C. Mathews, Rev. A.
Erdman, Rey. J. R. Berry, Prof. J. T. Duffield, Sam]. Ashhurst, Rev. Prof. R. D. More
ris, Rev. D. R. Eddy, Rev. Wm. P. Paxon, Dr. Willis Lord, Dr. J. G. Reaser, Dr. Mar-
shall, Dr. Felix Johnson, Dr. Kalb, Dr. F. E. Brown, Dr. Stanton, Dr. McCartee, Dr.
Geo. Duffield, Dr. R. J. Breckenridge, Dr. Krebs, Dr. J. Lillie, Rev. R. C. Shimeall, Dr.
Poor, Dr. Van Doren, Rev. Blauvelt, Rev. Dinwiddie, Rev. Laird, Matthews, Marquis,
Congdon, Rev. Adair, Rev. Prof. McGill, Rev. J. C. Randolph, Rev. W. Hogarth.
United Presbyterian: Dr. J. T. Cooper, Dr. W. Y. Moorehead, Rev. J. P. Sankey, Rev.
W. J. Gillespie, Rev. R. W. French, Rev. S. B. Reed, Rev. R. A. McAycal, Rev. D. A.
Wallace, Rev. J. G. Galloway, Rev. J. S. McCulloch, Rev. W. W. Barr, Rev. G. Hayser.
Baptists: Dr. A. J. Gordon, Rev. J. D. Herr, Rev. J. Hyatt Smith, Dr. J. W. Bancroft,
Rev. H. M. Saunders, Rev. J. P. Farrer, Rev. Alf. Harris, Rev. Jos. Evans, Rev. J. M.
Stiffler, Rev. G. M. Peters, Rev. F. E. Tower, Dr. J. E. Jones, Rev. J. T. Beckley, Rev.
J.J. Miller, Ed. S. White, B. I’. Jacobs, Rey. C. Perrin, Rev. F. L. Chappell, Rev. Rob.
Cameron, Rey. H. F. Titus, Rev. H. A. Cordo, Rev. G. M. Stone, Dr. S. H. Ford, Rev.
A. J. Frost, Rev. J. C. Wilmarth, Prof. Dr. Weston, Rev. Barralle, Rev. Brown, Rev.
Colgrove, Rev. Wm. Knapp, Rev. H. Knapp, Rev. J. C. Waller, Rev. Taylor.
Congregationalist: Dr. E. P. Goodwin, Rev. W. W. Clarke, Dr. H. D. Kitchell, Dr. J.
Wild, Rev. W. R. Joyslin, Rev. G. C. Miln, Rev. E. C. Hood, Rev. W. W. Syle, Rev.
Myron Adams, Rev. G. R. Milton, Abner Kingman, Rev. Burton, Rev. Francis Russell,
C. M. Whittlesey, Rev. Lorimer, Rey. Morton, Rev. Bancroft, Rev. Andrews, Rev. Cun-
ningham.
Reformed Church: Dr. Rufus W. Clarke, Rev. C. Parker, Rev. J. B. Thompson, Rev.
W. Hz. Clarke, Dr. W. R. Gordon, Dr. J. T. Demarest, Dr. G. S. Bishop, Rev. R. F.
Clarke, Rev. Merritt, Rev. Ballagh, Rev. Brown, Rev. Dr. Forsyth, Dr. 8. H. Giesy.
Methodists : Prof. H. Lummis, Rev. Jno. Parker, Dr. H. Foster, Rev. Jesse M. Gilbert,
Geo. Hall, T. W. Harney, Rev. W. E. Blackstone, W. E. Grim, Dr. Geo. W. Brown, Geo.
A. Hall, Dr. Marshall, Excell, Dr. J. P. Durbin, Rey. Dr. Nast.
544 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 78.

Lutheran: Dr. J. A. Seiss, Rev. Laird, Rev. Dr. Oswald, Rev. A. R. Brown, Dr. J. G.
Schmucker (and Drs. Helmuth, Lachman, and D. Kurtz, who recommended his Chiliastic
work).
Moravian: Rev. E. Reineke, J. G. Zipple.
Chiliastic writers belonging to various bodies, such as Second Adventists, or branches :
Hastings, Taylor, Andrews, Crozier, Bliss, Himes, Litch, Hale, Thomas, Wilson, Camp-
bell, Reed, Coghill, Lyon, Chown, Cook, Woodruff, Catlin, Allen, Ramsey, Fancher,
Parry, Chase, Coombe, Niles, Jacobs, Seymour, Champlin, Lumbard, Carpenter, Batch-
elor, Wellcome, Grant, Smith, Burnham, Libby, Brewer, Pratt, Shepherd, Flagg, Suth-
erland, White, Couch, Higgins, Burbank, Piper, Simpson, Cole, Hancock, Bellows, Aus-
tin, York, Teeple, Morgan, Preble, Chittenden, Cotton, Moore, Pearson, Miller, C. Palmer,
E. K. Barnhill, 8. A. Chaplin, etc.
Among other organizations are writers of the ‘‘ Catholic Apostolic Church,’’ ‘‘ Plym-
outh Brethren,’’ ‘‘ Christadelphians ” (Dr. J. Thomas and followers), and others.
Miscellaneous. Names that have fallen under observation as Chiliasts, but whose exact
Church relationship is unknown to the writer, such as Storrs, Beegle, Wendell, Ramsey,
Woodworth, Bh. Ives, Dr. Broadhead, Dr. McCarty, Lindsey, Forsyth, Rev. Geo. C. Lor-
imer, R. C. Matlack, Geo. R. Cramer, Rev. L. Osler, J. M. Orrick, L. B. Rogers, Geo.
W. Tew, Rev. C. M. Morton, Rich. Aorton, Rev. Almond Barrelle, Prof. T. W. Bancroft
(Brown Univ.), Wm. Reynolds, Rev. C. Cunningham, S. J. Andrews, Rev. F. W. Dobbs,
Dr. A. W. Pilzer, J. M. Haldeman, D. C. H. Marquis, Rev. Dr. Watson, Rev. Dr. Miller,
Dr. J. R. Davenport, Dr. W. Lloyd, Rev. A. J. Patton, Rev. J. P. Newman, Dr. R.
Jeffrey, M. Baldwin, Rev. Dr. Simpson (Louisville), Rev. Dr. Shaw (Rochester), Rey.
Graves, Rev. Brookman, Dr. Williamson, Dr. Robinson, Geo. Reynolds (the last. four in
Canada), Rev. R. Campbell, Rev. W. Cadman, Thomas (of Canada), Rey. J. M. Weaver,
Walter, John H. Graff, Rev. B. Philpot, Rev. S. Bonhomme, J. Harper, Anna Siliman,
Dr. J. W. Hatherell, Darby, Thomas, Harkness, Bryant, Davis, Holgate, James Inglis,
Dr. J. J. Janeway, Rob. Kirkwood, Rev. W. Newton, J. P. Labagh, Seth Lewis, Gran-
ville Penn, Dr. Wm. Ramsey, Hollis Read, Hugh White, Rev. John G. Wilson (Ed.
Proph. Times), Jno. F. Graff (“ Greybeard’’), Woodbury Davis, D. M. Lord, Dr. Ramsey,
Dr. Halsey, Dr. Harkness, A. D. Jones, B. S. Dwiggens, C. T. Russell, N. H. Barbour, J.
M. Stevenson, J. P. Wheethee, Wiley Jones, J. H. Patton, W. J. Mann, B. Wilson, J.
A. Simonds, B. W. Keith, G. M. Myers, A. B. Magruder, H. V. Reed, L, A, Allen, W.
Laing, E. Hoyt, J. Pierce, T. Wilson.

Obs. 11. The advocates of Chiliasm in England, Germany, France, and

other Huropean countries form a band that contains names _ highly
honored by the church, both as to attainments and usefulness in the ser-
vice of Jesus.
We present the following without reference to their Church relationship.
England, Scotland, and Ireland: Dr. A. R. Fausset, Dr. W. P. Mackay, Bh. Newton,
Sir I. Newton, Dr. Chalmers, Dr. Candlish, Horne, Bh. Trench, Bh. Ellicott, Twisse,
Marshall, Elliott, Maitland, Birks, the Drs. Bonars, Bickersteth, Auriol, Fremantle,
Ryle, Palmer, Ash, Noel, Canon Hoare, Rainsford, Wood, E. Garbett, Bridge, Burroughs,
Kelly, Cox, Caryll, Goodwin, Gouge, Wilson, Brock, Smith, Trotter, Langley, Sterry, Sel-
den, Ainsworth, Gataker, Fealty, Greenhill, Stevenson, Shepherd, Dean Alford, Brooks,
Pym, Dalton, Greswell, Burgh, Todd, Irving, Hewitson, Dr. M’Caul, Anderson, Begg,
McCheyne, Burns, Gilfillan, Hamilton, Cumming, Adolph Saphir, Frazer, Jamieson,
Cochrane, Cunningham, Sabine, Hugh Miller, the Duke of Manchester, Lord, Jones,
Habershon, Alexander, Tycho Brahe, Lord Napier, Leut.-Gen. Goodwyn, Haldane, Stew-
art, Rob. Montgomery, Preb. Auriol, Rey. M. Rainsford, Dean Fremantle, the Eari of
Shaftesbury, Bell, Pruden, Baxter, Lord Radstock, Earl Russell, Rey. C. Skrine, Rev.
E. Nangle, Rev. R. Chester, Capt. J. E, Dutton, Th. W. Greenwell, Rey. S. V. Edwards,
J. Denham Smith, Capt. Moreton, Dr. C. B. Egan, Bh. Wordsworth, Rev. Gordon Cal-
throp, Rev. J. Gosset-Tanner, Rev. C. H. Hamilton, Rey. Grattan Guinness, Rey. S. Grar-
vatt, Mr. Soltau, F. G. Bellett, Mr. Hyslop, Mr. Jenour, Dr. A. Saphir, Rev. E. Wilkes,
Rev. C. H. Hamilton, Lord Carlizle, T. R. Andrews, Col. Sandwith, Preb. Cadman,
Col. Rowlandson, Rev. E. H. Brooke, Rey. T. Flavel Cook, Rev. H. W. Webb-Peploe,
Preb. Dalton, Rev. C. J. Goodheart, Rev. J. Wilkinson, Rev. H. E. Fox, Rey. F. A. C.
Lillington, Canon Garbett, Rev. Rev. Frank White, E. J. Hytche, Rev. G. A. Sparks,
R. J. Mahoney, Cheyne Brady, Bh. Horsley, Tillotson (a Westm. divine), Mede, Burnet,
Prop. 78.| THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 545

F. E. Hastings, Chas. Maude, Rev. W. Frith, Durant, Farmer, the Bishop of Cashel, the
Bishop of Ripon, Admiral Vernon Harcourt, Hon. A. Kinnaird, Capt. John Trotter, Rev.
Capel Moleneux, Rev. James Cochrane, Rev. Walter Wood, Geo. Ogilvie, Hon. S. R.
Maxwell, Rev. James Kelly, Rev. Dr. Wilson, Rev. W. Brock, Rev. W. Trotter, Rev. B.
Wills Newton, Rev. Dr. Stevenson, Rev. W. Niven, Wattson, Waples, Roach, Pirie, Mans-
ford, Mandeville, McCausland, Gregory, Bellamy, Rev. S. E. Pierce, Keach, Tait, Sirr,
Wells, Coke, the Wesleys, Fletcher, Piers, Skeen, Brightman, Frere, Pitcairn, Carleton,
Waple, Archer, Dallas, Brightman, Woodhouse, Wickes, Bayford, Villiers, J. Biencho,
Beverly, Grimshawe, Woodroofe, Barker, Marsh, Dibdin, Fisk, Fremantle, Wilson,
Reichart, Harrison, Holland, Wigram, Nolan, Burgh, Bh. Clayton, Cooper, Drummond,
Eyre, Farmer, Kd. King, A. Jukes, Flemming, jr., W. Vint, Keith, R. Hort, Dr. J. Knight,
P. Lancaster, Flemming, Ferer, Th. Loader, Frey, Gregg, Girdlestone, Habershon,
Hallet, Maitland, Hartly, the Duke of Manchester, Manford, Hawtrey, Homes, Dr. W.
Marsh, Rob. Maton, J. Hooper, Rev. Hugh McNeile, Hon. and Rev. G. T. Noel, Dr. ¥.
Nolan, J. Hussey, W. Perry, Rev. A. Pirie, Rev. A. R. Purdon, J. Purnes, Forster, Nath.
Ranew, R. Roach, B. W. Saville, James Scott, Dr. Sayer Rudd, F. Sergent, Wm. Sher-
man, Peter Sterry, J. G. Zipple, H. W. Woodward, J. H. Stewart, Tillinghast, Th. L.
Strange, Wm. Thorpe, Wm. Whiston, Jos. Tyso, Jos. Tyson, El]. Winchester, Jer. White,
Leut.-G. H. Wood, Walter Wood, Wm. Witherby, H. W. Woodward, T. Whowell, Ben-
son, Ambrose, Rev. Ch. Brown, Spurgeon, Burnet, Burk, Pope, Sherwood, Dr. G.
Sharpe, Dr. S. Charnock, Wm. Cowper, Spalding, R. Clarke, Wm. Clayton, Bh. Cran-
mer, Charlotte Elizabeth, Gilfillan, J. Glass, Dr. R. Hurd, Wm. Wogan, Dr. I. Watts, Bh.
Heber, Gen. J. Harlan, Rey. S. Johnson, Jno. Keble, Jno. Milton, A. M. Toplady, M. F.
Tupper, Dr. Jno. Thompson, J. L. Towers, Rev. L. Way, Cressener, Jno. Fox, Dr. Mar-
goliouth, Denham, Niven, Nangle, Harker, Dr. Wilson, Dr. Stephenson, French, Dr.
Leask, Gillson, Berks, J. Verner, Foskett, Scott, Phillips, Dr. T. J. Bell, W. S. Ross,
Purdon, Harris, Code, Rob. Howard, Hon. W. Wellesley, Rob. Baxter, Henry Drum.
mond, Dr. Rob. Anderson, Rev. Wm. Maude, Rev. N. Starkey, M. Redman, Esq., Rev.
S. Garrett, E. Phair, Rev. J. Sabine Knight, Rev. J. Cochrane, Hon. 8. R. Maxwell,
Reads, Wood, Moleneux, H. Smith, J. Kelly, Brack, W. Trotter, Wills Newton, Niven,
H. Shepheard, Dr. J. Wilson, Dr. Stevenson, Geo. Ogilvie, B. Wills Newton, Rev. T. J.
Malyon, Rev. E. J. Hytche, H. Weymott, Rev. G. H. Pember, Rev. N. S. Godfrey.
Germany: Bengel, Jung Stilling, P. J. Spener, M. F. Roos, P. M. Hahn, J. M. Hahn,
Peterson, Rothe, Auberlen, Martensen, Dorner, Christlieb, Luthardt, Delitzsch, Lange,
Olshausen, Ebrard, Meyer, Baumgarten, T. C. K. Von Hofmann, Lechler, Riggenbach,
Floerke, Schlegel, Kiummacher, Steir, Kurtz, Christiani, Rinck, Pfleiderer, Koch,
Schmid, Steffan, Diisterdieck, F. Semler, Typke, Gerken, Opitz, Leutwein, Riihle, von
Lilienstern, Sander, Oetinger, Lavater, Crusius, Cocceius, Breithaupt, Piscator, Passa-
vant, Lisco, Kohler, C. F. P. Leutwein, Dr. V. U. Maywahlen, Huss, Cléter, Michael,
Hebart, Schneider, Gotlob Schultze, Jno. Dav. Schaeffer, Daubuz, Koppe, Fr. Bauer,
Freiderick Kletwick, Dr. J. Lange, Jno. G. Schoner, Dr. F. V. Reinhard, C. R. Reichel,
Osiander, J. Nissen, Kling, Thomasius, H. Wilh. J. Thiersch, Alb. KOppen.
France and Switzerland: Prof. Godet of Lausanne, Gaussen, Dr. J. Abbadie, Pére
Amelote, E. Guers, P. Jurieu, Lambert, Pierre Poiret, Lavater.
Holland: Van Oosterzee, Da Costa, Capadose.
Miscelianeous : F. W. Stuckert, Rev. D. G. Mallery, Rev. Paul, Roorda, Hebert, Gneis,
Madam De Gasparin, Rev. R. Hamilton (Melbourne, Australia), Comenius, Jurien, Sera-
nius, Altingius, Alsted, Riemann, Worthington, Seitz, Dreissenius, Jarchi, Kimchi, Abra-
banel, Alabaster, Durant, Chas. Jerram, Mejanel, Coleman, Ben Ezra, Crool, 8. A. Black-
wood, J. G. Bellett, H. W. Soltau, Wm. Linccln, H, Snell, Bh. Spangenberg (Moravian),
H. Meynott, Esq. (Australia).

Obs. 12. The number of able commentators favoring, indorsing, and

teaching Chiliastic doctrine is not only creditable, but extremely satisfac-
tory to the faithful believer, showing that men who specially devote them-
selves to the study and explanation of the Scriptures find Millenarianism
clearly taught therein.
We instance the following : Bengel’s Gnomon of the N. T., a work still in the highest
esteem ; Olshausen’s Com. on the New. Test., a work repeatedly republished ; Gill’s Expos.
of the Old and New Tests. ; Steir’s Words of the Lord Jesus, still republished ; Alford’s
Greek Test. with Proleg. and Com., a standard work ; Lange’s Vom. of the Old and New
546 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PrRopv. 78.
Tests., especially the Amer. Edition, and particularly 1 and 2 Thess., Ed. by Dr. Lillie ;
Meyer's Com. on New Test., recently republished ; Cocceius’ Commentaries in ‘“‘ Opera
Omnia’’—was charged by his enemies with Chiliasm, Kurtz’s Ch. His., vol. 2, p. 213 ;
Die Berlenburger Bibel, 1726, 4 vols. large fol. ; Richter’s Erklarte Haus Bibel; Starke’s
Synopsis of the New Test. ; Piscator's Com. on Old and New Test. ; Coke’s Com. on Old and
New Test. ; Jamieson, Brown, and Fausset’s Com. on the Old and New Tests., a recent one,
and Pre-Mill. in the parts edited by Fausset ; Judge Jones’s Notes on Scripture (in the re-
publication this title was changed) ; Dr. Nast’s Com. on New Test., only a part published.
Commentaries and Expositions on detached portions of the Scriptures. Greswell
(Parables), Keach (Parables), Bonar (Lev. and Psalms), Tait (Hebrews), Ryle— (Exp.
Thoughts, Gospels), Seiss (Lev. and Hebrews), Cumming (Parables, Rev., etc.), Lillie (Thess.),
Schmucker (Rev.), Daubuz (Rev.), Koppe (Thess.), Fry (Rom. and Psalms), Sirr (Notes on
Luke), C. H. M. (Notes on Gen., etc.), Wells (Dan. and Rev.), Demarest (Peter), Delitzsch
(Gen.), Sir I. Newton (Dan. and Rev.), Ebrard (Rev.), Skeen (Rev.), Haldane (Rom.), Mede
(Apoc. and Peter), Brightman (Dan. and Rev.), Bengel (Apoc.), Goodwin (Rev.), I. Lange
(Apoc.), Auberlen (Dan. and Rev.), Elliott (Apoc.), Lord (Apoc.), Buck (Math. 24,) Frere
(Dan., Esd., and Rev.), Pitcairn (Ps. 2,) Carleton (Matt. 24), Waple (Apoc.), Woodhouse
(Apoc.), Wickes (Apoc.), Bliss (Apoc.), Roos (Dan. and Rev.), Sander (Rev.), Kohler (Hag.),
Birks (Dan.), Cressener (Apoc.), Hooper (Apoc.), Knight (Peter), W. Newton (Dan.), Pewn
(Ezek.), Thompson (Matt. 25), Tyso (Hzek. etc.), Gaussen (Dan.), Cunninghame (Apoc.),
Darby (Dan.), Holmes (Apoc. and Dan.), Tregelles (Dan.), Brown (Apoc.), Irving (Apoc.),
Ward (Rev.), Wickes, (Rev.), Mandeville (Heb.), Waples (Apoc.), and others. Commen-
taries and Expositions that present some of the Chiliastic features. Clarke’s Com. on the
Old and New Test. ; Jarchi’s Com. Hebraicus ;Kimchi’s Com. on Prophets ;Abrabanel’s Com.
on Prophets ; Stuart’s Com. Apoce. (gives the doctrine of a literal first resurrection); Al-
tingius’ Com. Jeremiah; Piscator’s Com. on Old and New Tests. ; Caryll’s Exp. on Job;
Gouge’s Vom. Hebrews; Passavant’s Phil. and Eph.; Lisco’s New Test.; Deprez On
Daniel ; and others.
We append a few statements respecting Pre-Mill. commentators. Alford (N. T., vol.
2, p. 350), speaking of the Apocalyptic interpreters since the French Revolution, says :
“The majority, both in number, learning, and research, adopt the Pre-Millennial Advent, fol-
lowing the plain and undeniable sense of the sacred text.’’ Dr. Ed. Beecher in The
Independent (Aug. 24th, 1871), laments over the “ increase’ of Millenarian ‘‘ power’’ as ex-
hibited in recent commentators, saying : “ This is true of Alford, Ellicott, Lange, and
his co-laborers, especially Drs. Lillie, Auberlen, and Riggenbach. To these we must add
the writings of English and American Millenarians, the older and the more recent. And
there is at present no adequate counterpoise to the weight of authority of the commentators
whom we have mentioned.” This feature, thus frankly acknowledged by an opponent,
is a source of gratification to us, and of thankfulness to God in raising up such advo-
cates.

_ Obs. 13. Numerous writers, who, in their occasional works, give expres-
sion to Chiliastic belief, without entering largely in details.
Such as e.g. Milton, the various Pre-Mill. Commentators, Chalmers, Charnock, Wogan,
Dorner, Mather, Nissen, Spurgeon, Talmage (somewhat contradictory), Gilfillan, Moody,
Burroughs, Clayton, Coleman, Fox, and many others.

Obs. 14. Authors, who prominently set forth one or more essential feat-
ures of our system, either in elucidation or defence of the same.
Such e.g. Woodward, Essays on Mill.: Thorp, Destinies of the Brit. Emp. ; Crool, Rest
of Israel ;Frey, Judah and Israel ; Winthrop, Premium Essay on Symbols ; Abdiel, Essays ;
Begg, Argument for the Coming of the Lord ; Nathan Lord, The Millennium; W. Newton,
Lec. on the first two visions of Dan. ; and the writings of White, Thompson, Burgh, Tyso,
Strange, Stewart, Beverly, Eyre, Flemming, Sirr, Labaugh, and many others.

Obs. 15. Writers who give a very fair exhibit of the system of doctrine,
showing the relationship that one part sustains to the other, are also quite
numerous.
Prop. 78.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 547
Thus e.g. Seiss’ Last Times; Brooke’s Maranatha ; Demarest and Gordon’s Christoc-
racy ; Bickersteth’s Practical Guide ; Brooks’ El. of Proph. Interpretation ; D. N. Lord’s
Coming and Reign of Christ ; Dr. McCaul’s Old Paths, etc. ; McNeile’s Sermons on the Sec.
Advent. ; Noel’s Prospects of the Church of Christ; Duffield’s Diss. on the Prophecies ; and
the writings of the Bonars, Pym, Shimeall, Molyneux, Lord, Birks, Bryant, Ramsey, and
many others.

Obs. 16. The controversial writers who have directly written in defence
of Millenarianism against the attacks of opponents are worthy of notice,
Works specially designed to defend Chiliasm against objections are numerous. The
following may be designated : Duffield’s Mill. Defended, and Reply to Stuart; Shimeall’s
Reply to Shedd ; The Theol. and Lit. Journal, Ed. by D. N. Lord, contains a large number of
such articles ; Dr. Craven’s Reply to Prof. Briggs (N. Y. Evangelist, 1879) ; Dr. Moore-
head’s series of arts. in reply to Dr. Macgill (Chicago Instructor, 1879); Randolph’s
series of arts. (Danville Tribune, 1879); The Prophetic Times in its entire old and new
series ; Lillie’s Notes on the Mill. Controversy (in his ‘‘ Perpetuity of the Earth’’) ; Ander-
son’s Apology for the Mill. Doc. : Christocracy, by Drs. Demarest and Gordon ; Bayford’s
Reply to Jones ; Tyson’s Defence of the Personal Reign; Drummond’s Defence of the Stu-
dents of Prophecy ; The Literalist (5 vols.) contains some able articles : Manford’s Apology,
Spence’s Defence of the Hope of Better Times ; Sirr’s First Res. ; Prudon’s Last Vials ;
Bryant's Mill. Views ; Pym’s Thoughts on Mill. ; Maton’s Israel’s Redemption Redeemed ,;
Ogilvie’s Popular Objections ; Cox’s Millenarian’s Answer ; and, in brief, the writings of
Seiss, Brookes, Bonar, Bickersteth, Cunninghame, and many others (for nearly all Chili-
astic works devote some space to the consideration of objections), besides the quarter-
lies, monthlies, and papers specially devoted to the advocacy of Pre-Mill. The work of
Dr. Brown (Sec. Coming) was answered by Lord (Lit. and Theol. Journal), Bonar (The Com.
and Kingd. of the Lord Jesus Christ), the Duke of Manchester (Ap. to the Finished ys-
tery), Wood (Tract), Scott, and others.

Obs. 17. Various writers in our religious papers, periodicals, simply

either give their initials or conceal their identity by a nom de plume, while
presenting articles of a Chiliastic tenor, are not to be overlooked in con-
sidering the number of advocates.
Hence it is difficult to form anything like a correct estimate of numbers. In my own
denomination (Evang. Lutheran) quite a number of persons are only known to me by
occasional articles signed in this way. This is true of many others. Rev. Ebaugh in
his brief His. of Mill. in Rupp’s Orig. His. of Relig. Denom’s, says : ‘‘ The number of
Christians who hold substantially the foregoing views of the Millennium [Chiliastic],
cannot be computed with any degree of certainty, but from the writings of distingushed
divines, both in the European and American churches, we are warranted in estimating
their number at many thousands already.’’ We have also quite a number of Chiliastic
works given anonymously, such e.g. Time of the End, Spes Fidelium, or The Believer’s Hope,
Theopolis, The Sec. Com. of the Lord, Review of Scripture, Reign of Christ on Earth, Millennial
Church, A Tenet of Millennium, Multum in Parvo ; or the Jubilee of Jubilees, The First Resur-
rection, Enoch, An Inquiry into the Sec. Coming, Das Tausendjaéhrige Reich, Christ's Speedy
Return in Glory, Abdiel’s Essays, Second Advent, and others.

Obs. 18. Writers who are utterly opposed to the prevailing Whitbyan
theory, and declare the nearness of the Advent, the non-conversion of the
world before the Advent ; the renewal of the earth, etc., are also to be
considered, because on some salient points, essentially connected with our
system, they manifest a decidéd leaning favorable to Chiliasm.
We instance e.g. Richard Baxter, Bh. Bale, Th. Watson, Th. Vincent, Jno. Durant,
A. Grosse, Arch. Usher, Arch. Cranmer, Bh. Davenant, Bh. Ridley, Matthew Henry,
Sayer Rudd, Geo. Benson, Jno. Howe, Bh. Latimer, Archd. Woodhouse, Romaine, Bh.
Russell, Hammond, Alberus, Nicolai, Ringwald, Grotius, Prideaux, Bh. Taylor, Paul
Gerhard, Lee, Quenstadt, Hutter, Jno. Knox, Hunninus, the Reformers (as quoted), Jos.
Alleine, Aretius, Bradford, Toplady, Tholuck, Dr. Scott, Pareus, Archb. Newcome,
548 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 78.

Knapp, Dr. E. Hitchcock, Dr. Hales. Bh. Davenant, Flacius, Chytreus, Sandys, Keith,
Gale, Dodwell, King, and many others.

Obs. 19. The controversial works, essays, and articles against us fully
indicate the extent in which our doctrine is held.
Works that are directly written against Chiliasm may also be noticed, both as indic-
ative of the extent of Millenarianism, and that the student may compare them with our
line of argument. The controversial works of importance on the other side are the fol-
lowing: Brown's Second Coming ; Gipp’s On the First Res. ; Hall’s Reply to Homes ,;
Hamilton On the Mill. ; Jefferson On the Mill. ; an anon. work, The Kingdom of Grace ;
Morrison Christ's Personal Reign; Waldegrave’s Bamp. Lectures, 1854, Williamson's Let-
ters to a Millenarian ,; Stuart’s Strictures on Dr. Duffield ; Vint’s New Illustrations of Proph-
ecy ;Bogue’s Dis. on Mill. Bush On the Mill. ; Pro. Brigg’s arts. in N. Y. Evangelist, 1879,
and repub. in Luth. Quarterly ; numerous arts. in the reviews, quarterlies, relig. weeklies,
etc., reiterate the statements of the above works ; the brief statements found in works
such as Barnes’ Notes on Rev., Shedd’s His. of Ch. Doc., Hodge’s Sys. Div., ete. In our
argument we freely present these and other opposing works, give their objections (over-
looking none), and meet them in detail. We really are desirous for the reader to know,
Scripturally and historically, the arguments on both sides, so that he may intelligently com-
pare them, and decide for himself. We feel assured that in a candid comparison, our
doctrine will Jose nothing by it. Hence we commend the preceding for perusal, as well
as the following: Carson’s Personal Reign of Christ during the Millennium proved to be impos-
sible; Hopkins’ and Boyd’s Second Adventism in the light of Jewish History; Warren's
Parousia; Merrill’s Sec. Coming of Christ ; Clemens’ Spiritual Reign, and the writings of
Berg, Hengstenberg, Davidson, and many others.

Obs. 20. The greatest and most decided opposition to Chiliasm is that
which springs from the adoption of the Whitbyan theory—a view that is
incorporated in systems of theology, sermons, etc., and is the prevailing
one.
Prof. Briggs, in his series of articles (in the N. Y. Evangelist, 1878), states that he,
Dr. Hatfield, and others, hold “ that the Millennium began in the past, and corresponds
with the period of the church, or the Kingdom of God, on earth, in whole or in part.’’
(See this view adverted to under Prop. 158.) This he pronounces ‘*‘ the church view,”
and the Editor of the Evangelist (Oct. 10th), flatly contradicts him, saying that “ the com-
mon doctrine of the church” is the one that Whitby introduced, viz. : that the Mill. is
still future and that it shall be ushered in by the preaching of the Gospel, etc. Now
while neither are taught in the leading confessions of the church (but are contradicted by
the statements in reference to the condition of the church itself, the nearness of the Ad-
vent, etc.), the editor is correct when he makes the Whitbyan theory the present prevail-
ing one. Prof. Briggs’ view is held by an exceeding small minority of Protestants, how-
ever popular it has been with the Papacy as “‘ the church view.’’ A few remarks, indic-
ative of the modern origin—so recent as to be amazing, when its progress is considered—
of the Whitbyan theory isin place. The His. of Doctrines informs us that when the Au-
gustinean view was introduced it became, as opposed to Chiliasm, the popular doctrine
of the Roman Church ; and that it was, more or less, entertained by the Reformers.
This continued until the appearance of Daniel Whitby (comp. Prop. 175, Obs. 4, and
Prop. 127, Obs. on Rev. 20), an English commentator (b. A.D. 1638 and d. 1726), who
in explaining Rev. 20 : 1-6, advocated what he calls a ‘‘ New Hypothesis,” viz. : a spirit-
ual Millennium still future to be introduced by existing Gospel instrumentalities. This
appropriation by Whitby of a new, unheard-of application has been unquestioned by able
scholars, such as Bh. Russell, Archd. Woodhouse, Prof. Bush, and others. Indeed it
materially differs from the Popish and Jesuitical dreams of a subjugation and conversion
of the world under Papal supremacy ; because such dreams of conquest were allied with
the Augustinean theory, and regarded as the result of an already existing Mill. period—
the latter being regarded as equivalent to the existing dispensation, while Whitby located
his as future and distinctive in time and results. The nearest ancient approach,
although differing from it, to Whitby’s theory are the prophecies of Joachim (comp. arts.
on in Cyclops. and Von Déllinger’s Proph. of the Middle Ages, VII.), or the declarations of
Roger Bacon, Dolcino, and men of that stamp. So the fanatical Anabaptist movement
Prop. 78.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 549

materially differs in the instrumentality used, but only sympathizes with it (Prop. 156,
Obs. 4) in the effort to secure a world-wide dominion without the personal Advent pre-
ceding, and before the res. of the saints. Hence Pre-Millenarians, unwilling to associ-
ate the Whitbyan theory with such Popish and Anabaptist vagaries and dreams of con-
quest, assert (as Bh. Henshaw, Bickersteth, Dr. Lillie, Dr. Duffield, Dr. Seiss, Dr.
Brookes, and others) that Whitby is the first writer who systematically presented the opin-
ion, now so prevailing, that the Mill. age (1000 years) is future and will be introduced,
without any Advent of Christ, by the preaching of the Gospel.* This theory denies the
Pre-Mill. Advent of Jesus, the prior res. of the saints, the personal reign of Jesus and
the saints on earth, and holds simply to a conversion of the nations then living, and to a
spiritual reign of the then existing church. It has thousands of talented advocates, and
is held by multitudes of pious and devoted Christians, being found entrenched in Sys.
Divinities, religious works of all kinds, books of worship, hymnals, periodicals, etc. It
is a matter of surprise that a theury of such “recent origin’ (so Dr. John Lillie, who
adds, “ it is very questionable whether even so late as two hundred years ago, it had yet
been heard of among good men,”’—quoted by Brookes, Maranatha, p. 321-2) should have
such an extended reception, and be so perseveringly upheld, when bringing the church
into the predicted position of unbelief (comp, Prop. 177). Bh. Henshaw (An Inquiry
concerning the Sec. Advent) pronounces it ‘‘ a novel doctrine, unknown to the Church for
vane space of 1600 years. So far a+ we have been able to investigate its history, it was
iirst advanced by Rev. Dr. Whitby, the commentator.’’ (Comp. Dr. Seiss’ Question in
Eschatology, p. 47-50.) Some have questioned these statements, but no one has been
able to produce a single writer of ability preceding Dan. Whitby. Historically, the
modern view has no foundation whatever ; it is ‘‘ a novelty.”

Obs. 21. Many, without having a definite Mill. doctrine (their notions
of Mill. prophecies being vague), are influenced by the general deductions
of the Whitbyan theory, and reject our doctrine chiefly on the ground of a
still future conversion of the world under present instrumentalities, which
is supposed to bring about an ample fulfilment of predictions relating to
the Messianic Kingdom. (Comp. Props. 175 and 176, where this matter
is discussed in detail.)
We have men, who will in eccles. bodies oppose our views, and yet at the same
time confess (e.g. The Mass. Gen. Conference on the Mill., Proph. Times, vol. 4, No. 12),
that they have not given the subject ‘‘ that critical study which it demanded,” and that
‘“‘ with all the objections to Mill. views, it is still difficult to see how many passages of
Scriptures can be otherwise explained.’ And, without such study, and with such a
confession of weakness, they are content with their Modern Whitbyan theory. Indeed,
many of this class cannot be induced to study the subject. The Examiner (N. Y.), com-
menting on the late ‘‘ Proph. Conference,” after speaking favorably of the men conduct-
ing it, says: “ But the great facts of Christ’s personal Sec. Coming, that it may occur at
any time, that there will be a first res. of the righteous dead, and a second res. of the
wicked dead, and that the final general judgment will then come, do not belong to the
shadowy and fanciful imaginings of mere theorists.”’

Obs. 22. However respectable the number of adherents to our doctrine

in whole or in part, yet they form but a small minorityin comparison with
the immense body that rejects the belief once so prevailing in the church.

* Dr. Craven in Lange’s Com. Rev. p. 346, Amer. Ed., introduces the following foot-
note : ‘‘ Elliott writes : ‘ Vitringa, however, who alludes to Whitby’s as a work just pub-
lished, makes brief citations from two earlier writers, Conrad of Mantua, and Carolus
Gallus, as expressive of the same general view.’’ Hence, as these writers had but little
influence in moulding the sentiment of the Church (for they are almost unknown, and
our opponents, so hard pressed for authorities, failed to find them for no one quotes
them (Dr. Craven in his “ Excursus” says: ‘‘ This theory (Post-Millennial), which is the
one most generally adopted by English-speaking Protestant theologians, was first fully
developed by Whitby.”
550 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 78.

The retention of the Augustinian theory or Constantinian view by some ;

the general adoption of a spiritualizing interpretation to sustain a Church-
Kingdom view ; the reception of the Whitbyan hypothesis ; the issuing of
works in which our doctrine is caricatured, misrepresented, and ridiculed ;
the linking of our doctrine with the vagaries and fanaticism of certain
parties to make it odious ; the incorporation of some parts of our systeni
by smaller organizations that exerted but little influence ; the parading of
mistakes made by some rash writers both as to time and details ; the in-
fluence of leading societies in their publications, their endowments, com-
mentaries for popular use, periodicals, etc.; in brief, the unfriendliness of
worldliness, sect, indifference, unbelief, prejudice, etc., has been exerted
to overpower this ancient faith. Numerous instances will be cited as we
proceed. The fact that great and good men—men eminent for piety and
ability in the church—have aided in decrying the doctrine has had a
powerful influence upon the minds of many (comp. Props. 177-180).
Doctrinal belief is not, however, decided by numbers (Matt. 8:13, 14, and
we vila sl Cor. 1°: 26:27, etes).

Obs. 23. Writers that are evidently unacquainted with the literature and
history of our doctrine dismiss it with some contemptuous allusion to
‘‘ the ignorance and fanaticism’’ of its upholders. Certainly the eminent
and venerable names presented are sufficient to redeem it from such
charges. We are not concerned in eulogizing its advocates ; this is done
by our opponents and others.
As indicative of the treatment received, we present several illustrations: Dr. Mosheim
(Ch. His., vol, 3, p. 393), notwithstanding the important concessions given by him, ex-
hibits his animosity to the doctrine as follows : «The expectation of the Millennial King-
dom, which seldom exists in well informed minds, and which generally produces extrava-
gant opinions.’’ The editor of the N. Y. Evangelist eulogizes Prof. Briggs’s one-sided
articles, and then says (Hdilorial, Jan. 9, 1879) of Chiliasm, that itis «<a delusion explod-
ed many times,” having a ‘‘a sporadic existence’ ; and even designates ‘the blessed hope’’
sneeringly, ‘‘ the blessed appearance, as they call it”. The slightest acquaintance with the
history of Chiliasm, and the long line of revered advocates, should undoubtedly prevent
the use of such language, unless the parties employing it desire the same to be attrib-
uted to improper motives. Consequently we find scholarly men, who desire to act
honorably and justly, express themselves, although opposing our doctrine, as reverencing
the pious and eminent Chiliastic advocates ; they know enough concerning their honored
lives, their labors of love, their sufferings for Christ, that, supposing them even to be in
error on this point, they find syfficient redeeming qualities to secure a high respect and
cordial esteem. Prof. Bush, whose eulogy on Millenarians we quote in the Preface, is an
example followed by others. The Princeton Review, Ap., 1851, p. 187, concedes, as it
well may, that we have in our ranks ‘‘minds too of devotedly pious men, who are also
highly reputable scholars.” Even Harris, in his Great Commission, where (pp. 115-117)
he grossly misrepresents our doctrine and its advocates (comp. for a reply, Prop. 175)
is still forced in candor to acknowledge: ‘We are aware, indeed, that among those
who, for the sake of distinction, are called Millenarians, there are to be found divines of
considerable reputation, and Christians of the yreatest sanctity.”’
We leave a recent writer, an opponent (the author of God is Love—3 vols.—a work
specially devoted against our doctrine), to testify both respecting its adherents and extent.
He says (Pref., vol. 1) that he is personally acquainted with “a very large number of my
most revered private friends, both among the clergy and laity, (who) are firm believers
in the doctrine of a personal reign of Christ on earth.’ “They are alike eminent
for the greatness of their talents, for their deep and sustained spirituality of mind
for their habitually close walk with God, for their exemplary conduct in the society
and sight of their fellow men, and for their devotedness to the cause of Christ
and of souls.’”’ He refers “to the fact that so many of my greatest Christian friends
equally remarkable for their gifts and graces, believe in the personal reign as the
Prop. 78.| THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 551
great central doctrine,’ etc. He refers to ‘‘ the great extent to which that class of views
are now adopted,”’ especially in “‘in the Church of England,” ‘‘ among the Independents,
the Baptists, and the Presbyterians,” and largely advocated by ‘‘the Plymouth Breth-
ren.” He adds: ‘ Millenarianism is spreading rapidly in nearly all parts of the country
at the time at which I write.’’ He remarks that all converted Jews are Millenarian, and
referring to the efforts of ‘The Prophecy Investigating Society” in propagating the doc-
trine, says: ‘“‘ The clerical members of this society are, in the majority of cases, men of
eminence in the religious world ; while the laymen are, in every instance, men of ac-
knowledged piety and high social position.” He remarks, ‘‘ Among the vice-presidents
are the Bish. of Cashel, the Bish. of Ripon, Admiral Vernon Harcourt, the Hon. A.
Kinnaird, M.P., and Captain John Trotter.’’ He speaks of the preachers, whose ser-
mons are published on the subject, as ““most of them men of eminence ;’’ refers to the
ability of its advocates in Ireland, and then gives a list of publications, interspersed with
high eulogies of various writers, who hold to what he is pleased to call ‘‘ the Millennial
delusion.’’ He declares that ‘‘ Millenarianism is making such rapid progress among all
Evangelical denominations,’’ so that he advocates the ‘‘adopting measures to arrest its
progress’’ (his book being one based on the rejecting from Scripture, as interpolations,
all teaching that favors our views!). This confirms Moody’s (the Evangelist) statement
in a sermon on the Sec. Advent: ‘‘ Many spiritual men in the pulpits of Great Britain
are firm in the faith. Spurgeon preaches it. I have heard Newman Hall say that he
knew no reason why Christ might not come before he got through with his sermon,’’
Dr. Fisher, Art. Mill. (M?Clintock and Strong’s Cyclop.) says that an anon. work, The
Hind of All Things (which is opposed to us), frankly declares that ‘‘ more than half of the
evangelical clergy of the Church of England are at this moment Millenarians.’’ Dr,
Moore writes from Wartburg, Ger., to the Central Presbyterian (1867), and after delineat-
ing the religious condition, says: ‘I find among the Evangelicals a great deal of Millena-
rianism ; and the Sec. Coming of Christ is the great feature of the Gospel that swallows
up all others with them.” This agrees with Nast’s (Com. Matt., 6:10) declaration, who
speaks of ‘many Evangelical divines of Germany,” and of ‘‘ the most learned theologi-
ans of England and America’’ as Millenarian. Such testimony from opponents and
sympathizers should certainly have sufficient weight to prevent that spirit of detraction
so prevalent with some.

Obs. 24. Tgnorance or malice, alone, can produce the charge of “‘ heresy,”’
so often, with evident relish, urged against Pre-Millenarians.
We give a few illustrations out of many such charges. Prof. Briggs, in the N, Y.
Evangelist, Sept. 12th, 1878, pronounces Pre-Millenarianism a ‘‘heresy,’’ and “the basis
of a most pernicious series of doctrines, ever rejected by the Church as fanatical, vision-
ary, and dangerous.’’ (This certainly comes with good grace from one who professes
to believe that the Church has been in the past, and now is, enjoying the predicted
Millennium.) Dr. Berg in ‘‘ The Sec. Advent of Jesus Christ, not Pre-Millennial,’’ follows
the same tenor, pronouncing ‘“‘the doctrine of the Pre-Mill. Advent, and the
so-called Personal Reign of Christ’? to be not only “erroneous” but ‘‘pernicious,”’
“yoked to the car of fanaticism,’ ‘“‘the motive power of the wildest vagaries.’’
characterized by ‘‘eccentric variations”; being ‘‘the favorite hobby upon which wild
delusion has careered with whip and spur to perdition,” ‘‘ changing sincere fanatics into
shameless impostors,” etc. (This reads remarkable well from the man who strives to
make the stone of Dan. 2 to represent the American Republic!) If the doctrine produces
all this, it is exceedingly unfortunate for the wisdom of the Bible, that it contains so
much in its plain, grammatical sense, in its structure and analogy, as to induce multi-
tudes in the Primitive Church, and since, to believe and adopt it. If the doctrine has
this tendency, and produces such persons, then it follows, that the Church has honored,
and now reverences, men for their piety, usefulness, learning, etc., who are only ‘‘her-
etics.’? If the doctrine is so bad, demoralizing, and destructive, it is especially unfor-
tunate for the Ch. Church, that through the first centuries of its existence, it can only
trace its progress through such successful martyr, but hated ‘heretics.’’ Our decided
impression is, when we look at the men thus defamed—men who sealed their love for
Jesus and His truth by abundant labors, toils, sufferings, and even death—that the time
will come—if it be at the throne of Jesus Himself—when such wholesale, unchristian and
most unjust charges will be deeply, if not bitterly, regretted by the persons urging them,
The persons who bring this charge ought to have some consideration of their own
accountability. Dr. West (Hssay before the Proph. Conference on the His. of the Doc.)
552 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 78.

remarks : ‘*And equally powerless is the attempt to stigmatize the holders of this hope
as aiders and abettors of ‘heresy.’ That is a weapon that cuts fearfully in the opposite
direction. Never has there existed a persecutor of God’s saints on earth, since the
dawn of Christianity, who was not an Anti-Chiliast. The Apostate Church of Rome, idol-
atrous corrupter of every truth of God, and red with the blood of God’s saints, was built
-and nurtured on an Anti-Chiliastic creed., The first perversion of this hope was by a
heretic, Cerinthus or Montanus. The first assault upon it was by the rationalizing
Origen, who became a Universalist. The next was by Dionysius, who denied the Apoc.
of John. The first official condemnation of it was by a Roman Pope. The early mis-
representator of it was Eusebius, an Arian, and let him who can, defend Whitby from the
charge of becoming a Socinian. I dismiss the imputation with the remark, that if, in
days to come, a personal Antichrist, more God-defying and blaspheming than he who
sits in Rome, shall rise, one of the marks that will signalize him as the concentration of
satanic energy and hate, will be that he is a pronounced Anti-Chiliast. And just in pro-
portion as such time shall approach, will this glorious martyr-truth revive, as all history
shows, and to suffering saints will it be given again to witness for that same hope under
which the first confessors of Jesus, comforted, supported and strengthened, sank singing
to their tombs.” The absurdity, the injustice, and the sinfulness of thus designating the
founders, martyrs, confessors, missionaries, and ablest divines of the Church, is self-
evident, but it is something that we are led to anticipate, Jsa.66:5. It is the old charge
reproduced : Spener (Dorner’s ‘‘ His. Prot. Theol.,’’ vol. 2, p. 211) was opposed on account
of his Millenarianism, and those who received his views were denounced as heretics—his
name lives in freshness of honor, while the opponents are almost forgotten. So Auberlen
(Dis. Rev. p. 315) quotes Delitzsch as saying in reference to the wide-spread influence of
Bengel: ‘‘To whom do we owe it, that the orthodox church of the present day, no
longer brands the Chiliastic view of the last times, as all books of systematic doctrine
do, as heterodoxy, but has woven it into her own inmost life so deeply, that hardly a believ-
ing Christian can be found who does not hold it.” (Thus indicating its hold in the
Evangelical portion of believers. )

Obs. 25. Pre-Millenarianism is frequently, either through lack of knowl-

edge or animosity, represented as indorsing the belief of bodies (e.g. the
fanatical Anabaptists. Fifth Monarchy men, etc.) whose faith is directly
opposite to it.
For Anabaptists, etc,, see Props. 175, 179, etc., where their views are given in detail. We,
however, present another illustration of our meaning. The Editor of the V. Y. Observer,
(Sept. 1866) makes out ‘‘that Shakerism is composed of Millenarianism and Spiritualism.”
And as the result of his visit to the Shakers in Columbia Co., N. Y., says: ‘‘The Shakers
believe He (Jesus) is now present in them, and that it is high noon of the millennium all
around here.”’ The truth is, that there is nota particle of affinity between Shakerism
and Millenarianism, Their doctrine of the Second Coming of Jesus in the person of Ann
Lee and of a present resulting Millennium is utterly opposed by our fundamental principles.
No Chiliast ever advocated such a delusion. Their doctrine best suits the Whitbyan spiritual
reign theory, being the result of the spiritual, mystical system of interpretation repudiated
by us. As to the Doctrine of a present Millennium, that accords best with Prof. Briggs’
theory of a present existing Millennium. The fundamental position which distinguishes
Millenarians from all others, is this : No Millennium without the personal coming and in-
tervention of the same identical Jesus who ascended to heaven. To accommodate all this
covenant and prophesies, to Ann Lee, is a complete perversion of the truth,—a sad prosti-
tution of the promises pertaining to the Christship and the Messianic kingdom.

Obs. 26. Pre-Millenarianism is unjustly held accountable for the extrav-

agances of its votaries, and even of its opposers.
We have referred to this, and give instances of both. It is only necessary to say, that
no doctrine of the Bible has ever yet escaped being allied with error and fanaticism (but
on that account ought not to be discarded), so this doctrine has not escaped the usual
lot. We find it allied with error and extravagance from the days of Montanus down to
the present day, but this should not deter any one from the reception of Biblical truth
(which is not responsible for the affiliated error and fanaticism), especially when so
many able and pious men have received it without incorporating those extravagancies,
ete. (Compare Prop. 179.)
Prop. 78.| THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 553

Obs. 2%. Pre-Millenarianism, being chiefly related to Eschatology, is

adopted by persons in all (or nearly all) denominations, but our opponents,
overlooking this fact and its historical status, eagerly hold it up as related
to some sect or sects, who incorporate it with other doctrines that are ob-
jectionable (compare Prop. 179).

Obs. 28. The newspapers and periodicals, partly or wholly devoted to

an exhibit of Chiliastic doctrine, also evidence its extent.
The Theol. and Lit. Journal, Ed. by D. N. Lord, a Quarterly Review, only 13 vols., 8vo,
published in New York ; The Jewish Repository, changed to Expositor and Friend of Israel,
London ; The Investigator of Prophecy, London ; The Bloomsbury Lent Lectures, 10 vols.,
London ; The Literalist, 5 vols., Philad.; Purdon’s Last Vials, London ; The Quarterly
Journal of Prophecy, Ed. by Dr. Bonar, London ; The Presbyterian Review (Organ of the
Scotch church, a no. of articles) ; The Prophetic Times, Philad.,—the old series edited by
Dr. Seiss, the new by Rev. Wilson ; The Israelite Indeed, or Nathaniel, New York, edited
by Lederer ;Way-Marks in the Wilderness, New York, edited by James Inglis; The
Truth, St. Louis, edited by Rev. Dr. Brookes ; The Rainbow, London, Ed. by Dr. Leask ; Old
Truths (King.), Ed. by Rev. Cox ; The Watchman of Ephraim, England. Also such papers
as ‘‘ The Christian Herald*’ (London and New York), ‘‘ The Christian Observer,”’ ‘‘ Re-
vivalist,’’ etc., contain Chiliastic articles. Besides these are the periodicals published
by the Second Adventists, Christadelphians, Seventh-day Adventists, and various other
bodies, which, more or less, largely teach Chiliastic doctrine, such as ‘‘The World’s
Crisis’? (Boston), ‘‘ The Gospel Banner and Mill. Advocate’’ (Geneva, Ill.), “ The Proph.
Watchman’’ (Harvard, Ill.) ‘‘The Herald of Life and of the Coming Kingdom” (New
York), ‘‘ The True Herald ” (Plano, Ill.), ‘‘ Herald of the Kingdom ’’ (Birmingham, Eng.),
«The Proph. Key” (Versailles, Ky.), and others.

Obs. 29. The survival of Chiliasm, amidst the opposition, ridicule, per-
secution, etc., of the past centuries, is worthyof notice. Dr. West (His.
of the Doc.) has some forcible remarks on this point, showing ‘‘ that only
because it is an tmmperishable truth of God has it been able to survive the
ordeal which 1t has passed.’’ Considering the reproach attending it—the
debasements and admixtures to which it has been subject ; how offensive it
was to Gentile rulers, to Gnostic and Alexandrian teachers, to Papal
claims ; the persecutions to which it was exposed ; the obloquy heaped on
it as heresy to crush it; the misrepresentations, abuse, hostility, etc.,
heaped upon it, as found in thousands of works ; and considering the pious
and eminent men who clung to it, taught it, and urged it upon others, it
must be—as Chiliasts affirm—a truth found in the Divine Record, planted
there by God Himself to inspire faith and hope.

Obs. 80. The number of missionarics holding our doctrine, who have
gone to foreign lands and among the heathen, is not only gratifying, but
evidences how widespread must be Chiliastic teaching.
Compare our remarks on the missionaries and missionary spirit, given more in detail,
under Props. 175-178. In this connection we only say that a long list of missionaries,
extending from the Apostolic church down to the present, who are Chiliastic might be given.
Dr. West (‘‘ His. of the Doc.’’) says of its advocates: ‘‘that devoted missionaries like
Duff the opener of India, Gutlaff the opener of China, Bettleheim the opener of Japan,
Heber, Bertram, Wolff, Herschel, Poor, Lowry, and many more, were Pre-Millenarians,
and are followed, if recent information is correct, by a majority of missionaries now in
the foreign field, of the same faith.’’ (Comp. Brookes, Maranatha, Seiss, Last Times, etc.,
for similar statements. )

Obs. 31. The Evangelists and Revivalists who are Chiliastic is conclu-
sive evidence of two facts, viz.: that Chiliasm is not opposed (as some
554 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 78.

allege) to personal effort to bring men to Jesus, and that Chiliasm is taught
by men who have access to large numbers of hearers.
The Evangelists, well known, who present our hope, are the foliowing : D. L. Moody,
Rev. G. F. Pentecost, G. C. Needham, T. W. Bonham, Halsey W. Knapp, Maj. D. W.
Whittle, B. F. Jacobs, Rev. H. W. Brown, F. M. Rockwell, H. P. Welton, — Harry,
—-Moorehouse, P. P. Bliss, (see testimony of chairman of the Proph. Conf. held at N. York,
1878, Trib. Sup., p. 18), — Sankey, John G. Vassar.

Obs. 32. One remarkable feature connected with the history of Chiliasm
must not be overlooked. It has been held by believers of all classes and
the most opposite tendencies—men of the strongest Confessional tendency
and men the most unconfessional ; men hierarchical in teaching and men
the most determined against it; persons who prided themselves in their
orthodoxy and persons who rejoiced in their heterodoxy ; persons highly
Calvinistic and persons low Arminian—in brief, nearly all classes are rep-
resented. ‘This arises from the fact that the doctrine is mainly confined
to Eschatology (having, however, as we show, an important bearing on
many related subjects), and could readily be incorporated in the various
systems. Scarcely any other doctrine is found more widely diffused.
Simply to illustrate how parties the most diverse in view entertain it we point to or-
ganizations of believers who hold to it as a prominent article of faith. The ‘‘ Holy Apos-
tolic Church”’ is exceedingly high-church and ritualistic ; on the other hand ‘‘ The Ply-
mouth Brethren” are the direct opposite. On the one hand the ‘‘ Michaelians” (following
Spener’s pietism and Oetinger’s theosophy); on the other the ‘‘ Pregizerians’’ (Kurtz, Ch.
His. Vol. 2, p. 290-1) who laid the greatest stress on ordinances. The names that we give
of its Primitive and succeeding advocates, down to the present day, clearly evidences this
feature. This fact evidently indorses the idea that the doctrine must be distinctively
taught in the Scriptures, seeing that so many, who are not united on other doctrine, find
here a common scriptural basis,—some indeed more distinctively and systematically
than others.

Obs. 33. The Conferences held at London, Milday, New York, and other
places, in which the most eminent ministers and laymen of the various
Protestant denominations participated, evidence the extent of the doctrine
and its practical realization.
These Conferences, in view of the eminence, ability, etc., of their supporters, the various
denominations so largely represented by leading divines and laymen, have directed pub-
lic attention to the doctrine and its extent. It has alarmed Post- and Ante-Millenarians
so that Prof. Briggs and others protest, under the threat of Eccles. action, against
their continuance, and call fora disbandonment. Such menaces are a good sign, both of
felt weakness in support of their own theories and of the strength manifested by Pre-
Millenarians.

Obs. 34. The poets who have presented Chiliastic views are both numer-
ous and eminent.
The following may be instanced: Milton (Paradise Lost), Alex. Pope (The Messiah), Jno.
Keble ( The Christian Year), Charles Wesley ( Hymns), Bh. R. Heber ( Hymns), M. F.
Tupper (Poems), Isaac Watts ( Hymns and Psalms), Wm. Cowper (Task), Ed. Bicker-.
steth (Yesterday, To-day and Forever), H. Bonar, (Hymns of Faith and Hope), Rey. L. Way
(Palingenesia), Ino. G. Wilson (Psalms), 8. B. Monsell (JIymns), Gerard Moultrie (Hymns)
M. Habershaw (Hymns), and many others. Hundreds of hymns and psalms in the
older Christian Psalmody are so opposed to the Whitbyan and Augustinian theories,
so
full of longing for the Sec. Coming as the ‘‘the Blessed Hope,’’ so utterly faithless of
the world’s progress without the Christ, etc., that they strongly express Chiliastic views.
Prop. 78.| THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 555

Obs. 35. The design that God has, in thus greatly reviving the doctrine,
is worthy of attention. He does not leave His truth without testimony.
Dr. West (His. of Doc.), pertinently, after referring to ‘‘the galaxy of illustrious names
by which it is adorned, by what piety it is commended, by what unquestioned orthodoxy
and scholarship supported, and how the Church seems to be rallying around it, as in the
martyr age,’’ says: ‘‘ What an All-Wise Providence means to intimate, it is well to con-
sider.’”’ (Comp. Prop. 174.)

Obs. 36. In conclusion, a brief résumé of our historical argument, to

show its connection, is in place. The evidence in support of each step is
ample and conclusive. Indeed, no other doctrine has a more clear and de-
cisive proof in its behalf drawn from historical ground than this one. 1.
We have shown that the Jews, before and at the First Advent, held to it,
professing to derive it from covenant and prophecy. (Compare e.g. Props.
20, 21, 40, 44, 72, 74.) 2. Then we prove that John the Baptist and the
disciples both entertained and preached the doctrine. (Compare Props. 38,
39, 43.) 3. Next, that the doctrine was still held after the death of Jesus.
(Compare Props. 69,70.) 4. Extended evidence is given that the apostles,
after the ascension and after the day of Pentecost, still adhered to it.
(Compare Props. 71, 72 with Props. 66-68.) 5. It is proven that our doc-
trine was generally, if not universally, received by the early churches, East
and West, North and South. (Compare Props. 72, 73, 74, 75.) 6. This
doctrine was perpetuated by the followers and successors of the first teach-
ers. (Compare Prop. 75.) 7% That it was only changed and opposed under
the Gnostic and Alexandrian influences. (Comp. Prop. 76.) 8. That the
Papacy materially aided in crushing the doctrine, because obnoxious to her
teaching, claims, etc. (Comp. Prop. 77.) 9. That,thus almost exterminated
under Papal influence, there was a revival after the Reformation, since
which time it has again been taught by able and devout sons of the church,
as shown in this Prop.
556 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 79.

Proposition 79. The Kingdom of God, promised by covenant

and prophets, ts to be distinguished from the general and uni-
versal Sovereignty of God.
This is, owing to lack of discrimination, a most fruitful source
of mistake. Take the Kingdom in its initiatory form and its cove-
nanted and predicted aspect, and it will be found widely different
from the Sovereignty that God exercises by virtue of His God-
headship. The latter indeed is the source of the former, but the
Kingdom of covenant is a visible, outward Theocratic Kingdom,
manifested here on earth, identified with a certain people, promised
in a definite manner, and ruled over by ‘‘ the man ordained.’ As
we shall show hereafter (Prop. 81), it is a Kingdom specifically
promised to the ‘‘the Son of Man,’’ who is the Son of David.
These, and other aspects of it, clearly distinguish it from such a
sovereignty.
Obs. 1. It is but justice to say that many of our opponents (as e.g.
Thompson, etc.) and others (as e.g. Van Oosterzee, etc.) gustly discrimi-
nate between this Kingdom and God's Sovereignty, telling us that we must
not make this Kingdom denote the Supremacy of God as manifested in
Creation and Providence, in His ‘‘ Universal Government over this and
other worlds.’’ ‘They correctly inform us that the promised Kingdom is a
special divine organization with Christ as its Head, and with believing sub-
jects, etc., while the other is the sustaining, guiding, controlling, directing
disposition, mediate and immediate, of the Universe under the Divine
Headship. They teach us that the one is given by covenant promise, and
that the other ever existed, even before this special Kingdom was promised
toman. ‘They properly direct us to the language of Christ and of His
disciples in preaching that the Kingdom “‘ is at hand,”’ as justly implying
that something which did no¢ then exist was to be set up in the future.
And they happily direct us to two passages, given by the same writer, as
illustrative of the two, viz.: Dan. 6 : 26 and 7 : 13-14.
Indeed, if we were to gather the fragmentary evidences thus presented to us by vari-
ous writers, we should have an abundant array of proof, much of it derived from those
who have no sympathy with us. Those who constitute the Church a Kingdom are
forced by simple consistency into this attitude. Hence Kurtz (His. Old Cov., vol. 2, p.
97) remarks : ‘‘ It is essentially necessary to make a twofoid distinction in the process
of divine revelation ; that is to say, it is necessary to distinguish the preservation and
government of the world in general, from the more special operations connected with the
introduction and working out of the plan of salvation,” etc. The sovereignty of ‘‘the
Absolute,” which figures so largely in many religious books, etc., and upon which so
much stress is laid as ‘‘the Kingdom,”’ is simply a decided removal from covenant and
promise. The reader will compare Dr. Storrs’ excellent remark, see Prop. 37, Obs. 7, as
well as Kurtz's, Prop. 26, Obs. 3. Dr. McCosh presents the Universal Sovereignty ably
in his ‘‘ Methods of the Divine Government, Physical and Moral,’’ so also Butler, Paley,
 Prop. 79.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 557

Chalmers, the Duke of Argyll, and others; but this is only the source or foundation of
this special manifestation of government. Dr. Craven (Lange’s Com., Rev., p. 97), in his
«‘Excursus on the Basileia,’’ properly distinguishés between the two; and this is char-
acteristic of numerous able Chiliasts.

Obs. 2. Others, however, do not discern between things that differ, and
make the very Sovereignty which promises, overrules, bestows the means
for attaining, and finally gives the Kingdom (Prop. 83), to David’s Son—
the Kingdom itself. Illustrations of this looseness will abundantly ap-
pear as we proceed in our argument.
Many excellent men mistake this sovereignty for the covenanted Kingdom, so that lit-
erally thousands, like that noble Christian, Alfred Cookman (Life, p. 359, etc., in some of
his most eloquent utterances), locate the kingdom in the same, not seeing how it strikes
at the root of the most precious promises given to man. Even some Millenarians, not fully
grasping the covenanted truth, not consistently confining themselves to the Theocratic idea,
also, in a measure, mistake and confound the Divine Sovereignty for, and with, the King-
dom of covenant. This is seen e.g. in the interpretation given to Christ’s inheriting
David's throne, which, over against the most positive covenanted declarations and predic-
tions, they make the Father’s throne in the third heaven, etc.

Obs. 3. It is noticeable that in works of Sys. Divinity this Sovereignty

is placed under the part pertaining to God and His general government,
und is separated from the promised Kingdom of Christ by treating of the
latter under the Part relating to Christ and His work. A distinction is
observed, made, and taught in a specific form, but practically it is ignored,
and in definitions it is made to disappear, forgetting that thus a radical
defect is introduced, and a palpable contradiction is involved. For, unit-
ing the two and making them one, they at once make that, which they
tell us was never (even for a moment), intermitted, the subject of recorded
promises as something to come, to be inherited, etc.
Williamson (Theol. and Moral Science, p. 73) says: “The Kingdom of God! What
isit? No more or less than the reign of God.’’ This is true of the Divine Sovereignty,
but it is not correct as he applies it, for on p. 311 he quotes ‘‘ Repent, for the Kingdom
of God is at hand,’’ and ignoring the non-fulfilment of the imposed condition
‘‘repent,”’ the non-intermittence of the Divine reign, he frames a new ‘‘ spiritual king-
dom, designating it as follows: ‘‘It is a new and more perfect dispensation.’’ This
illustration out of many is given to show how able writers confound source and result,
cause and effect, and overlook a specific covenanted and predicted kingdom under David's
son, with characteristics which, down to the present, have never yet been realized.

Obs. 4. The line of argument already presented (which forms but a

small portion of the Scriptural reasons to be assigned), is amply sufficient
to show, that a specified Theocratic Kingdom, incorporating the Davidic
throne, which once existed, which was withdrawn, and which is promised
to be restored under David’s Son, is something widely different from the
general Sovereignty of the Almighty over the universe. So plain, and
simple, and self-evident is this Proposition, that no more space is required
in its consideration.
We can indorse Dr. Moll’s statement (Lange’s Com., Psls. p. 306): ‘There is a dis-
tinction to be made between God’s general government of the world, and that special
one—the Theocracy—which He established on earth, in and through the seed of Abraham.
Even in the imperfect and typical (?) form which it assumes in Old Test. history, this
is described as His descending to the earth and His ascending to heaven. This theoc-
racy, insignificant as was its origin in Israel, has a world-embracing destination. It
558 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRrop. 79.

shall gather into itself all nations, who, as one people of God, shall serve and adore one
and the same heavenly King; and their princes shall accomplish those purposes which
God has ordained for them, viz.: to be the leaders of their people to salvation, and their
protectors in the service of God.” Avoiding the typical, and keeping logically to the
Theocratic idea, we receive and extend this language.
Prop. 80.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 559

Proposition 80. This Kingdom of covenant promise and pre-

diction, ts to be distinguished from the Sovereignty which Jesus
exercises by virtue of His Divine nature.
This is distinctively shown by a simple fact (overlooked by the
multitude) that the Kingdom is never promised to Him as ‘‘ the
Son of God’ but as (the covenants and predictions demand it)
“the Son of Man’ or ‘*‘ the Son of David.’ The following Prop-
osition will develop this feature ; now it is only necessary to say,
that (1) the Sovereignty of God introduces this special Theocratic
Kingdom in the incorporated Davidic line, and (2) to constitute
this a pure, unfailing, perpetual Theocracy (viz.: God ruling as
earthly King, etc.) the Divine is allied or incorporated with the
person of this David’s Son.
Obs. 1. It may be premised, in order to avoid misconception, that Jesus
now in His Divine nature, in His Oneness with the Father, does exercise
a dominion over all things. According to this nature He is Lord over all,
and this is, in our estimation, most unequivocally taught in such passages
as, Joni t: 33" Coll 1°15) 19s Phil, 2001s 15 Corse Gr. Mom. 1 1iesoe
Rev. 1:5-6, etc. We fully admit the Divinity of Christ, revere His
Divine attributes, make these essential to a proper Theocratic ordering, and
acknowledge the Sovereignty that He possesses in His Divine right and
possession. But independently of the actual realization of the Theocratic
order as covenanted, and aside from the latter (for let the reader consider
that when God Himself was Israel’s Theocratic King, He did not cease to
exert His general Sovereignty), this exercise of Divine Sovereignty is pre-
cisely the same as that we have been considering in the previous Proposi-
tion, viz.: God’s Sovereignty, and differs materially from this predicted
Kingdom which is promised to Jesus, ‘the Christ,’’ not merely in virtue
of His relationship to God but of that which He sustains to David as his
Son, and to man as the Man. The reign, the dominion, or Kingdom that
we are defending, is, in contrast with the other, that of His humanity (as
covenanted), or, more properly speaking (embracing covenant as it relates
to man, and God’s own Theocratic right which is not the subject of pro-
mise), that of the Divine-Human. The Theocracy, by incorporating the
Davidie kingship, embraces, as the grand instrumentality for its future
re-establishment in sublime power and glory, the Divine-Human, now
united in Jesus, the Messiah.
It has been well said by various writers (as e. g. Neander, His. Ch., vol. 1, p. 506, note,
and Life of Christ, p. 143): ‘The predicates ‘the Son of Man’ and ‘ the Son of God,’ ap-
plied by Christ to Himself, have a reciprocal relation to one another, and imply a distinction
as well as the conjunction and unity of the divine-human in Him.” ‘The careful student will
observe that our argument receives additional force from the independent concessions
made by able theologians, as e. g. Martensen (Ch. Dog., sec. 174), when he properly dis-
560 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 80.

criminates between the kingly power of Jesus, and the divine power belonging to Him
as Logos, ete. Others distinguish in the same manner. Comp. e.g. Dorner's Person of
Christ and kindred works.

Obs. 2. The early Chiliasts clearly distinguish between the Kingdom

belonging to Jesus as the Divine-Human, and the Sovereignty vested in
Him as God. Thus e.g. Lactantius (‘‘ Poem on EHaster’’), while firmly
holding to the still future Kingdom of promise to be given to the Son of
David, expressly asserts that Christ ‘‘ reigns as God over all things, and
all created objects offer prayer to their Creator.” The idea, gathered
from their writings, is this: in His Divine capacity He is represented as
reigning, but this reign is not the reign of promise ;—the latter is confined
to a special covenanted outward visible manifestation of the human in con-
junction with the Divine, in an externally Theocratic ordering.

Obs. 3. When Christ assumes the Kingdom at the time appointed, in

view of His being the predicted seed of David, this does not by any means
cause Him to lay aside the Sovereignty that He has with the Father over
the universe. As Divine He is with the Father evermore, but as the
Divine-human, He manifests Himself (and the Father through Him) ov
earth in a specified form of reigning adapted to humanity. Hence the
predicted Kingdom is something that pertains not merely to the Divine
but to ‘‘ the Christ,’’ i.e. the Divine-human united. The right comes to
Him in the covenanted line through the human element (i.e. as the lawful
seed of David) delegated by the Divine Sovereignty of the Father and
rendered efficacious and Theocratic by the intimate and ever-enduring
union of the Divine, thus constituting Him in the highest and purest
sense the Theocratic King.
The reader is again reminded that this is fully illustrated by the Theocracy. When God
condescended to reign as Theocratic King (i.e. to act in the capacity of an earthly Ruler)
over Israel, two things were noticeable : (1) that this Theocratic rule was something diverse
from the general sovereignty over all things ; and (2) that when the former was assumed,
the latter was not laid aside, but continued ever in force. The one was a special merciful
manifestation in behalf of man, the other lies inherent in the Godhead and pertains to the
universe at large.

Obs. 4. It is amazing that theologians, without observing the contradic-

tion involved, confownd the Divine Sovereignty with the covenanted King-
ship of Jesus, and yet acknowledge that Rom. 14:9; Phil. 2:9; Heb.
12:2, etc., teach that ‘‘ the ground of His dominion is to be found in His
obedience unto death, the death of the cross’’ (so Oosterzee’s Dogmatics).
Now certainly the Divine Sovereignty is not grounded in any such con-
tingency, but the Kingship pertaining to Jesus, as the Son of David, is
based upon His obedience, etc. (comp. Props. 83 and 84).
Flavel, in his Fountain of Life, represents Jesus as now reigning under two heads : (1)
‘‘the kingly office of Christ, as executed spiritually upon the souls of the Redeemed, and
(2) the kingly office of Christ as providentially executed for the Redeemed.” The first is
based on 2 Cor. 10 : 5, supposed to be especially confirmed by Luke 17 : 20, 21. He has,
over against the express covenant that specifies with distinctness the throne to be occupied
by Jesus, Christ’s throne in the hearts of believers. The second is derived from Eph. 1: 22
(a present realization being taken for granted), which is supported by an appeal to the Di-
vine Sovereignty. Two things are noticeable in Flavel’s ignoring of covenant and covenant
promises ; (1) the means are confounded with the end, and (2) without any regard to the
Prop. 80.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 561
context of passages, or to their reference to time (dispensation), they are quoted as appli-
cable to his spiritualistic theory. Many writers, of usefulness and piety, follow the same
illogical and unscriptural view of the kingdom.

Obs. 5. What Lange (Com. p. 268) observes in reference to the miracles

of Christ, that ‘‘ the distinction between the economy of the Father and of
the Son must ever be kept in mind,”’ is especially necessary in the study
of this Kingdom ; otherwise we will be led to a confusion of ideas and to
palpable contradictions. ‘There are some things which essentially belong
to Jesus as the Son of God, as One with God ; und there are other things
which appertain to Him as ‘‘ the Christ,” the Divine-human. Two ex-
tremes are to be avoided : on the one hand to lay all stress on the Divine,
and making, in this Kingdom, the human too subordinate ; and on the
other hand pressing the human to the exclusion of the Divine. Both are
firmly and eternally united, and the very revelation of the Son of Man, as
David’s Son, will necessarily be an attestation to His divinity in the works
that He will do, in the power that He will exercise, and in the relation
that He sustains to the universe. The last feature is illustrated as given
in Jno. 3:13 (comp. 6 : 62, and 17: 5), where, according to some commen-
tators (as Barnes, Lange, etc.), Jesus speaks of Himself as being in heaven
at the very time He was also on earth speaking to Nicodemus (two ancient
MSS. according to Tischendorf’s N. Test. the 8. and C. omit ‘‘ which is in
heaven’’). Thus also when again present on earth, taking the Kingdom
as Son of Man, this does not forbid His being, through the all-pervading
attributes ascribed to Him, in heaven or in any part of the universe.
These are deep things, and we must speak of them after the manner of
man.
For we are not of those who think that the Person of Christ can be fully explained. He
portrays Himself asa mystery, connected with the incomprehensible, revealed only to a few,
and then only in some of His features, Much pertaining to Christ is still unknown, and
has been the subject of controversy and impotent discussion. Hence the author has little
sympathy with a class of writers who, in their exactness to define the Person of Christ
rush to opposite extremes : the one party, while acknowledging the union of the divine-
human, have the human completely absorbed in the divine ; the other with equal precise-
ness making all human. Others receive, justly, all that is recorded, and therefore cleave
to Jesus as ‘‘the Christ,” being constituted such by a permanent umon of the divine-hu-
man, both existing in ever-enduring harmony. Man is himself, in some respects, a mystery,
and so long as it has been found impracticable to explain man (as e.g. union of soul and
body) consistently and satisfactorily, it would be better (as indicative of modesty) to
avoid attempting an accurate explanation of ‘‘the Christ.” It is painful to read the varied
and contradictory statements given in the writings of fallible men concerning Him, who,
in the very nature of the case, being man and above man- man united with the Divine
Mystery (God, the Incomprehensible)—is in a higher sense beyond our comprehension.
We must rest satisfied with the description given of Him in the Word (which some writers
portray with force and depth), without attempting to explain what the Bible has left in-
definite and unknown.

Obs. 6. As if purposely to guard us against the error which is so largely

prevalent, the phrase ‘‘ Son of God ”’ is not employed in direct connection
with the Kingdom of heaven to be set up on earth. Indeed, our argument
thus far indicates that such a declaration, as‘e.g. that the Kingdom is
given to Jesus in view of His being the Son of God, would be uéterly op-
posed to the Abrahamic-Davidic covenant, for it would virtually then be
saying that God gives the Kingdom to God, phraseology so hostile to pro-
priety that the Spirit avoids it (comp. Props. 82, 83, 84). The corre-
562 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 80.

spondence thus happily maintained between the requirements of the cove-

nant (and that which is inherent with God) and the language of the New
Test., is one of those indirect, but really powerful, proofs of the inspiration
of the Word. The student is directed to a few peculiarities connected with
this phrase. It is used, for instance, to denote the power, divine or mirac-
ulous, which was lodged in Him because of His relationship with the
Father, as in Matt. 4:3, and 8:29, and 14:33; Mark 3:11, and 5:7;
Luke 4:41; Jno. 10:36, and 11:4, etc. Jesus Himself clearly makes a
designed ditference between the two phrases, as in Matt. 26:63, 64. The
High Priest uses the one, asking ‘‘ whether Thou be the Christ, the Son
of God?’ Jesus, purposely to identify Himself with the covenants and
the prediction of Daniel, employs in His answer the other, the ‘‘ Son of
Man.’’ The delicate propriety, the beautiful consistency underlying this,
stamps the Record as true and divine. The same is the case in John 1:
49-51 ; for when Nathanael ‘* saith unto Him, Rabbi, Thou art the Son of
God ; Thou art the King of Israel,’’? Jesus, with exquisite tact, silently
acceding to the title thus given to Him, directs his attention to the title
which specifically (see Prop. 81) belongs to Him as the King of Israel by
styling Himself *‘ the Son of Man’’ in the ‘‘ hereafter.’? Uninspired men
could not have kept up such a considerate and wonderful unity. This is
preserved even in cases where a work (as e.g. the resurrection) is said to be
done by Christ, which human power alone could not perform. Thus in
John 5:25, where it is said that the dead shall hear the voice of the Son
of God, We immediately adds, in order to avoid misapprehension, ‘‘ and
hath given Him authority to execute judgment also; because He is the Son
of Man.’’ Miraculous, creative, divine power is lodged in Him because
He is the Son of God ; but Judgeship, the revelation of Kingship—for He
judges as King—appertains to Him “‘ because He is the Son of Man.”
This change of title, this precise and guarded manner of expressing it, is
sustained by the most weighty reasons. The predicate ‘‘ Son of God’? is
given to show His ability to save, that requisite power is united with the
human, as in Rom. 1:4; Heb. 4:14;1 Jno. 3:8, etc. The predicate
** Son of Man” is bestowed to identify Him as truly coming in the cove-
nanted and Theocratic order.
The tendency of many Theologians is to exalt the divinity of Jesus to the almost total
exclusion of the humanity, just as if the latter had performed its function and was not
destined to remain in the future an important and essential factor in Redemption. So much
is the latter ignored in the absorbing interest attached to the former, that its due rela-
tionship to covenants, to the purposes of salvation, to the Theocratic ordering, and to
the history of the human race, is not observed. How often do we read expressions which
ascribe the Kingdom of promise to ‘‘the Son of God” owing to the divine nature in
Him, and arguments are plentifully adduced to prove that it must be so because of His
Omnipotence, etc., while the real ground of the Kingdom being bestowed upon Him as “ the
Christ” is very differently represented in the covenant and by the prophets, viz. : the rela-
tionship of Jesus lo David as the covenanted seed; a relationship sustained, clevated, made
rich in blessing, fruitful in ‘honor and glory by the union of the divine. It is wrong,
therefore, to estimate the human so lowly in the light of the divine, as almost to set it
aside as if no particular value was to be placed on the same. Reuss (Introd., p. 16, His.
Ch. Theol.), after saying that ‘‘ God has no history,”’ gravely asserts: « Any one who un-
dertakes seriously, and without playing on words, to write a life of Jesus, by that very
fact, and whatever may be the result of his labors, steps out of the strict enclosure of
orthodoxy.” Reuss forgets that Jesus is the Son of David as well as the Son of God, and
that while the divine element, abstractly considered, cannot be. limited by history, the
Divine-human, the Christ, properly estimated from the Incarnation, has a history which
must comport with the covenants and prophecies; and that such a history, now and
Prop. 80.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 563

when completed in the age to come, is a vindication of the faithfulness of God, etc. A
history, if now necessarily incomplete, is a sequence of covenant and prophecy.

Obs. 7. The Divine has elevated the human, held in conjunction for the
pre ordained Theocratic rule, to the Father’s throne, i.e. ‘‘ the Christ,’’
the Divine-Human united in one Person is ‘* se¢ down with my Father in
HMis throne,’’ and that in virtue of His overcoming. Hence all power is
lodged in Him both in heaven and in earth ; He is exalted at the right
hand of God ; Heis made ‘‘ both Lord and Christ.”” This insures the ulti-
mate fulfilment of the Christship—for the Divine Sovereignty thus linked
by the union of the fulness of the Godhead bodily with the Man Jesus
shows that through “‘ this Man’’ (as Paul calls Him) the Theocratic ar-
rangement in the Davidic line, indicated by His being ‘‘ the Christ,’’ will
be carried out, and that thus God, in and through Him, will reign in the
desired capacity of earthly Ruler over humanity. The present exaltation
of Jesus, the resultant of His being esteemed worthy of the covenanted
Theocratic position, is founded (1) on the Divine Sovereignty pertaining
to Him as Divine ; (2) on the contemplated and determined Theocratic
rule ; (3) on the provisionary measures instituted by and through Him,
mediatory, intercessory, etc.; (4) on the honor and glory that appertains
to Him both in virtue of what He is now, and of what He will yet be
when manifested as ‘‘ the Christ’’ in the covenanted office. Hence while
immeasurably (Eph. 1:21, 22) exalted, as becomes a Theocratic King who
is to rule on earth as God through David’s Son, yet distinguishing as the
Bible does between His inherent Divine Sovereignty as God and the future
manifestation of the God-Man as Theocratic King, He is represented in
the latter capacity as waiting, ‘‘ eapecting till His enemies shall be made
His footstool,’’ ete.
This expectant position of ‘that man, whom God hath ordained to judge the world”’
(Acts 17: 31), will be fully developed as the argument advances. Let it only be said,
that believers rob themselves of much comfort and sustaining hope when only looking at
the Divine they forget the exceeding preciousness contained in the sublime fact that a man,
David's Son, is exalted above all dominion and power, thus unmistakably insuring the ful-
filment of covenanted promises. The surety is thus given that the oath-bound covenant
—which contains the blessings that a sin-cursed world requires-—will inevitably be real-
ized in every particular. The Davidic line, in which the Theocratic ordering runs, thus
exalted in the Person of the promised seed, is a pledge given that “‘ the sure mercies of David”
will be abundantly verified at the time appointed by the Father. It is well too in this
discussion to keep constantly in view that ‘the Christ,’’ in His exaltation, at present
sustains to us the relationship of Mediator, Intercessor, and Advocate. Mercy and forbear-
ance are characteristic of His waiting and expecting pusition now ; mercy and wrath of His
Sec. Coming. ‘ ’ ”
In Rev. 3: 21, Jesus is represented as in His Father’s throne. This in ‘the Christ”
results from virtue of the acceptance of His sacrificial work, His dignity as the intended
Theocratic King, and the union of the Divine with him. But while thus exalted, the
special manifestation of the humanity in its own right as Theocratic, is reserved (for rea-
sons that will hereafter appear) forthe future. This is manifest even in the passage
itself where two thrones are spoken of, viz.: His own throne—His by covenanted legal
right as ‘‘the Man ordained,’ and His Father’s throne, His also because of His Divine re-
lationship. Attention is directed to this, in order that a due discrimination may be
made between what pertains to the general Sovereignty of the third heaven, and what
relates to the special Theocratic rule here on earth, and which alone is exhibited in and
through ‘‘the Man.” Overlooking this, Waggoner (Ref. of Age) makes this reign of
Christ on the throne of the Universe the one that he resigns, 1 Cor. 15: 24. But this cannot
beso, seeing that God ruling as a Theocratic King does not necessitate the relinquishment of
the other (Obs. 3), that Jesus acting as Theocratic King never gives up the oneness with
the Father or the fulness of the Godhead, that the Sovereignty inherent to His Divinity
564 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 80.

ever remains unimpaired, that no honor or power, or exaltation belonging to the Christ
shall ever be diminished. The mistake arises from two things : (1) forgetting that God,
without yielding other rights, etc., can act in the capacity of Theocratic King, and (2)
misapprehending 1 Cor. 15: 24.

Obs. 8. We do not lessen or lower the exaltation or power, or divinity,

or glory of Christ, in thus referring the predictions and promises of the
Kingdom covenanted to David’s Son to an outward manifestation still
future. (Comp. Prop. 203). Instead of detracting from Him, we exalt
Him as high as the Record honors Him, seeing that we accept of its Divine
utterances just as we find them, feeling assured that the literal fulfilment
of the covenant itself in the Theocratic ordering will only the more clearly
vindicate the foundation upon which it rests, viz.: Divine Sovereignty as
exhibited in a special Plan of Redemption realized in all its fulness.
Therefore we gladly receive the declaration that ‘‘ all power in heaven and
on earth is given to Me;’’ that He is above all earthly kings ; that all
things are subject to Him; that He can do all things in behalf of His
people, etc.; but we add to all this, precisely what the Bible adds, that,
aside from His Divine nature, we do not yet see “‘ the Christ’ as “ the
Son of Man’’ openly exercise this power, outwardly manifest this exaltation,
visibly bring all things into subjection, and here on the earth perform all
things that are promised. So far as the Kingdom pertaining to the Son
of David is concerned, some things, and those too relating to the very re-
establishment of it, are held im abeyance (as will be shown), wntil a cer-
tain period has arrived. By this faith, we honor “‘ ¢he Christ ;’’ for in
this way our belief is expressed that He will yet fulfil the precious cove-
nants and the predictions of the prophets, just as they read ; we evince
our confidence that He is worthy, as David’s Son, to receive what is
directly promised to Him, and to which He is entitled, His inheritance,
throne and Kingdom ; we express our trust that He, thus reigning in a
special and triumphant Theocratic manner, will perfect Redemption, not
from a part but from the whole of the curse ; we glorify Him in exhibiting
His own faithfulness in Salvation, crowned as it will be dy His promised
Theocratic rule as ‘‘the Christ,’? showing forth the union of the human
with the divine in the most conspicuous, honorable manner here on earth
(comp. Props. 200, 201, and 204).
Prop. 81.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 565

Proposition 81. Zhis Kingdom, thus covenanted, belongs to

Jesus as “the Son of Man.”
The Kingdom is primarily and exclusively (i. e. by covenant and
prophecy) promised to the Son of David, although intimations are
given (as e.g. in David’s Son and David’s Lord, and also in the
perfect Theocracy instituted, etc.) that the Divine shall be united
with that Son. We have only to refer to the Davidic Covenant
where this 2s distinctly announced. Upon this Covenant is based
the promise, repeated by the prophets, that the descendant of
David should reign ; and from the same, and its relation to human-
ity, arises the distinctive title ‘‘ Son of Man.” The kingdom,
therefore, is pointedly in harmony with covenant and promise,
predicted as bestowed upon ‘‘ the Son of Man,’ as e.g. Dan. 7:
13. Hence, too, when Peter preaches his first sermon (Acts 2 : 30)
he in the same strain declares ‘‘ that God had sworn with an oath
to him (i.e. David), that of the fruit of his loins, according to
the flesh, He would raise up Christ fo sit on his throne.”’
Obs. 1. It is not our purpose to enter into a detailed account of the doc-
trine pertaining to the divine and human natures in Christ. Able writers
(as Neander, Lange, Dorner, Hengstenberg, etc.) have done this, showing
that both are necessary to constitute the Saviour, ‘‘ the Christ.’? The In-
finite and the Finite, the God and the Man, the Absolute and the Relative,
are united in this the most astonishing of all unions. We dare not sepa-
rate what God has joined, and we declare, (1) that such a union is perpet-
ual, and (2) that its foundation—overlooked by many writers—is in the
Theocratic Plan as purposed (comp. Prop. 199). But while this is so, our
argument, in accord with the expressed Divine Purpose, makes much of
the human nature and the important part it 1s yet to take in Redemption.
This union of the divine and human has been the battle-field between faith and
false philosophy, revelation and proudreason. This great truth, one of the most profound
and essential, has been, for the last years, the centre of strife between its foes and its
friends. Work after work levelled against the divine in Christ has been issued and
hailed with delight by unbelievers, while believers have sent forth an equal number in de-
fence of the same. Butin this contest, while the divine and human are both acknowl-
edged by the Christian party, it must be sadly confessed that, in the effort to exalt the
divine, too little stress has been laid on the human. It seems to be taken for granted, that
the human, having accomplished its mission on the cross, is swallowed up in the divine;
that its sole work is finished, and that it was no longer necessary to continue and carry out
the Plan of the Divine economy. Now contrary to all this, the early church faith, while
conjoining the divine with the human and making the former the supporter and ennobler
of the latter, insists upon the human maintaining its distinctive and enduring relationship in
the Christship of Jesus. It is to be lamented that able works written in defence of the Di-
vinity of Jesus entirely overlook the strong argument derived in favor of the same by the rela-
tionship that the Humanity of Jesus sustains to the Theocratic order, A Theocratic King,
566
« THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 81.

if ruling as covenanted, must be both Man and God. While we may not run to the ex-
treme of Robertson (Frederick, as quoted by Cobbe in Darwinism in Morals), saying ‘‘ only
a human God and none other must be adored by man,”’ yet it is true that the incorpora-
tion of the Davidic line into the Theocratic order contemplates the manifestation of God
in and through humanity as found in the predicted Son of David, so that he who beholds this
Son sees the Father also,and this owing to the Theocratic position and relationship of
the same. Hence justice to “ the Christ,” in any life of His, ought to show the requisite
union of the Divine and Human in the Theocratic Plan, and, therefore, lay great stress
upon the coming revelation of these essential factors.

Obs. 2. Various reasons are assigned by theologians for the use of this
phrase ‘‘ the Son of Man,’’ a favorite with Jesus, such as its reference to
the incarnation, to His relationship with man, to His being the predicted
man, to his special peculiarity of personality, to His humiliation, con-
descension, and lowliness, to His being the ideal or representative man,
etc. Now whatever of truth may be attached to any of these, the true
reason for its usage appears to be the following : zt is the peculiar, distine-
tive, predicted name of the Messiah given to Him in virtue of His covenanted
relationship to the Kingdom. 'This is clearly seen,(1) by the covenant
designating the Man, pre-eminently, of the seed of David to whom the
Kingdom rightfully belongs ; (2) by the fact that the Kingdom is prom-
ised fo such an one in the way of identification and realization by David
and others, and hence is, and properly must be, adopted by Jesus ; (3) by
the invariable linking of the name with the reception of the Kingdom by
Jesus Himself, as e.g. Matt. 25:31-34; Matt. 16:27, 28, etc.; (4) by
the remarkable—but too much overlooked—scriptural fact, that the
Kingdom, when specifically promised, 7s always promised to the humanity
of Jesus, i.e. to Him as ‘‘ the Son of Man,’’ and not to His Divine nature,
i.e. to Him as ‘‘ the Son of God.’’ This naturally results from the covenant
specifying Him as the Son of David to whom alone the Kingdom is prom-
ised. Of course, as the Kingdom is also God’s, being a Theocracy, the
Divine is united with this inheriting, but for the purpose of identification
and consistency with solemn covenant declarations, Jesus selects the very
title which accords with both covenant and prophecy, and which most
directly indicates His covenant connection with the Kingdom itself. The
reader is only reminded that it is so far sweeping in its range that it also
embraces, aside from the distinctive reference to the seedship of Abraham
and David (indicative of covenanted relationship to the Kingdom), a
second headship of the human family in the person of a Second Adam,
made such by the Redemptive process.
This interesting subject urges us to say something more respecting the opinions that
are usually entertained concerning the phrase. These are far from being satisfactory,
seeing that they do not meet the reauirements of its usage and the connection it sus-
tains to covenant and prediction. Thus e.g. to say (1) as Oosterzee (Ch. Dog., vol. 2, p.
528), that ** the name Son of man”’ is a‘ figurative indication of the Messianic dignity,’’
seeing that it is a real indication of the same, i.e. a real coming vf such an one, based
on the covenant with David. (2) That the name simply denotes the human nature of
Christ is not sufficient, because it was not necessary to assume such a title to prove that
He had a human body, but it was requisite to identify Him as the specific Man intended
by the covenant. Dr. Campbell (Diss. on the Gospels) remarks, that the phrase meant
that the Messiah ** would be human, not an angelical, or any other being; for in the
Oriental idiom, Son of Man and man are equivalent.’’ This is only part of the truth ;
He was indeed human, a man, but He assumed the title because the covena.1t demands a
man derived from the lineage of David, and this man promised is already designated
by David (Ps. 80 : 17), and by Daniel (7 : 13), hence if Jesus is indeed the predicted prom-
ised One, it becomes Him to assume the name previously given to Him to distinguish
Prop. 81.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 567

Him as the intended One from all other men. (3) Fairbairn indorses Campbell’s view,
but thinks that to it should be added the idea of «a Divine Man, as it was in ‘‘ the Son of
man’’ that God was to appear to raise up man from his fallen condition, etc. Now
while rejoicing in the divinity of the Man Jesus, and regarding it as a grand essential in
the work of Redemption, yet planting ourselves firmly on the covenant and the develop-
ment of it as presented by the prophets, it will be found that the phrase is not used to
designate the divine nature of Christ, but His descent from David and His being the des-
ignated, pre-ordained One to whom the Kingdom, by virtue of such descent, rightfully
belongs. It is freely admitted that with it can be associated other things, as His rela-
tionship to man and even to God, but logically the ground of the title lies in the covenant.
(4) Some tell us that the name is to be taken in a typical sense ; but that no type is in-
tended is evident from the terms of the covenant, the birth of Jesus, the direct applica-
tion of the name, and the future continued reception of the title. It indicates at His
birth, in His life, at His Second Coming, a particular Man, i.e. the Son of David to whom
the Kingdom is promised. (5) Others inform us that the name was ‘‘ a mere periphrasis
of the personal pronoun,’’ but this is disproved by the use made of it by Stephen (Acts
7 : 56), by Daniel, David, and Jesus Himself. (6) Some declare that the name is only
applied to a temporary humiliation, but that this is erroneous follows from His retaining
the title in connection with His glorified and Kingly state (as seen e.g. Matt. 25 : 31;
Mark 13 :.26, etc.). In this connection the strange utterance of Oosterzee (Theol. N.
Test., p. 75) may be quoted : “ It (i.e. Son of Man) is nothing else than the allegorical
designation of the Messiah in His lowly appearance on earth, derived from the vision of
the prophet Daniel 7 : 13, 14.’’ Having sufficiently answered this unauthorized interpre-
tation, it may be well to add, that Daniel, in the passage designated, does not speak of
humiliation, but of exaltation, and with the period of Christ s highest glory the title is associ-
ated as various Scriptures testify. (7) Others merely find that it was assumed to iden-
tify Him as the predicted One, regarding it as an accommodation. But it is more than
this: a@ permanent reality, and ever remaining such, as the Divine Purpose indicates in
Christ’s greatest exaltation. (8) We are gravely told by one writer that the title was
chosen as the lowest to manifest His humility, and to prevent His disciples from being
overawed by His majesty. This, in view of the continued use of the title at the Sec.
Advent, etc., presents an exceeding low estimate of the name and its preciousness. (9)
A favorite notion prevails that it was significant of His being ‘‘ the model man,”’ ‘‘ the
representative man,’’ ‘‘ the ideal of humanity,’’ etc. Whatever of truth there may be in
the abstract in such representations, they are too one-sided to embrace its full meaning
and entirely overlook its covenanted relationship to the Kingdom. Various other mean-
ings, differing but slightly from those given, are presented by authors, and we may con-
clude by saying, that while the name embraces in its comprehensive meaning allusions
to the Incarnation, the Messiahship, the covenanted relationship, and an affinity to
humanity as the Second Adam, yet, in virtue of His being the covenanted Man or Son
of David, its meaning reaches far beyond the present into the future, indicating the
future conjoining and manifestation of the covenanted Son of Man and His Kingdom.
These two are inseparable, and the one suggests the other. Hence it is incorrect to
say, aS an eminent writer does, that we are not to ** seek the explanation of this name
in any views bearing on the future.” To confine the name to His First Advent or to this
dispensation, is to limit it within unauthorized bounds, for Jesus repeatedly shows that this
name stands allied with, and most intimately related to, His final Advent and the revelation
of Ilis Kingdom. Van Oosterzee, in his Art. ‘‘ The Son of Man” (Princeton Review, July,
1878), accurately says, what we also must not overlook, that the very assumption of this
name, whatever the intention, evidences—-as no other man assumed it as a significant
title--that “ He was conscious of being originally and essentially different from man, and
infinitely more.’’ Thisis true, but to it we must add, that Omniscience gave Him this very
title in the covenanted lineand Theocratic Purpose, seeing that in Him, as David’s Son, God
—the Divine—would thus draw nigh toman in man. Fausset (Com. Ezek. 2 : 1 and Dan.
7 : 18) says, the ‘‘ title, as applied to the Messiah, implies at once His lowliness and His
exaltation in His manifestations as the Representative Man at His First and Sec. Comings
respectively.’’ Whatever of truth in this, it does not sufficiently express the covenanted
and predicted Theocratic relationship. (Comp. Dr. Schaff’s ‘ Hxcursus on the Meaning
of the Title ‘ The Son of Man’ ” in Lange’s Com. John, p. 98 ; much of which we can in-
corporate with our view.)

Obs. 3. The manner in which Jesus employs this name is strongly

corroborative and enforcive of our line of argument. In the use of
 568 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 81.

it Jesus speaks of Himself as of a third person instead of employ-

ing the pronominal or customary personal application. Writers say
that this is a more intensive, dignified, majestic form of speaking, but
Judge Jones (Notes on Matt. 16:27) comes the nearest to the truth
when he writes : ‘‘ Our God uses this form of designation as a titular dis-
tinction to denote His relation to this world as its Sovereign or Lord”’
—to which is to be added, in order to bring out the whole truth, that the
‘same is founded on His covenanted relationship as the Son of David to
whom David’s throne and Kingdom (i.e. the Theocracy), and through
the latter a world-dominion, is promised. It embraces then in its mean-
ing the personal King to whom the Kingdom belongs, the perfected Re-
deemer and perfected Redemption through Him in accordance with cove-
nanted promises, the exaltation of humanity and its intimate union with
the Divine as intimated in the covenants, and, therefore, is a name that
will never be laid aside, but continues forever perpetuated as most signifi-
cant, descriptive, and real. For, in alliance with it is derived, as God has
sworn, the salvation of mankind, not in prospect or in progress but com-
pleted, and, hence appropriately, the name. is not merely applied to the
incarnate Jesus but to the glorified Christ. If this were not so, a serious
defect, vitiating our entire argument, would be found, but with it unity
and an essential factor is astonishingly preserved.
With some surprise, we find even Renan (Life of Jesus, p. 144, who notices that the
title ‘‘Son of Man’’ occurs eighty-four times in the Gospels, and always in the dis-
courses of Jesus) saying: “ But He is never thus addressed, doubtless because the
name in question could be more fully accorded to Him only at the period of His Sec. Coming.”
This is true, for applicable as the name was to Jesus at His First Advent, yet it is pre-
eminently so at His Sec. Advent, and the decisive proof is, that He Himself repeatedly
and constantly thus refers it, making the future coming in power and glory in the estab-
lishment of the Kingdom the emphatic coming of the Son of Man (as e.g. Matt. 16 : 27;
26:64; 25:31; 19:28; Mark 8 :38;13 : 26; Luke 9 : 26; 21:27; John5 :27, etc.).
The covenant promises demand this, and our faith in the covenant is strengthened by
the significant phraseology of Christ. As already intimated, the God ruling in a Theoc-
racy is taken for granted as fundamental to the idea of a Theocracy (hence even the
Jews, as in the case of the high priest, looked for ‘‘the Son of God’’ to come and
reign), therefore the phrase ‘‘ the Son of God” is omitted and the phrase “ the Son of
Man”’ is substituted for the reasons assigned, thus giving us, if we will but receive it,
the idea of God ruling in and through humanity. Dr. Schafft (The Person of Christ), there-
fore, correctly makes the title “‘Son of Man’’ one of elevation, dignity, instead of one of
humiliation (so also Trench on The Parabies, Nevin, and many others). This enables
us also to appreciate the perversion of the title by others, as e.g. that it denoted
(Amner) the Roman Republic, or (Grotius) the Fifth Kingdom, or (Berg) the United
States, etc.

Obs. 4. The most fruitful source of misinterpreting this Kingdom arises

from not discriminating to whom this Kingdom is specially promised.
According to the covenant—and this must necessarily be the basis of a
correct Scriptural representation—it is promised to the Son of David, the
Son of Man. Not noticing this simple fact, leads to grave misapprehen-
sion. Many authors (as e.g. Priest, in Introd. to View of Mill.) assert
that Jesus Christ now reigns in virtue of His Divinity and attributes as
God, and, therefore, we are ¢o expect no other reign. But this ts a con-
founding of things that differ (comp. Props. 79, 80). No one refuses to
believe in the Sovereignty of God as God, but this is materially different
from a reign which is to be manifested in and through a Son of Man in
a purely Theocratic manner, i.e. God in and through David’s Son conde-
Prop. 81.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 569

scending to act in the capacity of an earthly Ruler, which is the primary

and true meaning of a T'heocratic ordering as once witnessed and as cove-
nanted. This Theocracy is given to this Son of Man (Prop. 83), and the
reign is manifested through ¢he glorified Son of David. Let it be re-
peated : it is not the Divine Sonship that constitutes ‘‘ the Christ’?
(although an essential element). and it is not the Davidic Sonship that
constitutes Him ‘‘ the Messiah’’ (although essentially requisite), but it is
the two inseparably united that makes Him ‘‘ the Christ.’’ Now while this
is so, the covenant and prophecies, in view of the incorporation of the
Davidic line in the contemplated and purposed Theocratic Kingdom, point
out the Man, in and through whom this rule shall be manifested. Thus
we have (1) the Son of Man, as presented by covenant the central figure ;
(2) with this Son of Man is united the Divine to insure a pure and perpet-
ual Theocratic rule ; (3) this reign being Theocratic, and under a mani-
fested Son of Man, is diverse from the general Sovereignty of God ; (4)
that to encourage our faith in the covenanted Theocracy stress is laid on the
future coming and reign of *‘ the Son of Man.”’
It is, therefore, a distinctive title, constantly having a fixed, determined meaning,
and not, as our opponents assert, susceptible of a variable or indefinite meaning. Thus
e.g. Alexander (Com. on Matt. 10 : 23) overlooked this personal title, and pronounces the
expression ‘‘ till the Son of Man be come,” “an indefinite expression meaning some-
times more and sometimes less, but here equivalent to saying, ‘ till the object of your mis-
sion is accomplished.’’’ And in the same comment, he makes it equivalent to ‘‘ the
Kingdom (i.e. the Church) of Messiah finally established.” The simple fact is this:
the phrase ‘‘ Son of Man,’ in its covenanted sense, does not fii into a spiritualistic sys-
tem, and hence arises the various and conflicting senses applied to it, making it to de-
note more or less by way of accommodation. The Pre-Mill. doctrine alone gives it one
determined and continuous meaning, and consistently preserves it throughout. One of
the most repulsive and unscriptural statements, given (Jntrod.) under the plea of ‘‘ the
illuminating power of the Holy Ghost,’’ is Swormstedt’s (The End of the World is Near,
ch. 6,). who, in hisastounding interpretation of Rev. 12, makes (p. 78-9) the man-child to
be the Second Adam born at the time of the marriage of the glorified church, and this
birth consists in the separation of the union of the Divine and human natures! We give his
idea thus: ‘‘ The divine purposes, for which the two natures of God and man were
united in the person of Jesus, viz. : the atonement, and intercession, and the perfecting
the Second Adam, the seed of Abraham, having been accomplished at the moment the
man-child is born, the mysterious union of the human and divine natures existing in the
person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is terminated then, and the glorified spiritual
man, who is the Second Adam, stands forth before the glorified church, separate and dis-
tinct from the Godhead.’’ This is monstrous! evidencing but little knowledge of the Per-
son of a Messiah, the Theocratic idea, the Second Adamship, the perpetuity of the
Christ and of His Divine glory, the unchangeableness of Jesus. It is derogatory and
dishonoring.

Obs. 5. The Theocracy is promised to this Son of Man, and this teaches
us to anticipate two things. (1) The Theocracy is @ visible, outward
Kingdom. Now indeed overthrown, but its restoration promised under
this ‘Son of Man,”’ and so openly, so visibly that all flesh shall realize and
acknowledge it. It is predicated of this Son of Man, that at His. Sec.
Coming, He shall, through the power committed unto Him, overthrow
His enemies and firmly re-establish the downfallen Theocratic Kingdom,
and exhibit in an outward rule, an external organized form, the full reali-
zation of the Theocratic idea. (2) The very phrase ‘‘ the Son of Man”
implies and necessitates the visibility of His Coming and reign ; to spirit-
ualize it away destroys doth its covenanted force and the fulfilment of cove-
nant promise. Luther on this name, in his Dis. on Luke 21 : 25-27, re-
 570 THE THEOCRATIOC KINGDOM. [PRop. 81.

marks: ‘‘ But, as He says, it is ‘The Son of Man’ whom they shall see,
it is clearly expressed that it is a@ bodily coming and a bodily seeing, in a
bodily form, though it shall be in great power,’’ etc. Luther is correct,
for unless the Son of David comes thus to reign (glorified as to humanity),
the covenant cannot be fulfilled, and the Theocracy cannot be established
(comp. Props. 121 and 122).
A number of interesting features connected as results from the Kingdom being that
of ‘* the Son of Man,”’ must be left for future consideration, such as the decided indi-
cation of a personal reign, as the early churches held, the suitableness and grandeur of
the view that the Son of Man should in His glorified humanity exhibit His promised
sovereignty in the very place where He lived in humiliation, suffered, and died, the ele-
vation of humanity in and through Him, etc. Some of the views held on this point pre-
sent asad commentary of human infirmity, which thinks to improve covenanted and
oath-bound language by spiritualizing it, making it to mean something very different
from the expressed grammatical sense.

Obs. 6. ‘The Son of Man’’ is fully identified with the re-establishment

of the Davidic throne and Kingdom by covenantand promise. In view of
this, therefore, it was eminently proper for Jesus to employ this phrase in
the manner recorded. If the reader turns to Psl. 80, he will find David
referring to the elect Jewish nation brought out of Egypt, with whom
God is angry so that it is overthrown and placed in the hands of the
heathen. Imploring the Divine interposition and recalling the cove-
nanted promises, he prays with faith and hope in the future restoration of
the nation: “‘ Let Thy hand be upon the Man of Thy right hand, upon
the Son of Man whom Thou madest strong for Thyself.’
To indicate how this idea of “‘ the Son of man” was held by the Jews, we quote the
following from the ‘‘ Parables of Enoch,” c. 46 : 1, 2: ‘* And then I saw one who had a
head of days (i.e. was old, the Ancient of Days), and His head was white as wool, and
with Him was another whose face was like the appearance of a man ; full of agreeable-
ness was his face like that of the holy angels. And i asked one of the angels who went
with me, who showed me all the secret things concerning the Son of man, who He was,
and whence He was, and why He came with that head of days. And he answered and
said to me, This is the Son of man who has righteousness, with whom righteousness
dwells, and who will reveal all the treasures of secrecy, because the Lord of Spirits (God)
has chosen Him. . . . And this Son of man, whom thou hast seen, will arouse the
kings and the mighty from their couches and the powerful from their thrones, and will
loosen the bonds of the mighty and break the teeth of sinners.’’ He is also called “ the
Chosen One,’’ the ‘‘ Just One,’’ and the “ Anointed.” In ch. 48 : 3, a pre-existence of
the Messiah is asserted, and in ch. 2 : 7, it is said : “‘ For previously the Son of man was
hidden, and the Most High God preserved Him before His power, and revealed Him to
the chosen ones.’’ As to our application to the Messiah of Ps. 80, compare e.g. Alexan-
der Com. loci, and Acts 5 : 31.

Obs. 7. Hence at the Sec. Advent there must be, in order to fulfil the
oath-bound covenant made with David (viz.: that one “ according to
the flesh’? must be raised up to sit on ¢he restored Theocratic throne), @
real, veritable Sonof David. The humanity, glorified as it may be, can-
not be ignored ; it is an essential factor in the Theocratic ordering.
Therefore the coming of ‘‘ the Christ?’ is represented as the Coming of
“the Son of Man,” i.e. a coming in the very humanity assumed under
covenanted relationship,
Various writers (comp. e.g. Alford, Lillie, Braune (Lange’s Com.), Ger. Ver.,
etc.,
render 2 John 7 ‘‘is coming in the flesh,’’ i.e. is coming in humanity, referring it to the
Sec. Advent, while 1 John 4 : 2 ‘‘ hath come in the flesh” is interpreted of the First Ad-
Prop. 81.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 571

vent. However this may be, the coming of humanity in glory is a result of the first
coming in humiliation ; and the one is just as reasonable and essential as the other. The
Divine Plan requires both to effect the grand consummation. Even some of the apocry-
phal books do not rid themselves of this view. Thus e.g. in the Test. of the Twelve Patri-
archs (Sec. Cent.), the reign 1s attached to the humanity without discarding the Divine :
“The Lord God, the Mighty One of Israel, shall appear upon earth as man.”’ The
book of Enoch also employs the phrase ‘‘Son of Man.” Martensen, Oosterzee, and many
others have properly insisted upon the fact that the individuality of Christ must be so main-
tained that ‘‘ even a glorified individuality, a spiritual body, cannot be conceived of,
without limitations,” otherwise “ we are in danger of that error, which has so often ap-
peared among mystics and Theosophists, which loses sight of a personal Christ in the
general life of the Godhead ; of the Christ of grace and salvation, in a pantheistic Christ
of nature’ (so Martensen). But if we were to assign a firm reason for such a view, it is
found in the simple fact that covenant and prophecy, indicative of God’s purpose, in
their still future fulfilment imperatively demand it.

Obs. 8. 'The critical reader will not fail to notice that the Incarnation is
a covenanted necessity, and that it forms a fundamental part of our system
of faith ; for without it the fulfilment of covenant promises would be im-
possible.
This doctrine, therefore, enforces the view of Dr. Dorner and others, of the neces-
sity of the Incarnation, even apart from the fall. This we derive from the Theocratic or-
dering, by which the purest and firmest rule, theocratically, can be inaugurated and
permanently secured. Again : while many systems make the Incarnation a central point
in Theology, they either apply it mystically (as e.g. a present assimilating of the man into
the Divine, as the Divine took upon itself man’s nature and transformed it, etc.), or else
they virtually end its career as a still working factor in the Plan of Redemption from
the death on the cross, or have it so overshadowed and absorbed by Deity that in the
future it presents no special prominence as a leading characteristic of the Kingdom.
Firmly holding to the covenant, and the promises based thereupon, many views, exten-
sively prevailing and imbedded in the faith of multitudes, must be discarded as both de-
rogatory to ‘‘ the Christ’’ in His future manifestation as *‘ the Son of Man,’’ and to the
oath-confirmed covenant of God that positively requires this revelation of the Humanity of
the King. It is not only Schwenkfeld (Kurtz’s Ch. His., vol. 2, p. 155) that has the
‘*human nature absorbed by the divine,’’ but many have the same in a kind of pious
mystical Pantheism, by which they think to exalt the Divine at the expense of the
human, urged to it by the old, old gnostic feeling respecting matter. The Incarnation,
so necessary and exceedingly precious, introduces us to the personality of ‘‘ the Christ,”’
as promised ; it is provisional for the contemplated end. On the other hand, the
“¢Turneyites’’ (The Ch. Lamp) hold that Jesus is not a true descendant of David's, not
truly of his lineage, being ‘‘ of the seed of David” but not ‘‘the seed of David,”’
hence not truly David’s son, but only David’s Lord. Now this is flatly opposed to the
Davidie covenant, for he was not merely a man, separate and distinct, but he was to pro-
ceed from the loins of David, according to the flesh (supernaturally as Isaac}, and hence is
constantly and invariably recognized as David’s Son. Again, Fiske (The Christ of Dogma,
p. 125 of the Unseen World), without a particle of proof, and over against express usage
(John 1:51; 3:18; 4:27; 13: 31, etc.), asserts, that in the Gospel of John, “ the
title Son of Man has lost its original significance, and becomes synonymous with ‘ Son
of God.’’’ He makes a number of similar unfounded remarks, indicative of a desire to
find flaws when they do not exist. Unbelief parades, with evident relish, the ideas of
incarnation as presented in some mythologies, in order, if possible, to weaken the
Christian idea, but we accept of the same as expressing a need and longing of human-
ity, viz. : that God should manifest Himself to man in a form indicative of union and
accessibility. Neander (Life of Christ, 2 : 12) makes some remarks in this direction,
showing that these “ cravings of the spirit” express the ‘“‘ wish, even though uncon-
scious, to secure that union with God which alone can renew human nature, and which
Christianity shows us is a living reaJity’’ (com. Dorner on the Person of Christ). The
Ch. Incarnation is not an isolated fact, but results from a regular, revealed Divine Plan,
as will hereafter be shown.
5'72 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 82.

Proposition 82. This Kingdom is a complete restoration in th

person of the Second Adam or Man, of the dominion lost by
the Lirst Adam or Man.
The reign of Christ as ‘‘ the Son of Man’ points us back to the
fall in which humanity was so sadly involved, and then forward to
the period when humanity, through this manifestation of this Son
of Man, is fully restored to the blessings forfeited by the fall.
Among these blessings a right royal one is grounded in the de-
veloping Plan of Redemption, by which man shall again be
restored to the dignity of dominion through Him, who by virtue of
His relationship to the human in the covenanted line, has obtained
the forfeited right originally granted to man, and which, as King
on David’s throne, will be most gloriously exerted, being sublimely
and irresistibly aided by the Divine united with Him.
Obs. 1. What the dominion forfeited by sin was to be, is clearly an-
nounced, e.g. by the Psalmist and Paul. We leave others inform us of its
meaning and extent. Thus e.g. Barnes (Com. Hed. 2:6) says it consti-
tuted man ‘‘ Lord of all things,’’ that “all things were placed under the
control and jurisdiction of man,’’ that ‘‘ all things were subject to Him and
all obeyed. Man was made a little lower than the angels, and was the
undisputed Lord of the lower world,’’ etc. Kurtz (Sac. His., p. 39),
states, that ‘“‘ he (man) is appointed to have dominion over nature, as the
representative of God, and to conduct it to its highest development.’’
‘‘ The powers of man were intended, agreeably to the divine appointment,
to be engaged in exercising dominion over all the earth.’’ So also (Secs. 9
and 11, ** Bible and Astron.,’’ His. of Old Cov.) he was to be ‘‘ ruler of
all creation, of its varied forces and creatures.’’ ‘‘ The commencement
was to lead to the goal, man’s dominion over the whole earth.’? Hodge
(Sys. Div., vol. 2, p. 102) says: ‘‘ God constituted him (man) ruler over
the earth. He placed, as the Psalmist said, all things under his feet.’’
‘‘ It was therefore as a ruler that he wore God’s image, or represented
Him on earth.’”? ‘It was therefore an absolutely universal dominion, so
far as creatures are concerned, with which man was invested.’’? (Comp.
Commentaries on Heb. 2:6, 7; Psl. 8:5-8.) These writers then tell us
that, as the Scriptures affirm, this dominion was, in a great measure, lost,
and that man, shorn of his power, could no longer act as the representative
of God.
Such testimony, as the student well knows, could be endlessly multiplied, seeing that
on this point there isa uniform teaching running from the Apostolic Fathers down,
through the Reformers, to the present time. But alas! while fully admitting the fact,
thousands are utterly unprepared to receive the logical result which Redemption in its re-
storative process introduces as the goal intended. Consistency requires, that if we believe
in perfect Kedemption, then we also must accept of the legitimate result following as indicated
Prop. 82.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 573

in these pages, viz. : an actual, real restoration of the dominion forfeited, through the Mes-
siah, and nol some other dominion in the third heaven or universe substituted in its
place. The forfeiture and the restoration must, logically and Scripturally, refer to the
same. Weappend the pertinent statements of a recent writer, as illustrative of much
that might be quoted. Fairbairn (7ypology, vol. 1, p. 308-9) says : ‘‘ Man’s original in-
heritance was a lordship or dominion, stretching over the whole earth.” .. .
““ When he fell, he fell from his dominion,’’. . . ‘‘ the inheritance departed from
him ; he was driven from Paradise, the throne and palace of his Kingdom.’’ And then
follows a vivid portrayal of how ‘‘ Satan was permitted to euter and extend his usurped
sway over the domain, from which man has been expelled as its proper lord,’’ ete.
But then he vitiates his own concessions by making, in various places, the promises of
a restoration to this forfeited dominion typical of something else. Multitudes make it
equivalent to a reign in the third heaven, and religious literature is full of such erro-
neous conclusions.

Obs. 2. In the next place, all Christian writers on the subject inform
us that this dominion is restored to man again through Jesus Christ, the
second Adam. But, with the exception of Millenarian writers, they some-
how confine it to Jesus in His Divine Sovereignty, overlooking what they
themselves assert respecting its being given to the Man Jesus, and ignoring
the fact taught that this dominion 7s relegated from and through Him to
His brethren (the co-heirs). Such spiritualize the dominion, and do not
allow its ultimate realization in the very place where it was forfeited, i.e.
they refuse to believe in man’s restored dominion over the earth, and make
thus an imperfect Redemption. We hold that, as Scripture plainly teaches,
this dominion is restored through the Son of Man ; that those who inherit
with Him share in its exercise ; that it is manifested here on earth (being
a forfeited dominion pertaining only to the earth); and that thus com-
pleted Redemption is experienced.
To illustrate how writers, in no doctrinal sympathy with us, insist upon the restora-
tion of this dominion in Jesus as man, we quote Barnes (Com. Heb. 2 : 6, comp. Stuart’s
Com. on Heb. and Excurs. IX.) : ‘‘ It was not true (v. 8) that all things were subject to
Him, and the complete truth of that declaration would be found only in the jurisdiction
conferred on the Messiah—the man by way of eminence—the incarnate Son of God.’’
After showing that Paul’s argument is based on man’s losing the control or power orig-
inally given, which is restored in Christ, he adds: ‘‘ It is found complete only in the
second man, the Lord from heaven (1 Cor. 15 : 47), the Lord Jesus, to whom this control is
absolutely given.’’ It is true that some endeavor to weaken Paul’s reasoning in favor
of the restoration of this dominion, by making Ps. 8 refer to man in general, and that
Paul employs the language only by way of illustration or accommodation. But to this
we reply : (1) Paul directly applies the Ps. to Christ ; (2) the spirit and intent of the Ps.
contains more than is applicable to man in general ; (3) the apostle teaches us that the
Ps. is not yet fulfilled in the pre-eminent man, saying : ** but now we see not yet all
things put under Him ;” (4) the abundant references in other places of a forfeited do-
minion and the same restored under the Messiah sustains this interpretation; (5) the
incarnation and subsequent exaltation of Christ confirms the delineation thus given ; (6)
the dominion under the whole heaven given at a future period to this man and His as-
sociated saints, shows that Paul, under the Spirit’s guidance, saw a force and depth in
the predictions which alone can be realized in and through the Son of man. Hudson
(Debt. and Grace, p. 6) correctly observes : ‘‘ The passage (in Ps. 8) can only be explained
as a prophecy of Christ. This is required by the true sense of one important word, and
is so understood by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Fairbairn (Typology,
vol. 1. p. 313), after advocating that‘‘ the renovated earth’’ is ‘‘ the ultimate inheritance
of the heirs of salvation,” remarks : “ And of what else can we understand the represen-
tation in the 8th Ps., as interpreted by the pen of inspiration itself, in the Epis. to the
Hebrews, 2 : 5-9, and 1 Cor. 15: 27, 28? These passages in the N. T. put it beycnd a
doubt, that the idea of a perfect and universal dominion, delineated in the Ps. is to be
realized in the world to come, over which Christ, as the head of redeemed humanity, is to
rule, in company with His redeemed people.’’ (So compare Dr. Moll, Lange’s Com.
Heb. p. 54-5.)
574 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 82.

Obs. 3. This dominion, bere on earth, will be exerted by Jesus, the Man,
through the re-establishment of the Theocratic ordering. It is the restored
Theocratic Davidic throne and Kingdom, in its organized and associated
capacity, under the leadership of the covenanted King that constitutes the
leverage for the exertion of this dominion. ‘The saints, made like unto
Christ and associated with Him in His power, largely participate in it, all
nature being brought into subjection tothem. ‘Thus the Scriptures will be
amply fulfilled.

Obs. 4. Hence, while this dominion is even now lodged in the Son of
Man, yet it is held 7m abeyance until the period of its manifestation in and
through this Kingdom. ‘This has already been shown by various consider-
ations, and will appear still more conclusively as we proceed. ‘Therefore
it is erroneous (as a multitude of writers, including Hodge, Barnes, etc.,
just quoted), to say that this dominion was fully attained and realized by
the incarnation and the exaltation of the Son af God. It certainly belongs
to Him ; but we must leave the Scriptures to decide respecting its actual
realization. From the Covenant thus far provisionally fulfilled, the most
glorious portion remaining in a state of abeyance, we can already see that it
1s @ wrong inference to suppose an existing realization when the same is
related with ¢he restored Theocratic Kingdom. So long as the Davidic
tabernacle is in ruins, this dominion cannot and will not be exerted. The
dominion is given to Him as ‘‘ the Son of Man’? (Jno. 5:27; Psl. 8:7;
Heb. 2:6, etc.), and this at a pre-ordained time (next Prop.). He is con-
stituted the absolute Lord over all because He is ‘‘ the Son of Man ;’’ but
this dominion pertaining to Him as the promised seed, related both to
God and man, He did not fully (only on some occasions to indicate His
power), exercise while on earth ; He does not now as ‘‘ the Son of Man’’
put forth the power with which He is invested, for He has not yet been
revealed as the King, the Judge, the Maker of all things new, the Repealer
of the curse—we see not yet all things put under Him, and He is awaiting
the time when His enemies shall be made His footstool. But the period
of time is coming when this will be done, and the dominion, held in re-
straint for purposes of mercy and love, will be exhibited with God-like
power and glory. As the Son of Man, the Second Adam, He becomes the
Lord of the world, but that Lordship is no¢ yet manifested, it remaining
veiled wntil certain preparatory purposes are accomplished and the time
arrives for its blessed appearance through the covenanted Theocratic-
Davidic throne ;—for just as at the First Advent by the Incarnation the
Christ is brought into direct relationship with humanity and from thence
sustains His covenanted position in this particular, so also at the Sec.
Advent by the Incarnation, as continued in ‘‘the Son of Man,” ‘‘ the
Christ,’’ in the inherited throne and Kingdom, is brought into direct
Theocratic relationship with humanity, and from this revealed position
exerts His power in behalf of that humanity with which He rs rdentified.
Man, during the past ages, has sought to recover this dominion unaided and through
his own power, and the Word represents it as a struggling of “ beasts” for sovereignty,
resulting in a mutual rending and destruction. Is this picture true? Let history attest,
with its constant wars, overthrow of states and kingdoms, man being the ‘prey of
man,” bloodshed and slaughter, murder and rebellion, etc. The Scriptures teach us
that this Jesus, appointed for the express purpose, alone can, and will ultimately, re-
store it. In this connection the student will observe that this second headship in Christ
Prop. 82.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 575
restores the human family to its destined but forfeited Theocratic rulership or domin-
ion, and, therefore, to confine this headship simply to relationship to man and salvation
from sin (which it includes), is to leave out a specific and most precious blessing. (Comp.
e.g. Props. 120, 202, 204, and 207.)

Obs. 5. It is only in the Millennial age, when this Theocratic Kingdom is

established, that this forfeited dominion is fully restored. This is evident
from the vivid descriptions, not only of the universal and absolute rule of
Christ, but also of the dominion and glory of the saints. Hence this era
must be preceded by the Coming of ‘‘ the Son of Man’’ (Prop. 119-121).
Such a restored dominion involves, as a matter of course, the personal presence and
rule of the Second Adam here on the earth, where the First Adam would have exerted it.
It teaches us that it is not a dominion exercised in the third heaven, for it is one com-
mitted to man and pertains to this earth. It is not to be sought in this dispensation,
for down to the very end wickedness will abound. It is not to be found in the Church
as at present existing, for down to the Advent the believer himself is under the pressure
of the curse. It is, therefore, future, and associated with ‘‘ the appearing and King-
dom,” and with ‘‘ the world to come.”

Obs. 6. If such an external, outward dominion is lacking in the history

of the earth, then an important restitution is wanting, and we receive an
imperfect Redemption ; with its restoration we obtain an important ele-
ment of perfected Salvation. Writers abundantly admit that this dominion
would have been witnessed here on earth if Adam had not fallen, but some-
how they overlook the fact, that as the Redeemer is given to recover us
from ali the effects of the fall, it must, under the auspices of the restoring
Second Adam, again be witnessed on earth when Redemption is completed.
Simple consistency, the perfection of Redemptive work, the efficiency and
honor of the Redeemer, the ability of God to save and the worthiness of
the Saviour—a// require this restored dominion.
The prevailing view, derived from the Origenistic, limits this dominion to a present
reign of Christ in heaven ; but this, aside from other considerations, vitiates even their
own representations of its original design, viz. : to be ‘‘ representative of God on earth,’’
“*a ruling for God over all the earth,” ‘‘ a dominion exercised over all things, bringing
nature into subjection,” etc. Taking their views of the original grant, none of these
things are witnessed here on the earth ; the Ruler is in heaven, and not on the earth, His
followers are suffering and chastened, His rights as ‘“‘ the Christ’’ are unacknowledged
by multitudes, etc.

Obs. 7. This dominion, promised, predicted and restored, is corrobora-

tive of the Biblical account of man’s noble origin and high destiny, form-
ing quite a contrast to the ignoble theories of recent scientists. And may
we not suggest, that asthe period of this restoration draws near, the
efforts that are so persistently made by able men to degrade the origin of
man to the lowest scale, is not altogether one of chance or fortuitous cir-
cumstances, but to the student and believer have a deeper and more signifi-
cant meaning—being in accordance with the predicted characteristic of
the times just preceding the restitution.
What the Roman Catholic writer, Schlegel (Phil. of IHis., s. 1), says, in opposition to
the idea of man’s low origin, we, in view of the Divine unity of Purpose thus manifested,
can repeat : ‘‘ We may boldly answer, that man, on the contrary, was originally, and by
the very constitution of his being, designed to be the lord of creation, and, though in a
subordinate degree, the legitimate ruler of the earth and the world around him ; the
576 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRoP. 82.

vicegerent of God in nature.” God will not allow sin to triumph in the utter destruc-
tion of this grant, but will evince that grace in Jesus, the Christ, that will secure the
victory in this, as well as in all other, respects. Tholuck (Com. Kom. 5: 12) produces
a Jewish Rabbi, who remarks: ‘‘ The secret of Adam is the secret of the Messiah,’
‘* As the first man was the one that sinned, so shall the Messiah be the one to do sin
away.” (Comp. p. 55, Lange’s Com. Heb.)
PROP. 83.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 577

Prorositron 83. This Kingdom is given to the Son of Man by

God, the Father.
This bestowal of the Kingdom to the Son of Man by the Father,
is clearly and explicitly taught in the covenant. Hence in agree-
ment with it, we have the language of Dan. 7: 13, 14; Isa. 49;
Luke, 22 : 29 and 1: 32, etc. The Divine Sovereignty insures it
unto Him.
Daniel (7 : 14) says that ‘‘there was given unto Him (the Son of man) dominion, and
glory, and a Kingdom, that all people,’’ etc. Luke (1 : 32): ‘‘the Lord God shall give unto
Him the throne of His father David,’ ete. (comp. Ps. 2 and 110, etc.). The Saviour Him-
self seems to refer to this fact in the Parable of the Ten Pounds (Luke 19 : 15), “ that
when he was returned, having received the Kingdom,” etc. It may be added : in view of the
angel announcing that “‘ the Lord God shall give,’’ we have “ the Ancient of Days’’ (in
Dan.) interpreted as the Father (for to make the Son of man and the Ancient of Days the
same is both harsh and inconsistent with the analogy of the Word). Because of the
Theocratic nature of the Kingdom, and the Father bestowing this Kingdom upon the
Son of David, it is sometimes called (Matt. 26 : 29) the ‘‘ Futher’s Kingdom’ (Matt.
13 : 39-43), ‘* the Kingdom of the Father ;” because in this Theocratic ordering the Father and
the Christ are one, both are associated together as in Rev. 11 : 15, and 22 :3 ; because of
the covenanted relationship of Jesus, it is more frequently spoken of as His throne and
Kingdom. The different aspects under which this Kingdom is represented because of
its Theocratic nature—the Divine participating in and enforcing the rule of the human-
ity—already enforces the idea of the perpetuity of the Kingdom (comp. Prop. 159).
While it is difficult to say, on grammatical grounds (so Winer, Olshausen, Com. loci),
that in Tit. 2 : 13 the great God and the Saviour Jesus Christ refer to the same person,
yet it may be said: (1) that if it does (to Jesus), as many maintain (e.g. Beza, Clem.
Alex., Mack, Matthies, Whitby, Bull, Usteri, Olshausen, Wiesinger, Horne, Middleton,
Barnes, Bloomfield, etc.), then is it verified in the Theocratic personage and position of
Jesus, in and through whom the Father is manifested (see Prop. 200). (2) On the
other hand, if it refers to two persons or subjects, the Father and the Son as many
others declare (as Ambrose, Grotius, Wetstein, Heinrichs, De Wette, Channing, etc.),
then there is an evident allusion either to this period when the Father gives this King-
dom to the Son of man, or to the fact that a pure Theocratic ordering requires the in-
timate and enduring association of the Father with the Son in such a rule, so that the
Father is manifested in and through the Son.

Obs. 1. This giving of the Kingdom by the Father to the Son of Man,
shows, what has already been observed, that this Kingdom is something
very different from the general Divine Sovereignty exercised by God. The
Kingdom is an outgrowth from it, and the Divine Sovereignty will be ex-
hibited through it, being constituted in the Theocratic form, which in its
initiatory form was separated in its Rulership by two persons (i.e. God and
David) but is now happily conjoined—making it thus efficacious, irresisti-
ble, and ever-enduring—in one, i.e., ‘* the Christ.”

Obs. 2. This Kingdom is given to the Son of Man at a particular,

definite time. Now without entering into a discussion (see e.g. Prop. 121)
concerning the period of time designated by Daniel, we only, at present,
578 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 83.

remark : (1) that as this Kingdom is wnalterably associated with David's

Son restoring the fallen 'Theocratic-Davidic throne and Kingdom (so both
covenant and promise), and as such a restoration has not yet been experi-
enced, it must, in the very nature of the case, be still in the future ; (2)
that the peculiar phraseology, corroborated by the prophets and applied
by Jesus, wamistakably refers it to the Sec. Advent, which we have already
seen (e.g. Props. 56-68), 1s the designated time for taking the Kingdom.
Down to the present the covenant remains unfulfilled, and the Kingdom
continues postponed until the times of the Gentiles have elapsed. The
investiture, visible, is delayed for wise, and, to us accounted worthy to
reign, glorious purposes. Hence, whatever may be alleged respecting the
Divine nature of Christ, it is an established and plainly seen fact, that the
Seed of David, as such, does not now reign as the covenant requires and the
prophets described (i.e. a reign here on earth in the restored Theocratic
order), but we are assured, both by the oath of God and the provisions
already made, that when the proper time arrives, this will be verified.

Obs. 3. By simply keeping in the line of the covenanted Kingdom which

the Father in the appointed time, still future, will bestow upon the Son of
David, we know how to estimate that vast mass of mystical conceptions
and spiritualistic descriptions given by Origen, Swedenborg, Randolp,
and a host of others, of the predicted Kingdom being now already realized
in some form, or to be experienced immediately after death. 'The King-
dom to exist necessitates, as a primary condition, the restoration of the
Davidie throne and Kingdom, seeing that the Theocratic ordering is bound
up with the same. A Theocracy, without such a restoration, is, as cove-
nant and promise teach, an idle dream.
This serves to throw light on the rendering of Acts 3 : 21, a passage disputed by the
Lutherans and Reformed (Olshausen’s Com., vol. 3, p. 221, and foot-note of K.). The
English version, although condemned by the Form of Concord, is evidently correct, see-
ing that the Kingdom is promised and given to the Son of Manas the Seed of David.
Hence Peter, in strict accord with the facts as existing, represents Jesus as one whom
the heavens receive until the time when He is manifested as King, and not as one who
receives the heavens.

Obs. 4. Because we are told (Heb. 10 : 12), that ‘‘ this man, after he had
offered one sacrifice for sins forever sat down on the right hand of God,”
it is inferred that this exaltation of the human nature embraces the pre-
dicted rulership of the Son of Man. But in this very connection (next
verse), as if to guard us against such an inference, it is added: ‘‘ Hrom
henceforth expecting’’ (Barnes, etc., ‘‘ waiting,’’ ) ‘* till His enemies be
made his footstool.’’ All commentators agree that this overthrow and sub-
jection is still future, and the Scriptures teach in the plainest manner
that it is connected with His Sec. Advent. This, therefore, fully corre-
sponds with our argument, for the passage must be considered and inter-
preted in connection with many others.
Some press the word “‘forever’’ to an extent that would forbid a Second Advent;
others, as Bloomfield, Barnes, etc., connect the phrase ‘‘ forever’? with the sacrifice (i.e.
he never comes again to make a sacrifice) ; the writer has his doubts whether the sense
of the Greek is correctly given, seeing that ‘‘ forever’ does not give the force of the prep-
osition and of a word understood with which the adjective agrees. It is merely sug-
gested, that as Jews were addressed and the subject was the covenant, the word was not
supplied, being understood. Might it not be rendered, to keep up the connection, “ ac-
Prop. 83.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 579
cording to or in conformity to the everlasting covenant,’’ or in something similar, i.e.
to verify this covenant it became necessary, etc. However rendered, one thing is certain :
it cannot conflict with express covenant promises. -

Obs. 5. The Sovereignty of the Father is the foundation, the security,

that David’s Son shall obtain this Kingdom at the allotted time, and,
therefore, this Sovereignty is also represented as giving up into the hands
of this Son of Man all his enemies. Hence, in view of the Oneness of the
Father and Son, one class of passages intimate that the enemies of Christ
are given into His power by the Father, and yet when the work of sub-
duing these enemies is specifically stated and in detail, it is one assigned
to the Son (sustained by His relationship to the Father), because the
Father commits all gudgment and the Judgeship to Christ as the Son of
Man, and Jesus, at His revelation, is described as coming in vengeance, ete.
Therefore it becomes the student to allow doth classes of passages their due
position and weight in the order of procedure,
Waggoner (Ref. of Age, p. 128), confining himself exclusively to the one class of pas-
sages, lays down this caption : ‘‘ The work of subduing His enemies is never in .the
Scriptures ascribed to Christ, but that “ the Father subdues the enemies of Christ and
puts them under His feet.” The simple fact is, that the Father does this in and through
Christ Himself, Christ acting as the agent, and hence Christ is frequently represented in
the Scriptures as the One coming in wrath, in vengeance to perform this work. Wag-
goner is induced to take this position in order to support a singular and favorite theory,
viz. : the one thousand years’ reign in heaven. But for the time he overlooks his own
argument, and makes (p. 134) the following concession : ‘‘ (1) The Father gives them (the
enemies) to the Son. (2) The Son breaks them with a rod of iron and dashes them in pieces ;
which dashing, as has been shown, takes place at His Coming.” But to reconcile this in-
congruity, he resorts to a quibble unworthy of the subject, viz. : that ‘‘there is a great
difference between having His enemies put under Him, and His destroying them.”
Indeed, admitting a difference (in the way we have indicated), how comes it that those
very enemies. instead of being ‘“‘ subdued,” etc., are represented (Rev. 19, etc., comp.
Props. 115, 123, 161, etc.), as arrayed in open hostility to Christ, making war against Him,
and are only brought into subjection, etc., by Christ and His armies. We dare not ignore
the action ascribed to this Son of man at His coming, and what the Father performs
through Him.

Obs. 6. The Kingdom being given by the Father to the Son of Man, we
can, keeping this fact in view, appreciate the fact stated in 1 Cor. 15 : 27,
28, viz: ‘* But when He saith, All things are put under Him, it is mani-
fested that He is excepted, which did put all things under Him,”’ ete.
(Comp. usage of present tense, Prop. 69, Obs. 9). As this point will be
brought up under the perpetuity (Prop. 159) of the Kingdom, it is only
necessary to add, that a Theocracy—in the very nature of the case, as seen
in the form of the Kingdom, in its past history as given, and in the
manner of its future restoration under David’s Son—must ever retain the
position of being subordinate to the Divine Will of the Father. This
Theocratic idea Paul seeks to impress, and this very subordination is es-
sential to our doctrine of the Kingdom, being indicative of a Theocracy
here on earth.
This subordination is manifested in the investiture as described by Daniel ch. 7, and
will be most strikingly exhibited at “the holy mount.’’ The place of public inaugura-
tion by ‘‘ the Ancient of Days’’ will be noticed under Prop. 166.

Obs. 7. Even if (which we do not acknowledge) we should be mistaken

in ascribing Christ’s present reign to the Divine nature (making it identi-
580 | THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 83.
cal with God’s Sovereignty) and not to the human, and which is specially
exercised over the church, and yet not so specifically, outwardly, visibly
(as covenanted), so that the church can now be styled the Promised
Kingdom, it does not by any means follow that Christ as the Son of
Man has not still a future Kingdom to come here on the earth over which
He will reign. Whatever view may be taken of this intermediate state of
Jesus, the covenant predictions relating to the future are too many and
decisive to be set aside. It is proper to state this, since even some Millen-
arians, losing sight of the specific promises of the covenant, and overlooking
to whom this Kingdom is given, viz.: to the Son of Man, also depart from
the Primitive Church view, in so far as to indorse the Popish notion that
Jesus, as Son of Man, now reigns in the covenanted Kingdom over the
church, without however discarding the doctrine of the future visible
throne and Kingdom for which we contend. Believing this to be an error
calculated to embarrass and destroy a proper conception of the Kingdom, to
weaken and obliterate the logical and Scriptural connection existing
between covenant and fulfilment, we therefore, distinguishing between
things that differ, the more strongly cleave ¢o the oath-bound covenant,
and, until we see a fulfilment commenswrate with God’s most solemn
declarations, reject all theories which are presented in place of the King-
dom itself,
Our position simply is this: that before the Kingdom pertaining to David's Son can
possibly be inaugurated there must be a restoration of the fallen Davidic throne and
Kingdom ; that any Sovereignty exercised by Divine right is not the covenanted King-
dom. The position of others is, that in connection with the future reign of Jesus here
on earth, He has also a Kingdom now in the Church. As this theory will be examined
in detail (Props. 89-110), we leave it with the remark : that opposers to Chiliasm some-
times endeavor to bring our doctrine into disrepute by concealing or denying that all
Millenarians concede to Christ a present reigning, the one party as a Divine being (as
God, being One with the Father) and exercising special care over the Church as its Head,
Mediator, Intercessor, and Advocate ; the other party, as the Son of man over the
Church, the lattér being regarded either as a visible or invisible Kingdom, to give place
finally to a new and higher stage at the Sec. Advent. No Millenarian writer ever noticed
by the writer but ascribes to Jesus, in some form, a present reigning—a present exercise
of exalted power.

Obs. 8. The exact time when the Father will give this Kingdom to ‘‘ the
Son of Man’’ is not revealed. Signs are indeed given in the fulfilment of
predictions, etc., by which an approximative (comp. Props. 173 and 174)
knowledge may be gained, but the precise time is reserved by the Father
3 ee exclusively pertaining to Himself, Acts 1:7; Mark 13 : 32;
att. 03
This gives us a clue to the perplexing passage given by Mark (13 :32), that the Son
did not know the day or hour. Now let it be noticed that this Kingdom is given by the
Father to ‘‘ the Son of man” at the Sec. Advent ; hence it follows, (1) that Jesus speaks
of this future period as ‘‘ the Son of man,” i.e. as David’s Son ; (2) that the Father re-
taining the prerogative of bestowing the Kingdom, the time of the Advent connected with
the same is also thus retained as intimately associated with it. Consequently the Divine,
the Father in Christ, could not reveal what exclusively belonged to the Father—what per-
tained to the Divine prerogative—and, therefore, while the descendant of David is in-
separably connected with the Divine, yet the Divine in such a matter (for ‘‘ My Father
is greater than I’’) may deny to the humanity—David’s Son—the precise knowledge of
the day and hour, for the reason assigned. For David’s Son takes the things belonging
to the Father, and shows those that are allowed, the human being subservient to the will
of the Father and to the knowledge imparted. Tillotson, Ser. on Mark 13 : 32, 33,
attributes this not knowing to the human nature of Christ, refering to Luke 2 : 52, etc.,
PRop. 83.] THE THEOORATIC KINGDOM. 581

showing that the human nature did not necessarily, by virtue of its union with the
Divine, know all things, or otherwise he could not, as man, be said to grow in wisdom,
etc. :

Obs. 9. When this Kingdom is given by the Father then will be perfected
the covenanted arrangement concerning ‘‘ the Man,’’ as indicated in 2
Saml. 7:19 and 1 Chron. 17:17 (comp. the Davidic covenant under Prop.
49). Then in a completed sense can it be said, taking Bh. Horsley’s
rendering: ‘‘ And this is the arrangement about the Man, O Lord
Jehovah,’’—‘‘ And Thou hast regarded me (David) in the arrangement
about the Man, that is to be from above, O Lord Jehovah.’’ Therefore it
follows, taking covenant promises for our guide, that this Plan respecting
the Kingdom is made in virtue of the humanity of Christ, His relation-
ship to Man in the Davidic line ; and God the Father will not allow this
Plan to fail, but will in due time exhibit His Theocratic rule in and
through ‘‘ the Man ordained.”
582 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 84.

Propostrion 84. As this Kingdom ts specially given to the Son

of Man as the result of his obedience, sufferings, and death, wt
must be something different from His Divine nature, or from
“ piety,” “religion,” “God’s reign in the heart,” ete.
Our argument all along involves this, for we have (1) the Kingdom
promised to David’s Son ; (2) this promise based on the foretold
affirmations that this Son shall be spotless, without sin ; and (3)
the continued blessedness and perpetuity of the Kingdom asserted
in view of the perfect character of this descendant of David.
Numerous passages declare this; hence, when we come to the
Apostles, they plainly inform us that His exaltation and reception
of dominion is due to His obedience, sufferings, and death. Two
passages alone clearly present this to us, viz.: Heb. 12:2; Phil.
2: 8,9. The latter part of the Proposition follows as a natural
sequence.
We now enter into a detailed statement in following Props., to show that the Church
is not the covenanted and predicted Messianic Kingdom, in any sense whatever. This
is the more requisite, seeing that able Pre-Mill. writers, forsaking the strictly logical and
Scriptural ground, also—with our opponents—make a Kingdom to exist in the heart
(God’s reign), another in the Church, and a third still future which is to come. This is
misleading, and perverts the precise portrayal of the Kingdom as given by covenant and
prophecy. Hence the space devoted to this subject, and the meeting of every possible
objection urged against us. The Christian student, desirous for truth alone, will can-
didly weigh our reasons assigned, and give them proper credit in so far as they are sup-
ported by the Word.

Obs. 1. The first clause of the Proposition is fully admitted by Com-

mentators (as e.g. Barnes, etc.), and by Theologians (as e.g. Knapp, On.
Theol., p. 351 and 355), as ‘* acquired,’’ so that in the language of Knapp,
“* He received it (the government) from His Father as a reward for His
sufferings, and for his faithful performance of the whole work, and dis-
charge of all the offices intrusted to Him by God for the good of man.”
This, of course, corroborates and confirms our previous Propositions re-
specting the Divine Sovereignty of the Father and of the Son, and of the
Kingdom being promised to the human nature of Jesus and not merely to
the Divine. It is matter of surprise to find, after the frank acknowledg-
ment of writers on this point, that many of them subsequently overlook it,
and ascribe this Kingdom solely to the Divine nature. Another thing
must also here be noticed, while it is true that the Kingdom is thus ac-
quired, it is not correct to conclude as e.g. Knapp does: ‘‘ this govern-
ment which Jesus administers, as a man, is not natural to Him, or one
which He attains by birth, but acquired.’? This is opposed to the cove-
nant promises, for it is distinctly announced as a prerequisite that He
must be of the royal line of David. It is the distinctive Son of David to
Prop. 84.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 583

whom this Kingdom belongs by covenanted Divine right. He only confirms

His right and title to it, as the Representative Ruler in such a Theocratic
Kingdom, by the life and death which He manifested. Hence by these
expressions we ought not to be led to reject the claims which Jesus has by
virtue of His birth. This, as seen by previous Propositions, would be a
grave mistake. The Father only confirms His right.
As illustrative of the doctrinal position of multitudes, we quote Reuss (His. Oh. Theol.
of Apos. Age, p. 154), who says : ‘‘ The Kingdom of God, which Jesus desired to make a
reality, commences with His personal appearance on the theatre of the world. His Ad-
vent and the setting up of the Kingdom are one and the same thing, because He is the
Head and cause of the Kingdom, and the cause cannot exist without the effect.”’ Jesus
is also e.g. the Head of the firstborn from the dead, and the Agent of the renewal of the
earth, but the resurrection of the saints and the renewal has not yet transpired. This
reasoning would be conclusive, if it could be proven that there was no postponement of
the Kingdom. As itis, it begs the whole question, for we assert that there is nothing
that our opponents allege concerning Christ’s reign in the heart and Headship over the
Church, which we cannot, and do not, cordially receive, claiming, however, that all this
does not constitute a Kingdom, but is purely a provisional, spiritual, and providential over-
sight and rule tending toward the ultimate realization of the Kingdom itself. We distin-
guish between the means and the end; those who oppose us either blend the two to-
gether, or assume the former to be the latter. In the extract just given, the personality
of the Saviour is made equivalent to the Kingdom’s introduction (so many), and no heed
is given to any Scriptures which restrict it, at least, to succeed an obedience rendered.
Others, to save themselves from this Cifficulty, postpone the setting up of the Kingdom
to His resurrection, or ascension, or to the day of Pentecost, but in their efforts to avoid
one obstacle, plunge themselves even into greater difficulties (as e.g. if the Kingdom is
*“ God’s reign in the heart,” was that postponed until then ?), making it requisite to have
a number of Kingdoms to meet the various contingencies.

Obs. 2. Some of the most eminent writers and commentators not know-
ing how to escape the dilemmas incident to their theory of a present exist-
ing Kingdoin of promise, gravely tell us that this Kingdom is “‘ piety,’’ or
‘‘ religion,’’ or the most favorite phrase (as e.g. Dr. McCosh, and others),
“ God's reign in the heart.’’ We leave them to reconcile a Kingdom of
promise, specially covenanted to the Son of David in the line of his
humanity, and for which He rendered Himself worthy on account of obedi-
ence, with such interpretations as these. If piety, religion, God’s reign in
the heart, etc., is the Messianic Kingdom, we may well ask what need of
such promises of the Kingdom in the Davidic line and why not then date
the Kingdom from Adam down to the present, seeing that ‘‘ piety’’ or
‘* religion,’”’ or ‘‘ God’s reign in the heart,’’ has existed continuously? A
host of questions suggested by our various Propositions indicate the utter
absurdity of such a definition. Piety, religion, etc., are prerequisites to
attain to this Kingdom, and are to exist in the Kingdom itself, but are far
from constituting the Kingdom.

Obs. 3. The tender of the Kingdom to the Jewish nation, its rejection,
postponement, the peculiar style of preaching of the first preachers—all go
to show that ‘‘ piety,’’ etc. existed with a certain portion of the Jews,
without the establishment of the Kingdom. Yet even those who advocate
that Christ’s Kingdom was only inaugurated after His death take this un-
guarded position, just as if these things were not previously exhibited.
Their definition is inconsistent with their own admissions, and fatal to a
distinctive Kingdom given to the Son of Man. It is not necessary to press
this point.
584. THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 84.

An illustration, however, showing the inconsistency may be in place. Many eminent

writers enforce this heart-reigning Kingdom theory (comp. Prop. 110), but when they
come to explain the predictions (e.g. Dan., chs. 2 and 7) relating to this Kingdom they
forget their own theory of a heart-kingdom, and affirm that the prophecies are realized
in a visible, external manner through the establishment of the Ch. Church.

Obs. 4. It may, however, be well to give an illustration of the inconsis-

tency of writers who insist on this Kingship of Christ’s being exercised
before He showed Himself thus worthy to receive it. Aside from many
found in this work which declare that the Kingdom was manifested when
Jesus appeared, lived, etc., (and mainly derived from this ‘‘ piety,’’
““God’s reign in the heart’’ theory), we refer to, in many respects an ad-
mirable writer, Pressense. In his Sermon ‘‘ On Jesus Christ as King,’’ he
has (1) Jesus King even in His humiliation ; (this we admit, but the
Kingship was held in abeyance); (2) Jesus King on the Cross (this we
admit, but hold that His royalty was not manifested); (3) Jesus King ina
signal manner after the resurrection ; and all this to show that His King-
dom was established and manifested continuously from His birth. To all
this, in connection with previous arguments against such a view, we only
now say, how can such a Kingdom ruled over by Jesus during His life and
at the time of His death be reconciled with the Scriptures which speak
of, and the countless admissions of our opponents which advocate, an ac-
quisition of a Kingdom of promise in virtue of His obedient life and
death? Our theory is consistent and requires just such a position in the
Son of David. The Divine Sovereignty only bestows. this acquisition,
and, when given, enforces it, but only in the covenanted Davidic line.
Hence, to refer to the Divine attributes lodged with Jesus (such as His
power over the angels, etc.), and from thence infer that He then exerted
regal power, is evidence that the party making such an inference has no
idea of the Scriptural difference existing between the Divine Sovereignty
and the Kingdom (through which that Sovereignty willbe gloriously dis-
played) distinctively promised to David’s Son.
Obs. 5. This evinces what the covenant, etc., demands, viz.: a Ruler,
who is such in virtue also of His humanity ; and includes, that this Ruler
has shown what no other Theocratic Ruler can do, His perfect adaptability
for the position, i.e. to carry out the Divine Willin government. Keep-
ing in view the goal of Theocratic government and its requirements, we
find in the honorable obedience of Christ the most ample and satisfactory
assurance that in His occupancy of the Davidic throne and Kingdom, He
will indeed be a truthful and stable Representative of God. ‘Therefore
Peter says, 1 Pet. 1 : 21, ete.
In conversation with Rev. Dr. Rodgers on this point, he suggested that one reason
why the sinfulness of the ablest and most highly honored of the Theocratic Kings (as
e.g. David and Solomon) is so plainly recorded in Scripture, arises from the fact that
thus is shown (1) the failure of mere mortals, through infirmity, to sustain the posi-
tion perfectly, and (2) to evidence, by way of contrast through trial, the perfection of
Jesus as Theocratic King.
PRop. 85.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 585

Proposition 85. Neither Abraham, nor his engrafted sced have

as yet inherited the Kingdom: hence the Kingdom must be
something different from “ prety,” “ religion,” and “God's reign
in the heart.”
We have shown that Abraham is to inherit the promises in this
Kingdom (Prop. 49, etc.), and that saints inherit with him (Prop.
62, 63, etc.). The time of inheriting the Kingdom is specified, in
accordance with our argument, e. g., in Matt. 25:34. Therefore
to make ‘‘ piety,’’ etc., the kingdom is an incongruity.
To say that the Patriarchs were in this Kingdom, before the Advent of ‘‘ the Christ,”
is a palpable absurdity ; to infer that they and others are now in it, when it has not ap-
peared in its covenanted form, and when it has been postponed to the Sec. Advent, is
equally unworthy of credence.

Obs. 1. This is virtually to make ‘‘ piety’’ inherit ‘‘ piety.’’? This is a

substitution of the means by which the Kingdom is obtained for the King-
dom itself. The saints with Abraham, the Father of the Faithful, inherit
the Kingdom because they are pious, religious, and acknowledge obedience
to God. The ancient and the Christian believers receive their inheritance
on the same conditions.
Consequently the ‘‘ Plymouth Brethren” position, which would limit ‘‘ the heirs of
the Kingdom’’ to members of the Ch. Church, must be rejected as untenable. The
positive statements of inheriting with the Patriarchs, the necessity of being engrafted
and becoming the children of Abraham in order to inherit, etc., forbid such a ‘limitation.
Besides, such a view perverts the Scriptural idea of the election and its continuation (as pre-
viously presented in detail by us). It must never be overlooked, in order to avoid both
extremes, that ‘‘ heirs’’ are ‘‘ heirs” of the same promise given to the Patriarchs, and that
so long as simply ‘‘ heirs’’ of the salvation and Kingdom included in that promise, they
have not yet inherited. The time of inheritance is specific ; it is determinately located
at the Sec. Advent. To antedate it, or to substitute something else, or to fritter it away
by a process of spiritualizing, or to limit it to modern believers, is to ignore the express,
plain language relating to ‘‘ the inheritance, not of law, but of promise.’’

Obs. 2. With the idea that believers now enjoy the Kingdom in the pres-
ent dispensation, the most unjust reflections and comparisons are institu-
ted derogatory to the ancient worthies. Some of these we have noticed,
but to impress the matter another illustration is given from Reuss (His. of
the Ch. Theol., p. 150), who seems to take it for granted that saints already
have inherited, or are in the enjoyment of the Kingdom of God, to the
disparagement of ancient worthies, thus :—‘“‘ Before time the Kingdom of
God presented itself ¢o the tmagination (/), now it reveals itself in the heart.
Formerly knowledge, reflection, factitious duty conferred the privileges of
the Kingdom ; now it is the heritage of children and the childlike,”’ etc.
A mass of just such irividious representations might readily be presented,
586 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 85.

drawn from various writers utterly unscriptural and dangerous in tendency.

The simple truth is, that they are destructive of the covenant promises, of
the true hope, and of the Kingdom of God itself.
We give another: Beecher, Sermon on ‘‘The Future Life” (Ch. Union, Sept. 5th,
1877), after referring to the apostles being mistaken (comp. Prop. 74) in their notion of
the Sec. Advent of Jesus, then adds: ‘‘ The best Jews had a mistaken notion of the King-
dom of God founded on the old prophets ; but when you look at what was the scope and
teaching of the apostles, I think that you will find that it amounts simply to a knowl-
edge addressed to men’s hearts by the understanding, the intellect, acting through the
ministry of the imagination—if you can get that sentence into your mind. It is an in-
tellectual teaching ; but it is expressed through the imagination,” etc. All that we now
say is this: if Beecher is correct in his degradation of ancient believers, who trusted in
the plain and indubitable gram. sense of the Scriptures, then how miserably (as our his-
tory of the doctrine conclusively proves) those who sat under this intellectual preaching
of the apostles failed to have their ‘‘ imaginations” impressed and exercised. It re-
quired the ‘‘ imagination’’ of Origen or Whitby to bring forth this intended “‘ intellectual
teaching,’’ which tramples on covenant and prediction, and makes men—even school
children—of to-day wiser respecting the Kingdom than John the Baptist and the in-
spired apostles, owing to a continuous inspiration. Alas! what new paths!
Prop. 86.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 587

Proposition 86. The object or design of this dispensation is to

gather out these elect, to whom, as heirs with Abraham and
his seed, Christ, this Kingdom is to be given.
This Proposition is thus presented to recall, at this point of our
discussion, some conclusions previously arrived at. We have
shown (1) Prop. 57, how the kingdom was rejected, (2) Prop. 58,
why it was postponed, (3) Prop. 59, that during this postponement
a seed is raised up unto Abraham, (4) Prop. 63, that this seed,
composing the elect nation, is the one to whom the Kingdom is
given. Therefore, whenever the design of this dispensation is dis-
tinctively referred to, itis to save them that believe, to proclaim
the terms of salvation by which, if observed, men may become
inheritors of Christ’s Kingdom, to gather out such a body of
elect ones.
Obs. 1. It is not necessary, under this heading, to notice two mistakes
by which the affirmation of the Proposition is obscured by error, viz.: (1)
the regarding this dispensation as the final one, and (2) the belief in the
conversion of the world before the Sec. Advent. These will be made, here-
after, the subjects of special remark (as e.g. the first, under Props. 140,
138, 139, 137, etc., and the second, under Props. 175, 121, 122, 152,
153, etc.). |
Obs. 2. If our argument has any logical force, based on the plain gram-
matical sense of covenant, and prophecy, and fact,—if it has any Script-
ural weight in insisting upon a restored Theocratic order under David’s
Son here on the earth where the previous Theocratic rule was inaugurated,
—then the absence of such a Theocracy in the form covenanted, itself is
sufficient to indicate that a dispensation or ordering under the personal
reign of David’s Son is still future, and that the Millennial glory in the
blessedness of nations will only then be realized.

Obs. 3. Our Proposition is, consequently, only formulating, or recall-

ing, the conclusions arrived at under previous ones pertaining to the elec-
tion. It has been shown (1) that there is an elect-people, Prop. 24, ete.;
(2) this elect-people for a certain and fixed time, is discarded, Prop. 59,
etc.; (3) another elect-people is gathered ont, Prop. 61, etc.; (4) the former
election, now held in abeyance, is fully restored, re-engrafted in order to ful-
fil the covenant, Prop. 66, etc.; (5) hence the design of this dispensation,
or ‘‘ times of the Gentiles,’’ in which this continuation of elected ones,
grafted in, is going on, is not to establish the Kingdom but ¢o prepare the
way for the final restoration of that Kingdom to the covenanted people,
Prop. 65, ete.; (6) and that it is by our identification with that people
588 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 86.

that we also inherit with them, Prop. 64, etc. In the very nature of the
case, this dispensation, as its progressive work indicates, can do no more
than prepare the heirs for the Kingdom.
We see in this dispensation only that which unmistakably proves that the covenant will
be fulfilled ; to say that in it the covenant is already realized, is either to ignore or mis-
represent (if not to degrade) the most precious of its promises. As preparative, it is
exceedingly precious ; as bringing present blessings and the prospect of the highest
honor and glory in the future, it is indispensable ; as a link in the chain of Divine pro-
cedure, it is necessary to preserve and perfect a unity of Purpose.

Obs. 4. Our argument regards this dispensation (1) as preparative to the

Kingdom ; (2) as introduced, because of the fall of the Jewish nation, to
raise up a seed unto Abraham ; (3) as elective and not national in the sense
that it gathers out of all nations a people for God ; (4) as extending to all
nations in its offers of mercy, but resulting in no conversion of nations but
of individuals only ; (5) as spiritual in its designs and operations, so that
no introduction of an outward exhibition of God’s Kingdom is to be ex-
pected in it ; (6) as one that will end tn wnbelief and Apostasy, just like
previous dispensations, proving both the continued inherent depravity of
man and the non-erection of the covenanted Kingdom ; (7) as one that is,
therefore, an extraordinary manifestation of Divine grace and forbearance
in Him who knows the end from the beginning ; (8) as one connected with
probation, trial, suffering, chastening, bereavement, etc., and to exalt which
into the position of the Coming one (freed from these evils), is to do vio-
lence to the Word ; (9) as one which, in the establishment and perpetuation
of the Christian Church, stands forth asa constant sign or witness that
God’s purposes do not fail ; (10) and hence, as a standing proof that, how-
ever long delayed, the oath-bound Davidic covenant will be most amply
realized.

Obs. 5. The covenanted relationship is recalled by the phrase, “‘ heirs

with Abraham.’ Having fully shown the necessity of this (Prop. 61,
etc.), the reader may again be reminded how eminent writers, viewing
this dispensation as final, take the position, demanded by their theory,
that the prophecies pertaining to this Kingdom have no relation to Israel
asanation. This is productive of discordant interpretation, unduly ex-
alting the present divine arrangement ¢o the prejudice of the truth. We
are gravely told (e.g. Alexander on Isa. vol. 2, p. 31) that it is not only
an “error” but an “irrational extreme of making Israel as a race the
object of the promises.’’ Leaving former Propositions (such as Props. 24,
31, 33, 49, 51, 52, 63, 68, etc.), to speak for themselves, it may well be
asked : how comes it ¢hat the Theocratic ordering is inseparably connected
with the Jewish nation as such ? How comes it then that all the promises
and threatenings revolve around that Jewish race as a central pivot, which
is still recognized in the N. Test. as indispensable, since into that race we
must be grafted, and to inherit we must be adopted as Abraham’s chil-
dren? Why must we become Jews (i.e. of the seed of Abraham) in order
to enter this Kingdom, if the promises are not given ¢o that nation, and
still pertain to them? Why even in the time of rejection are they so
wonderfully preserved, and why is their restoration so plainly predicted,
unless the promises remain linked with them? Why should the threaten-
ings be carefully given to them and the blessings pertaining to the very
Prop. 86.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 589

same people, be taken from them? Surely it is dJlogical, if not worse, to

appropriate the covenant promises to ourselves, and leave the curses to
the Jews. God has united them and bound them together in an insepa-
rable manner with that people, and seeing the latter so fearfully verified,
enjoins upon us the belief that the former will also yet be realized. The
‘“hope of Israel’’ is our hope ; and such hope is greatly increased by an
intelligent and consistent Scriptural interpretation of the design of this
dispensation.

Obs. 6. Noticing the design of this dispensation and not overloading it

with things that belong to a coming one, Christianity itself, as it exists, is
susceptible of a more easy defence against the attacks of infidelity. Thus
c.g. we can more readily account for its want of success in some ages, its
retrogressions where once predominant, its declines and revivals, its union
with much that must be discarded, etc., for these and other events do not
affect its object, or prevent the carrying out of the design originally in-
tended. Humanly speaking, these may cause a delay, but the delay itself
is an experience of continued mercy and forbearance so that the design
may be completed. On the other hand, bind upon this dispensation ideas
and notions which really belong to the future coming age, and at once—
in view of the Church’s mixed character, the comparative meagre exten-
sion of real piety after eighteen centuries of preaching, the losses Chris-
tianity has sustained in countries where once it existed in all its vigor, the
corruption of doctrine and practice, the virulent controversies and spirit
often exhibited, etc.—a resort must be had to apologetic shifts, mystical
subterfuges, and philosophical glosses wtterly unworthy of a candid and
noble defence. Is there a student who has not been saddened by the
apologies of eminent believers in behalf of the gospel, who, hampered by
a Church-Kingdom theory, feel themselves compelled to excuse and justify
a want of success, etc., when no such special pleading is demanded by the
design God has in view, or by the real facts in the case? God’s plan, and
the time employed by Him, in gathering the elect, requires on our part no
abject vindication.
Additional evidence iv behalf of the Proposition will be found under Props. 87, 88, 89,
etc. The reasons (additional) for the design are given under Props. 124, 142, 118, 120,
etc. Others again are found under Props. 131-139, 140, 169, 154, 158, ete. We have al-
ready laid sufficient stress on Acts 15: 14-16, so that we need not repeat, only saying
that Dr. Brown, in his recent Com. on Acts, entirely omits to recognize the eclecticism in-
dicated by the phrase ‘‘ taking out of them.” As illustrative of doctrinal position, we
append the views of two men. Pressense (The Early Years of Christianity, p. 25) makes
the ‘‘ vocation’’ of the Church to be that of ‘‘ illuminating and vivifying the world ””—
“to purify itself within, and to extend itself without, such is the twofold task of the
Church, and the ages are given for its fulfilment.’’ Here the preconceived idea of the
conversion of the world through the Church suggests the vocation (comp Prop. 175).
Now in contrast, we give Dr. Fausset’s (Com. Dan. 7:11) brief comment: ‘‘ The New
Test. views the present son or age of the world as essentially heathenish, which we
cannot love without forsaking Christ (Rom. 12 : 2; 1 Cor. 1 : 20, and 2 : 6, 8, and 3 : 18,
and 7:31; 2 Cor.4:4; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 2:2; 2 Tim. 4:10;cf. 1 John 2:15, 17).
The object of Christianity is not so much to Christianize the present world as to save
souls out of it, soas not to be condemned with the world (1 Cor. 11 : 32), but to rule
with Him in His Millennium (Matt. 5:5; Luke 12 : 32, and 22 : 28-30; Rom. 5:17; 1
Cor. 6:2; Rev. 1:6, and 2: 26-28, and 3:21 and 20:4). This is our hope; not to
reign in the present world course (1 Cor. 4:8; 2 Cor. 4:18; Phil. 3:20; Heb.
13 : 14). Pressense’s view is inferential ; Fausset’s is directly Scriptural.
590 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 87.

Proposition 87. Lhe postponement of the Kingdom is the key to

the understanding of the meaning of this dispensation.
So important is this fact that before entering into a direct descrip-
tion of the relation that the church sustains to this dispensation
and to the Kingdom, we take the liberty of referring the reader to
what has been proven concerning this postponement, Props. 58-68.
If our position is correct (and we deem it, as the early church did,
impregnable) then it follows, as a matter of course, that many
things now applied by divines ¢o ¢his dispensation have no rela-
tion whatever to it.
The great point overlooked by many theologians is this: that there was a time in
the history of Christ when the proclamation of a Kingdom near at hand totally ceased, as
we have already shown ; yea, not only ceased but gave place to an entirely different tone
of preaching, viz. : the postponement of that Kingdom to the Sec. Advent. This, of course,
materially aids, as our entire argument indicates, in showing why the present ordering is
established and continued to the Sec. Coming. Another feature forgotten is the follow-
ing: that it is impossible to comprehend the Kingdom without going back to the Old
Test. idea of it, which conception once received and entertained prevents an improper
view of the present dispensation. While the Old Test. idea is plain, having been car-
ried out partially in an outward, external Theocratic manifestation, yet men, to evade its
force, contend that it has proven a failure, not keeping in mind (1) that the failure was
not in God’s plan but in man’s depravity, and (2) that God is providing the means, as
predicted, for the ultimate realization of His Purpose, so that there shall be no failure in
the future (comp. e.g. Prop. 201 and 202). If, as Neander and others, it is insisted that
God originally desired such an outward Theocratic Kingdom, but, owing to man’s per-
versity, gave up its prosecution in that form, and so modified His Plan that the present
dispensation alone gives us akind of spiritual Theocratic Kingdom in the Church, then
it follows—(1) that God, starting out with the intention of instituting such a Kingdom,
has been foiled in His own Plan ; (2) that the perverseness of man can change God’s
purposes, although announced under oath (as to certainty) in the Davidie covenant ; (3)
that this dispensation, instituted to overrule that very depravity and insure the future
realization of God's original Plan, which in no shape or form exhibits the previous The-
ocratic idea (as presented in its initiatory form and as given by covenant), must be
viewed as an evidence of God’s changeableness and inability to carry out His own Pur-
pose of government.

Obs. 1. It isa rule, more frequently violated than observed, that for a
correct understanding of Scripture we should pay attention to the particu-
lar dispensation to which portions of it are intended to apply. Volumes,
otherwise containing valuable matter, are vitiated by bringing nearly all
Scripture to be applicable to the present time, or dispensation. The dis-
tinctions made in Holy Writ respecting the promises and blessings are
broken down, and the blessings, en masse, are heaped upon the Gentile
believers. The ‘dispensation of grace to the Gentiles’? (Eph. 3:2) is
fully and completely identified with ‘‘ the dispensation of the fulness of
times’’ (Eph. 1:10), and the result is an interpretation which mingles and
interweayes that which God’s Purpose separates. The definite postpone-
Prop. 87.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 591

ment of the Kingdom, once entertained, preserves us from this free and
plastic moulding of Scripture to suit our own ideas of the fitness of
things.
Just as the Old Test. points us to a future coming Messiah, so also does the New ;
just as the Old directs us to a still future incoming age of Messianic blessedness, so also
does the New. Properly to discriminate is to understand. As God has fully evidenced
the literal fulfilment of the prophecies pertaining to Jesus in the past, and—instead of
abrogating such a continued fulfilment in the future by substituting a spiritual one—
thus urges us to Abrahamic faith respecting the unfulfilled, we receive, with gladness,
this distinctive feature of the New Test. (corroborated by the Old), and unhesitatingly
cleave to itin hope. Men too often interpret Scripture to suit their own ideas of what
is suitable. When the Duke of Somerset (Ch. Theol. and Mod. Skep.) sarcastically refers
to Paul’s allegory : “ After all this confusion of types the allegory fails, as commentators
remark, in the very point which it was adduced to illustrate ; since, according to Script-
ure, the Son of the bondwoman and his posterity were free of the law, whereas Isaac’s
descendants—the children of promise—became the slaves of the law ;” and then in ap-
parent triumphant triumph asks, ‘‘ Are Protestants expected to receive Paul’s allegories
as the Word of God ?’’—we answer, Yes, by receiving Paul's own statement as to the time
of fulfilment ; not locating it in the past or present, but in the glorious future, when all
the children of promise are gathered and inherit.

Obs. 2. Among the things which the postponement of the Kingdom

effectually removes, is the prevailing opinion that the Church is the prom-
ised Kingdom of the Messiah. Admit the postponement, and it will be a-
possible to make the church, as present constituted, said Kingdom. For,
if postponed, how could it be in existence? This prevents us from giving
the church in its present fighting and struggling condition those exaggera-
ted eulogistic praises which only pertain to it im the dispensation still
future. This leads us carefully to discriminate what things appertain to
past dispensations, what to the present dispensation, what to the church
us now constituted, what to the church as she shall finally be manifested in
glory with the King, what to the Kingdom itself, what to the future dis-
pensation, and what to the eternal ages. The wnportance of such a posi-
tion cannot be too highly urged, since upon it largely depend the views
we take of numerous prophecies and promises.
This position also forbids many extravagances, as e.g. the Shakers (Nordhoff's Com-
munistic Soc., p. 133), dating the last dispensation from the establishment of their church
under Mother Lee, calling themselves the‘*‘ Church of the Last Dispensation,” or that of the
Swedenborgians, Mormons, etc., applying to their rise, society, etc., promises that be-
long to a still future dispensation. These utterly ignore both covenant and postpone-
ment, and overlook the continued design of this dispensation (comp. Prop. 140, etc.).
These extremes are only an outgrowth of conceptions, with which the Church is largely
leavened, as will be hereafter shown.
592 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 88.

Proposition 88. The Churchis then a preparatory stage for

this Kingdom.
This follows from the preceding, for the church then resolves
itself into an association of believers by which its growth, per-
petuation, etc., is insured by the use of means of grace connected
with such an organization, and by the care and oversight extended
to it by its living Head. It is preparatory, because its office is,
under divine assistance, to gather out of the nations the elect, i.e.
those who are grafted into the Jewish Commonwealth, who shall,
by virtue of adoption as Abraham’s seed, be accounted heirs and
inheritors of the Kingdom with Abraham. It is simply calling and
preparing ‘‘ the heirs of promise,” the ‘‘ heirs of that kingdom
which God hath prepared for them that love Him.”
In this gathering out of believers to form this elect people—the inheritors—is found
the ground for a firm belief in the perpetuity of the Church. God’s purpose, no matter
how adverse at times the Church’s circumstances, how hostile the world, how corrupt
her mixed condition, etc., will and must be inevitably carried out. The number that
God has predetermined will be secured, so that His Theocratic Plan may be realized in
power and glory.

Obs. 1. Discarding the simple truth of the Proposition, eminent men of

ability have arrayed themselves against each other, contending for some
favorite church theory, manifesting an amazing variety of definitions,
subtle divisions, imaginary distinctions, and irrelevant display of learning.
This has resulted mainly from elevating the church into a Kingdom under
the mistake that this dispensation being final, and the prophecies locating
the Messiah’s Kingdom here on earth, the church must of necessity be the
predicted Kingdom. This has borne its fruit in the way indicated, and
also, what is more sad, in covering up the covenant promises pertaining to
the Kingdom, in spiritualizing them to make them consistent with human
opinions, and in arraying themselves as hostile toward the preaching of the
disciples and apostles, until at the present day, with here and there a few
exceptions in all denominations, but /vtdle faith is exercised (as predicted),
either in the Pre- Millennial Advent of the King, or in the future establish-
ment of His Kingdom, as covenanted, here on earth.

_ Obs. 2. If we are wrong in this, and other Propositions linked with it,
it can be easily decided against us by producing a passage where the church
is directly called a Kingdom. A due examination will reveal the fact that
no such Scripture can be found. Such a vital, foundation doctrine is in-
ferred ; and the influence comes the more naturally, since, overlooking
the postponement, and regarding the preparatory stage of the church in a
light different from that which the covenant throws upon it, it was taken
for granted that a Kingdom being preached as once nigh, must have come.
Prop. 88.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 593

And, as a literal Kingdom, such as covenant and prophecy describe, did

not come, it was supposed that the church then must be it. The Origenis-
tic interpretation, so destructive to early Millenarianism, appeared as ¢he
patron and champion of this inference, until under its wide-spread influ-
ence, the inference was changed into a supposed axiomatic truth. Being
also in the line of ambition, etc., it was tenaciously held by all who were
favorable to hierarchical tendencies, and any who rejected it as inference
and assumption were regarded as heretics, Indeed even now, it is so deeply
imbedded in religious belief and system, that to call it by its true name, a
mere inference, 18 to excite prejudice, bitterness and wrath in the hearts of
some who profess to love the truth for the truth’s sake.

Obs. 3. We are not surprised thafé the result just mentioned should
follow, for if it can be shown that the covenanted Kingdom is something
different from the church ; that the Kingdom is held in postponement
until a certain predetermined number of elect are gathered; that the
church is appointed to gather and cherish these elect, and hence is prepar-
atory in its action, then this view of the Kingdom, showing that the
church’s relation to this Kingdom is a subordinate and preparatory one,
prepares us to appreciate the claims of Popery, Puseyism, hierarchical
tendencies, nationalizing churches, and a host of similar exclusive demands
put on faith and practice, all of which are founded on the assumption that
the church is not preparatory to the predicted Kingdom, but is in truth the
covenanted Kingdom itself Our doctrine is too humiliating for such, and
therefore fails of acceptance.
The Church-Kingdom idea is deeply rooted in prevailing Theology and Literature. It
is a notion long held in veneration, embellished by eloquence and poetry, supported by
philosophy, strengthened by policy, power, and age, enriched by the cumulative reason
of many centuries, and the mistaken concessions of piety. Ideas consecrated and
cemented by the expressed opinions, attachments, and submission of men of ability and
learning are not to to be eradicated, saving by a higher hand, when fulfilling His own
counsels and covenanted promises. It will require the secret stage of the Sec. Advent
with its momentous results, and the incoming Antichrist with his persecution of the
Church, before this notion—so fruitful in causing unbelief—will be discarded by the
Church.

Obs. 4. As stated, it is owing to the view taken of this Kingdom, that

such widely antagonistic notions are published respecting the church. One
writer, e.g. accepting of the prophecies pertaining to the Kingdom and
applying them to the church as now constituted, emphatically declares
that the Mission of the church isa failure. This is announced by a host
of writers, and is hailed with delight by multitudes with the addition, that
hence prophecy (inspiration) is found unreliable. Another writer, receiv-
ing the same predictions as also declarative of the church’s present posi-
tion, endeavors to meet the requirements of prophecy by exaggerating the
church’s progress, etc. One author, seeing a non-fulfilment of prophecy,
places Christianity on a level with other religions, predicting its mergence
tnto a universal religion adapted to meet the longings of the prophets.
Still another writer receives the same predictions as illustrative of the
church’s Kingdom state, and to establish this point, proceeds to fasten on
the obvious grammatical sense another and widely differing one to make
prophecy and history correspond. While another accepts of the predic-
tions in their plain grammatical sense, finds in them the true Mission of
594 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 88.

the church which is o failure, locates their fulfilment as a comparison of

Scripture indicates, needs no immoderate exaltation to make church and
prophecy tally, sees in their non-fulfilment no reason for invidious com-
parisons, and forces upon them mo sense that would be discarded by the
universal laws of grammar and rhetoric. This, to the student, indicates
what influence is exerted upon our theological opinions by our views of the
church. This only points out a few diverging lines, others will be pre-
sented as we proceed.

Obs. 5. The Romanist and the Protestant have made the question of the
church a battle-field, in which many a past strife is noted by history.
The Romanist making the church the Kingdom of God (called in the Dog.
Decrees of the recent Council ‘‘ the Kingdom of Christ’’) set up here under
a specific form of government, held that by becoming obedient to that
church the soul alone was brought to Christ, so that the Kingdom was the
power that led to Christ, etc. The Protestant, who accepted of the
Romanist idea of such a Kingdom, held that by faith, in and obedience to,
Christ the soul was made to enter the Kingdom of heaven. The former
made the church as a Kingdom a condition of salvation, the latter, a
means of preservation and development to the saved. But both in one
form or other, forced both by Scripture and the actual condition of the
church, made this church or Kingdom a preparatory stage for another
and higher Kingdom still in the future. A singular feature in the contro-
versy is this: that both parties agreed in making this Church the King-
dom of Christ either as Son of Man, or as Son of God, or both united, and
the higher Kingdom in the future at the end of the age, they made,
against express Scriptures, to be exclusively the Kingdom of the Father or
of the Divine. To the latter view, the student will find but few excep-
tions.

Obs. 6. Many, impelled by the idea that if the church is a Kingdom

there ought, of necessity, to be a wnity, have sought for this in various ways
—in an outward union of believers, in an exact agreement of doctrine, in
some form of church government, etc. Whereas, if they had retained
the belief of the earliest age respecting the church, they would have seen
that the uniformity they sought after is not a prerequisite. Diversity, as
seen in the Apostolic Churches by contrasting the Jewish and Gentile, is
not opposed to the Scriptural idea of the church. For, not being regard-
ed as a Kingdom but as a preparatory stage for the Kingdom, some lati-
tude was allowed in its external manifestation and even in non-essential
doctrine and practice (see e.g. decision of Council at Jerusalem, Acts 15 :19,
28) while unity was based on fellowship with Christ and consequent adop-
tion as Abraham’s seed.

Obs. ?. It is our deep conviction that the word ekklesia, translated

church, was designedly chosen to express what the church really means.
Let the reader notice how we have shown that to raise up a seed unto
Abraham certain elect, those of like faith unto Abraham, are chosen out of
the nations. The word therefore, e& out of, and kaleo J call, denotes ¢o
call out of and hence means precisely what the Apostles in Council, Acts
15 :14, denominated its object to be, viz.: to call out from among the
Prop. 88.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 595

nations a people, etc. Why was the word rendered church chosen in
plrce of the more familiar one synagogue, unless it be that the former more
explicitly expresses the idea intended? (Vide Prop. 175, and Comp.
Hagenbach’s His. Doc., vol. 1, p. 194.)
596 THE THEOOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 89.

Proposition 89. Christ in view of this future Kingdom, sus-

tains a peculiar relationship to the Church.
Christ, now, in virtue of, His divine nature, has absolute control
over all nations, over the church, etc., but He only exerts that
Sovereignty (Props. 79 and 80) as God in Providence, etc., not as
the Son of Man (e.g. Props. 81-83), David’s Son, in His human
nature. That nature is also highly, immeasurably exalted because
of its union with the Divine, and of its being intended for the
coming visible Theocratic Government to be (Prop. 200) the Repre-
sentative Ruler of God. This Rulership now belongs to David's
Son, is His both by right of covenanted birth and obedience, but is
not yet realized and will not be until the establishment of the
Kingdom. For, we have no distinctive announcement of its actual
participation in reigning as covenanted until the Second Advent, at
which time it is plainly and specifically stated that He reigns not
merely as the Son of God, but really and truly as the Son of Man.
Obs. 1. Indeed, if we refer to the covenant, this must be the case, for the
Kingdom directly covenanted to David’s Son is not a reign over other
worlds, over the universe, or over the church as a church—is not even «a
reign inthe third heaven, or some place outside of this earth—but is
pointedly stated to be a reign over David’s Kingdom, which is extended
to embrace the whole earth. To say then, whatever may be the honored
position of Jesus in heaven, that He now ts reigning in the covenanted,
predicted Kingdom of promise, ts directly opposed to God’s oath-bound cove-
nant. ‘This gives us then the proper idea of Christ’s relationship to the
church. As Divine, One with the Father, the church is under His care
and protection ; as Son of Man He sustains a Headship over the church ;
as the future revealed King, His interest in the church is deep and abiding.

Obs. 2. To avoid misconception, and the charge of lowering Christ’s

dignity or position, it may be in place to repeat that we most cordially
receive and hold to what is said concerning Christ in Eph. 1 : 20-23, and
other passages. But with the aid of a comparison of Scripture, we avoid
the conclusion that many arrive at, as e.g. in Eph. 1 : 20-238, that the
authority vested in Him is now in all respects exercised. We hold, that
so far as its actual exercise and realization is concerned, part of it must be
regarded prospectively, as seen e.g. by verse 22 compared with Heb. 2:8,
i.e. that part referring ¢o the Davidic covenanted Kingdom, in the world to
come. (Comp. Alford, Steir, Meyer, etc.)
Obs. 3. The Headship of Christ over the church refers not so much, as
is supposed, to Rulership over the church as to His being the Chief or Head
PRopP. 89.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 597

of Rulers, i.e. that the church is in some peculiar and distinctive manner
associated with Him. What this is, will appear under the Props. (154 and
156) relating to the reign and priesthood of the saints. Christ Himself
intimates this distinction when He calls faithful believers ‘‘ brethren’’ and
not “‘servanis.’’ ‘Ihe church is represented as Christ’s body, simply
because that body are ‘‘ co-heirs,’’ joint, inheritors with Him in the King-
dom, and therefore they are purposely never called ‘‘ the subjects of the
Kingdom’’—a phrase coined by man and contradictory to both the honor
and position of the body, which takes a much higher rank. It is incon-
sistent, to say the least, to call ‘‘ inheritors’? of a Kingdom, the subjects
of it.! Individual subjection or allegiance does not constitute a Kingdom,
lacking as it does the essentials of a Kingdom, such as are promised.
Jesus is called, and by right, and in the covenanted manner, is, “‘ the
King of the Jews,” “ King of Nations,’’ ‘‘ King of the World,” but is never
called ** the King of the Church.’’ The nearest approach to the latter is
found in our English version Rev. 15 : 3, where He is called ‘‘ Aing of the
Saints,’’ but this is opposed by some of the earliest of the MSS. (as e.g. the
Sinaitic and Alexandrine) and various versions, so that it is rendered
** King of the Nations,’ ‘* King of the Worlds,” ‘‘ King of the Ages,” and
in the Greek texts in general use, it is given ‘‘ King of the Nations’’ (comp.
Lange, Alford, etc., loci Tischendorf’s N. T. etc.), which is more in
accord with the general tenor and spirit of the Word. ‘The saints, elected
to be associated with Christ in Rulership, are indeed subordinated to Christ.
He is the Head, the Chief, and they being also kings with Him, it is right-
fully His title to be styled ‘‘ King of Avings,’’ seeing that the Jatter are
inferior to Him, but while subordinate, their rank, etc., elevates them as
brethren and joint rulers above that of mere subjects in the ordinary use of
the Word. ‘They are truly subjects in one sense only, viz. : in the one
given, e.g. 1 Cor, 11:3. ;
1 The reader will of course discriminate here : the Church is subject (Eph. 5 : 24, etc.)
to Christ, and this, in the very nature of the case, is indispensable, but this subjection
is preparatory to the future glorification and exaltation of the Church, for when allied
with Him in glory, this subjection is swallowed up in joint rulership, etc. with Christ,
though still subordinate, as David’s Son is to the Father ; and hence our argument merely
is, that believers, in view of their future position, are never called ‘‘ the subjects of the
Kingdom,” which is opposed to their being ‘‘ kings and priests reigning with Christ’’ in the
Kingdom. Believers are ‘‘ heirs,’’ and not the subjects of the covenanted Kingdom. Ori-
gen (Ag. Celsus, B. 4, ch. 10) refers ‘‘ the Kingdom of God,” as ‘‘ reserved for those who
are worthy of becoming its, subjects ,’ we prefer the Scriptural phraseology, if it were
only to remind us of future exaltation and glory.

Obs. 4. The Kingship of Jesus Christ, as David’s Son, the Theocratic

Ruler, is to be manifested in a period of time, called by way of pre-emi-
nence ‘‘ the day of the Lord,’’ ‘‘ the day of Jesus Christ,’ etc. This will,
under Prop. 138, be shown to be still future, dating from the time of His
Second Advent. The covenant promises, if actually fulfilled, require this ;
and hence until their realization, the church occupies the position of
waiting (eg. 1 Pet. 1:7, 13) for this Revelation of Jesus as King. Dur-
ing this expectation all things are working in behalf of the election, the
contemplated gathering, the manifestation of the Sons of God. The Head
is preparing the members, by the bestowal of blessed privileges, sacred
ordinances, rich experience, and Iis own ever-abiding Presence, for the
coming exaltation of the Kingdom. Communion with Christ and with
598 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 89.

each other necessitates a churchly arrangement, so that the requisite elect

may be taken out from among the nations to place the future Theocratic
Kingdom on an immovable basis.
As simply illustrative of the conclusions adopted against us, we refer to a writer in
the Princeton Review (Ap., 1851, p. 196), who endeavors to prove that ‘‘ the Church is
the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,’’ in view of a spiritual reign in the heart and the
Headship of Jesus. But aside from the numerous considerations hereafter presented by
us against the theory, we may well ask, whether such an alleged Kingdom is a restoration
of the Kingdom of God withdrawn from the Jewish nation on account of their sinful-
ness. Is there a single mark by which an identification can be made out, when we are
assured by God Himself that the same Kingdom (Theocracy) overthrown is the identical
Kingdom re-established? To resort, by way of apology and explanations, to types and
spiritualizing, is to declare that God’s words, sworn to, mean one thing in the plain
grammatical sense, but are to be understood in a sense which men add to it to accommo-
date their respective Kingdom theories.

Obs. 5. In this postponement of the Kingdom, specifically promised to

the Son of Man, we do not, by any means, detract from that power which
is given to Jesus, or deny that to His will all things are subject. The
question to be answered is, does He now exercise that power and make
manifest that subjection a the covenanted Kingdom? The reply comes
unhesitatingly, that we see 2o such Kingdom yet established which meets
the requirements of covenant and prophecy, if the latter are received in
their plain grammatical sense. Indeed, our opponents concede to us that
so far as the church itself is concerned, that power is held in abeyance and
its manifestation delayed, as is evidenced by the existence of tares mingled
with the wheat, of different forms of evil, of kingdoms opposed to His will,
etc. This conception, in the light of the covenant, the preaching of Jesus,
the postponement of the Kingdom, etc., we apply to the church so far as
the Theocratic-Davidic throne and Kingdom are concerned, showing that
the former cannot with any consistency be substituted for the latter.

Obs. 6. Overlooking the design of the establishment of the Christian

Church, viz. : to raise up a seed unto Abraham by gathering out of the
nations a people for His name, until the throne and Kingdom, now deso-
late, shall be restored to its covenanted position, has led to some remarkable
features in philosophizing. Deeming the church a Kingdom, and seeing
how little in its external history it exhibited the ideas we attach to a King-
dom, some eminent writers have presented us with a kind of Christianized
pantheism, which endeavors to make out a systematic organic development
by asserting a continuation of the Divine and human natures of Jesus
Christ in believers through the church, thus elevating the latter into a
Kingdom. ‘To make out such an organic history, the Papacy and a host
of outgrowths are embraced, as in the main legitimate results of Chris-
tianity itself, etc. If a spiritual interpretation does not suffice, a mystical
is added to exalt the church into the proportions of a kingdom; and
when stripped of its persuasive generalities, it resolves itself into “ a per-
petually growing incarnation of God and deification of man,’’ or ‘‘ the de-
velopment of the Divine essence in man.’’ The trouble is, that this drag-
net draws too much weight for the strength of its meshes. When com-
pared with the simplicity of the covenant, with the history of believers and
of the church, with the union and fellowship as presented by the Word,
it is merely man’s hypothesis. Its refutation has preceded, and will follow.
 bm VOMIVNE VYVEELUL Phiri

LA VERNE, CALIFORNIA
Prop. 89.| THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 599
Thus e.g. Rev. S. Miller, advocating Dr. Nevin’s theory, in his Mercersburg and Mod.
Theology, p. 41, etc., forms a Kingdom, embracing the divine-human life, drawn from
Christ, which he designates a ‘‘ new Kingdom,’’ not in the sense of renewed, but entirely
new. This Kingdom, according to his view, was only inaugurated by the divine-human
life of Jesus, and is entered by the person who partakes of the divine-human nature of
the Christ. This mystical conception is, as our line of argument conclusively shows,
utterly opposed by covenant, prophecy, the preaching of John, Jesus, the disciples, and
apostles, ete. The Word always speaks of this Kingdom as something visibly, externally
manifested in the form covenanted. Even if we were to adopt Miller’s notion that the
Church is an organism starting in the person of Christ, and being ‘‘ a continuation of the
Incarnation’’ by the imparting of the humanity or life in Jesus, it would not follow that
itis the covenanted, predicted Kingdom. In a conversation with him (for he was an
honored uncle of mine) on this point, he said he might receive Chiliasm and still retain
his view, on the ground that this was preparatory, or as a stage in his development
theory. Shortly before his death, he made Chiliasm a study (with what result the
writer does not know), being deeply impressed by the historical argument in its favor.
One remark of his deeply impressed the writer, viz. : that Eschatology had not received
the attention that it deserved, in view of the end contemplated by Redemption, for, evi-
dently, the prevailing views were defective, lacking Scriptural unity.
600 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 90.

Proposition 90. Members of the Church, who are faithful, are

promised this Kingdom.
There is only one kingdom, Prop. 35, etc. Saints who become
the seed of Abraham, are to receive, inherit this kingdom of
promise, 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:55; 2 Pet.1:11; Matt. 25:
34, etc. The Kingdom preached by the Baptist, Jesus, and the
disciples continues to be proclaimed, Acts 8: 12; 14: 22; 20: 25;
98 : 31, etc., and believers beeome ‘‘ heirs’’ of it, Jam. 2:5. The
wicked shall not inherit it, 1 Cor. 6:9. The apostles represent
themselves and co-laborers as working for it still future, Col.
Asi; 2 Thess. 1:5; 2 Tim. 4:18; Heb, 12 = 28, ete.

Obs. 1. This Proposition is only intended to specify one of the results

arising from preceding Propositions ; and it is decidedly corroborative of
our argument that the Scriptures employ language to indicate the futurity
of the Kingdom. If the church is the Kingdom, and believers are now
in it, why designate them ‘‘ heirs,’’ etc., of a Kingdom? If the future
Kingdom, as Theologians so confidently assert, is only a continuation of
such a Kingdom, why employ then the specific language of inheriting a
Kingdom still future, if that is only a prolongation, etc., of this one, and
the inheriting has already commenced? If believers already by entering
the church, enter into the promised Kingdom of God, and if this Kingdom
is merged into a future one, it would be somewhat inconsistent to urge
them to strive for that which they already possess ; or, at least, the lan-
guage ought to be so changed that they are urged to retain their hold upon
a present Kingdom lest they forfeit the future prolonged one.
The early Church view is content, and so are we, to receive the language unchanged
as confirmatory of our doctrine, so that, as Clement (sec. Epis.), it exhorts all that “ all
may attain to the Kingdom of God,” asserting that in the future ‘‘ we shall enter into His
Kingdom, and shall receive the promises.” But such is not the teaching of monkish the-
ology, Roman Catholic, and even in much of Protestant, Divinity, which declares that
being already in the Kingdom you shall obtain the continued Kingdom. The incon-
gruity, to say the least, of representing ‘‘ heirs’ as already possessing the Kingdom is
scarcely noticed, and even the appointed time of inheriting, specifically located at the Sec.
Advent, is ignored. This only shows how prejudice can refuse to receive the plainest state-
ments of the Word. Believers are not in this Kingdom, but ‘‘ called unto’’ it (1 Thess.
2:12; 2 Thess. 1 : 5, etc.) ; the passages which are supposed to teach the contrary will
be noticed in detail under following Propositions. For the present, it is sufficient to
say that the Bible is not contradictory, and the few places which are alleged to be con-
tradictory must, in the nature of the case, be explained by the general analogy on the
subject. Oosterzee (Ch. Dogmatics, vol. 1, p. 67, and vol. 2, p. 696) introduces a division,
“¢ Of the Church, or the Training School of the Kingdom.” The idea of a training school
is excellent, suggested both by Scripture and experience, but to make the notion still
more distinctive and Scriptural, we suggest “the Training School for the Kingdom,”’
which is one of the objects intended by the Church,
Prop. 90] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 601

Obs. 2. Making the church the promised Kingdom, and believers in the
enjoyment of it, has logically led some of our opponents (not all, for many
recoil from it in view both of experience and the sad history of the
church), to proclaim, that the promises relating to the reign of the saints
are 20w also fulfilling. We leave one of the earliest give his view. Thus,
e.g. Augustine (City of God, B. 20. s. 9) says: ‘‘ The church could not
now be called His Kingdom, or the Kingdom of heaven, wvless His saints
were even now reigning with Him ;’’ and endeavors to make out such an
existing Kingdom by showing that the saints now reign, summing up:
‘*in fine, they reign with Him who are so in Ilis Kingdom that they them-
selves are His Kingdom.’’ Leaving the reign of the saints for a distinct
Proposition (154) it is sufficient to say that earlier Fathers distinctly
oppose Augustine in his wholesale and mixed interpretation. Thus e.g.
Barnabas (pis. ch. 6) declares, that saints do not rule now; and
speaking of the promised dominion adds: ‘‘ We ought to perceive that to
govern implies authority, so that one should command and rule. If there-
fore, this does not exist at present, yet still He has promised it to us.
When? When we ourselves also have been made perfect (so as) to become
heirs of the covenant of the Lord.”’
This notion that saints now possess the Kingdom, now have dominion, ete., has
wrought great mischief, as Eccl. History attests, not only in hierarchical tendencies, in
perverted and extravagant claims of authority, but also in fanaticism, as e.g. Anabap-
tists, Mormons, Hackett, the Prophet who was proclaimed (July 16th, 1592) ‘‘ the sole
Monarch of Europe,” and many others. Our doctrine closes the door against all such
claims and vagaries. The reign of the saints, as delineated in the outlines of the Divine
Purpose, confirms our position.

Obs. 3. Only believers are promised this Kingdom. Faith and its fruits
are essential to its inheritance. This is pointedly declared in Scripture, as
e.g. Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:4, etc. If the Jews were accounted unworthy
because of lack of faith, etc., to receive this Kingdom—if they were re-
jected and a seed must be raised up unto Abraham, we may rest assured
that it will be, it must be, ‘‘a righteous seed.’’ ‘This becomes the more
necessary in view of the position that this seed is to occupy in the Comin
Kingdom, viz. : that of co-rulers with Jesus Christ. Therefore the Word
assures us that even out of ‘‘ the many’’ but ‘‘ few’’ will be chosen, and
those only because they are believing and faithful.
In opposition to Holy Writ we have the theories of man. Thus e.g. Kingsley (Sers. on
Nat. Subjects, 1 Ser., p. 14) makes man by nature a member of Christ and inheritor of the
Kingdom of heaven. He so secularizes the Church, calling it the Kingdom of Christ, of
heaven, ete., that the world is the Church and the Church the world, including all men,
but specially manifested as a Kingdom when recognizing its relation to God. Some
Amer. Universalists entertain very much the same view, so that all men belong to it by
right, and will ultimately be identified with it ; now the Kingdom, however, is only ex-
hibited in and through those who acknowledge the truth, etc. The same idea is given
to us by Prof. Seeley, author of Hece Homo (p. 339) when making the Church a Kingdom,
he says that it is such because ‘‘ based upon a blood-relationship, the most comprehensive
of all, the kindred of every human being to every other.”’** This notion is paraded by

* This idea of blood-relationship reminds one of what Bungener (The Preacher and the
King, p. 205) states of a certain La Tremouville, who, in his pride of birth, his arrogant
dependence on blood-relationship, declared : ‘‘ God would look twice before He damned
me.’ Many, who make no such claim, still feel themselves good enough for God's King-
dom, without any heart and life preparation, not realizing that God is no respecter of per-
sons. :
602 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 90.

the Free Religionists, Humanitarians, etc., and is covertly stated by some who desire to
be regarded as orthodox. Such opinions, however, are flatly contradicted by the Word of
God, not only in the distinction made between the righteous and wicked, but by that
feature which our entire argument. enforces, viz, : that ‘‘Salvation is of the Jews,” not
because it originated or was at one time identified with them, but because it pertains, by
covenant relation, to them. To them the promises were given, not to all men; and the
only way to obtain the promises with them is to be engrafted into the true olive tree. Now
all are invited to become the seed of Abraham, but comparatively few accept of the terms
of adoption. Instead of being related to the Kingdom of God by nature, by a common
humanity, by the assumption of our nature by Christ, we must by the obedience of faith
present ourselves in the line of the covenanted, chosen people ; and when, in the pre-
dicted time, God shall restore that chosen people to its forfeited position, the engrafted
ones inherit the Kingdom with the Son of man.

Obs. 4. In Matt. 16:18, 19 Jesus seems to distinguish between the

church and the Kingdom by placing the Kingdom of heaven in opposition
to it, enforcing the idea that the church leads to, or is appointed as a
means to attain unto, the Kingdom. The church is founded and, in addi-
tion, the keys of the Kingdom are (Prop. 64) committed to it, so that
through its instrumentality believing members may finally inherit the
Kingdom. It would be an easy matter to select from our opponents a
multitude of writers who indorse this view, that in this passage the church
leads to the Kingdom, but in correspondence with their theory make the
Kingdom one in the third heaven and not one on the earth. Others
include in the expression both the church and the third heaven, while
others confine it exclusively to the church. Its true meaning must be
sought for in other passages, as in the covenant and specific announce-
ments of the Kingdom.

Obs. 5. The passage Matt. 8:11, 12, when “‘ many shall come from the
east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in
the Kingdom of heaven, but the children of the Kingdom shall be cast out,”’
etc., not only confirms (1) the Proposition ; (2) the election of the Jewish
nation ; (3) the offer of the Kingdom to the covenanted people, but it also
establishes (4) the fact, that the church is not the Kingdom here men-
tioned, seeing that this Kingdom is related in the covenanted manner with
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Hence commentators generally apply this
Kingdom either to the third heaven or to the one stil] future.

Obs. 6. Flesh and blood cannot inherit (i.e. to become a ruler in it) this
Kingdom, 1 Cor. 15:50. Just as it is with the Head, the Mighty One,
that the covenant and promises demanded an immortal Ruler, so it 1s with
His members, the body. As King He is to be manifested in His glorified
form—a David’s Son possessing all that is requisite to fulfil the Word;
so also the saints, as co-heirs, kings and priests must be in their glorified
condition before they receive the Kingdom. Hence, while in the church,
in flesh and blood, they only await the promises—hope and pray for
their realization. The church, then, instead of possessing a Kingdom, as
actually existing according to promise, only possesses it in anticipation, in
looking for and expecting its arrival.

Obs. 7. Prophecy does not predict a Kingdom fo exist between the First
and Second Advents of Christ as a prelude to the Kingdom of the Eternal
Ages. ‘To make out such a prediction, Prophecy must be wrested from its
Prop. 90.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 603

connection, or else it must be spiritualized to make it sufficiently accom.

modating.
The extravagances in this direction culminate when men of learning and ability make
themselves out to be already in ‘‘ the New Jerusalem state,” in ‘‘ the enjoyment of Millen-
nial glory,” in possession of ‘‘ the latter day glory,’’ etc. The Church in its present im-
perfect state is eulogized until it assumes the portraiture of the predicted Kingdom, but
such eulogies are at the expense of a consistent interpretation and of the real history of
the Church. As this infatuation, derived from Origenistic sources, is so general, it may
be proper to pass over some views in detail], although our argument, based on the cove-
nant, scarcely needs the addition.
G04, THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 91.

Proposition 91. Zhe Kingdom of God is not the Jewish

Church. :
This is evident from the Theocratic government by which State
and Church were united; from the same as administered under
the Theocratic-Davidic arrangement ; from the overthrow of the
throne and kingdom while a churchly arrangement remained;
from the preaching of John, Jesus, and the disciples, saying ‘‘ the
kingdom of God is at hand,’’ showing that it did not then exist
but was promised to be ‘‘ at hand’”’ or ‘‘ near’? on condition of re-
pentance ; and finally from the rejection of the Kingdom and its
postponement wntil after ‘‘ the times of the Gentiles.’? Whatever
churchly or religious organization existed among the Jews after
the overthrow of the Kingdom, they themselves, as we have shown,
did not regard the Kingdom of God as existing just prior to the
First Advent.
Obs. 1. This Proposition in this form is the more necessary, since many
writers spiritualizing this reign into ‘‘ God’s reign in the heart,’’ “‘ piety,”’
etc., endeavor to make out that the Kingdom was actually realized with-
out the cognizance of the Jews, and in opposition to the first preaching.
We would rather accept of the expectations of the pious Jews, of the direct
preaching of the disciples, etc., than of such a theory, simply because the
former is 72 accord with the most solemnly pledged covenant of the Word,
while the latter /utally ignores the oath-bound promises,

Obs. 2. This Proposition is yielded to us by many of our opponents,

some already quoted, who make the Christian Church something new, and
hence a Kingdom in a form in which it did not previously exist, although
a continuation of the Jewish Church. But if the Christian Church is a
prolongation of the Jewish in another form with increased light, privileges,
etc., it goes far toward establishing the Propositions that follow concern-
ing the church. Ifthe one was x0 Kingdom as admitted, then the other
following is none, for these writers to make out a union between them,
tell us that members of both are justified by faith, saved by grace, adopted
by God, and participate finally in the same promises and redemption.
Real consistency requires both to be elevated to the position of a Kingdom,
which some do, although hostile to covenants and promises. Logically
there is no escape here, and those writers are really the most consistent
(although opposed to the facts as they existed), who make no discrimina-
tion between the Jewish and Christian Churches, pronouncing both to be
the Kingdom of God for the reason that the characteristics of believers at
the present day in the church are precisely the same (as e.g. faith, obedi-
ence, love, hope, etc.), that they were in the Jewish Congregation. Hence,
Prop. 91.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 605

if certain traits, qualifications, characteristics, as many assert, denote the

Kingdom, then the Kingdom existed in both churches. The latter, how-
ever, remains unproven.

Obs. 3. We find on this point the most contradictory statements.

Writers who fully admit that the Kingdom is to be established on/y under
Christ, and who even tell us that this dispensation is thus distinguished,
are forced by the interpretations given to the Kingdom itself to locate it
back of this dispensation in the Jewish Church; and then to reconcile
their theory inform us that the Kingdom existed in one form in the Jewish
Church and now it is exhibited 77 another in the present Church. But all
this is antagonistic to the most prevalent and confidently given interpreta-
tion of the Kingdom. If the Kingdom is what Dr. McCosh, and others,
inform us, ‘‘ God’s rule in the hearts of men,’’ then no difference should be
made between the churches, for such a rule has ever been manifested.
Such a Kingdom has ever existed even before the Theocracy was set up ;
such an experience is compatible without the establishment of a Kingdom
here on earth, as we see in Adam, Abel, Enoch, etc. Gratefully accepting
of God’s Sovereignty, of the duty of obedience to Him, etc., it does not
follow, as shown by preceding Propositions, that this constitutes the pre-
dicted Kingdom. If it does, then covenant language has no definite mean-
ing ; then the Prophets and the early Preachers miserably mistook this
Kingdom, promising as in the futwre what learned men tell us ever
existed. No'! that class of writers, equally learned and more scriptural,
are correct when they assert that the predicted Kingdom is one that had
no existence at the time of the Advent, and that it is one which Christ
Himself is to establish.

Obs. 4. Any definition of the Kingdom under Christ, which affirms

nothing more than was experienced by the pious Jews at the First Advent,
is most certainly defective. Such are ‘‘ God’s reign in the heart,’’ ‘‘ re-
ligion,’’ etc. Such definitions should, in the very nature of the case, ex-
cite a mistrust that there must be error somewhere, because opposed in
spirit to express prediction and promise. The Jews, such as Simon and
others, were utterly ignorant of the honor they possessed of being already
incorporated with a Kingdom they waited, looked, and prayed for. Such
definitions, however well meaning, are virtually a lowering of Scripture
promise and of the intelligence of ancient worthies. Feeling this deeply,
sadly, we write plainly for the sake of the truth.

Obs. 5. The reader’s attention is recalled to our argument which clearly

shows, under Propositions pertaining to the covenants, etc., that the
Church itself as it existed defore the formation of the Theocracy was no
Kingdom here on earth ; that such a Kingdom was first presented when the
T heocratic form of government was instituted, God Himself condescend-
ing to act in the capacity of an earthly Ruler over the nation, and State
and Church were firmly united in mutual support. After this government
was overthrown or temporarily set aside, owing to the unworthiness of the
nation, the Church remained as previous tv the Theocracy ; but 7i¢ is never
recognized by the Prophets as the Kingdom—the believer being directed to
look for and await its coming This posture of waiting the pious portion
of the nation occupied.
606 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 91.

Obs. 6. It is right, therefore, to say, that the Church has always existed ;
and even, as some do, to declare, that the Christian is a continuation of
the previous Church in another form and with added privileges ; but 7 as
wrong to assert that the Church, without the previously ordained visible
Theocratic order in actual union with it, is the Kingdom of God in the
sense given by covenant and Prophet. J¢ lacks the God-given distinguish-
ing Theocratic arrangement which can alone elevate it to the position of a
Kingdom here on earth, viz. : God through man acting in the manifested
real capacity of earthly Ruler.

Obs. %. To illustrate how the Jewish Church is elevated, in a circumlo-

cutory way, to the position of a Kingdom, we select an example. Thus,
Fairbairn (On Proph., p. 65) affirms (quoting Owen’s Prel. Diss. to He-
brews to sustain his point), that the Church has always existed ; that Christ
did not take one away to set up another ; that the Christian Church is the
same as that before the Advent; and afterward in his work calls this
Church, which he has made identical, the Kingdom of God. The truth is,
that all who take Fairbairn’s position respecting the Church, and then
designate it ‘‘ the Kingdom of God,’’ cannot avoid logically making (not-
withstanding their disclaimers to the contrary that Christ’s Kingdom was
only established at His Advent, and is the only Kingdom of promise), the
Jewish Church the same Kingdom.

Obs. 8. This last is attempted in another quarter, judging from the

book notices in the Evang. Review (Oct. 1873), and Scribner’s Monthly
(Dec. 1872). Abbey, in a work called ‘' 7'he City of God and the Church
Makers,”’ takes the ground that the Christian Church and the Jewish are
not only the same, but that they are one, beginning in Eden, basing their
essential likeness as the same Christian Church, City of God, or Kingdom
of heaven in Christ, He being an eternal person, etc. While there is pro-
priety in the efforts to rebut the antagonism which some erect between
the Old Test. and New Test. churches, yet there is the same old mistake
of recognizing the Sovereignty of God or of Christ as constituting the
Kingdom, and an ignoring of the plain covenanted fact that the Kingdom
is promised to Jesus Christ, not merely in virtue of His divinity, but as
Son of David, the predicted Son of Man. This simple and undeniable
truth, in connection with the history of the covenanted development, over-
turns all such theorizing. All notions of the Kingdom that do not stand
the test of the Covenant must be discarded.
Those who affirm that the Church is the Kingdom of God, and claim that John the
Baptist was in the Kingdom, are met and confounded by even a single passage, Matt.
11 : 11, where the least in the Kingdom is represented as greater than John, showing that
by the Kingdom something else than the Church is denoted. Some, such are the con-
tradictions involved, forgetting their own definitions of the Church as a continuous
Kingdom, apply this passage, for fulfilment, to believers after the day of Pentecost.
(Comp. Prop. 39). The least reflection will show that the Jewish Church had not the
covenanted characteristics of the Kingdom, for as Daniel (7 : 22) says, the time had not yet
come that the saints possessed the Kingdom, etc.
Prop. 92.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 607

Proposition 92. Zhis Kingdom is not what some call “ the

Gospel Kingdom.”
Having met with the phrase ‘‘ Gospel Kingdom”’ in writings, and
having heard it from the pulpit, this favorite expression of some
may require a few remarks. By the phrase is evidently meant
either this dispensation or the church or religion, or the proclama-
tion of the gospel. It is a phrase of human coinage, nowhere
found in the Bible, and is incorrect when applied to the present
time. The gospel is good news, glad tidings concerning the
Kingdom. Hence the phrase is never found in the writings of
careful authors.
Obs. 1. It is strongly corroborative that the language of the Bible falls
in so accurately with our line of argument. We read of ‘‘ the Gospel of
the Kingdom,”’’ seeing that the Gospel itself has no power to produce the
Kingdom, but is simply preliminary to it, designed to call the elect, who
become ‘‘ heirs’’ of the Kingdom.
A writer (Proph. Times, 1873, p. 105) makes a distinction between ‘“‘the Gospel of
the grace of God’’ and ‘‘ the Gospel of the Kingdom of God,’’ which appears, in some
respects, to be well founded. The favorite terms of some theologians, such as ‘‘ the
Kingdom of grace,’’ “ the Kingdom of the cross,” ‘‘ the mediatorial Kingdom,” are not
found in Scripture, and while freely acknowledging the astonishing and unmerited grace
existing in the Church, and that the future Theocracy is one of grace, yet the titles, how-
ever well intentioned, are not applicable, being misleading in their nature. When
Jesus directly predicts the results of the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom, it is
never intimated that any one of them is to form out of the Church, or believers of the
Gospel, a Kingdom. The passages which are wrongfully inferred to teach the contrary
will hereafter be examined in detail. The means are by multitudes mistaken for the end,
as e.g. by the Homilist (quoted by Nast, Com. on Matt., p. 323), which makes the Gospel to
be ‘‘the Kingdom of God,’ because it produces ‘‘ the reign of God over all the powers of
the soul.’’ To “ preach the Gospel,” or to “ preach the Kingdom” (e.g. Luke 9 : 2, 6), is
to present motives, etc., urging and inviting persons to become worthy of it when it, the
Kingdom, comes in power and glory.

Obs. 2. Aside from other considerations, we have shown (Prop. 59,

Obs. 5), that the Kingdom was tendered to the Jews but owing to their
sinfulness was to be taken from them (i.e. could not inherit or receive it),
and was to be given to another chosen, gathered people. The Kingdom
was taken from the Jewish nation, but the nation, as all admit, retained
the Gospel—the privileges of this dispensation, of the church, of religion,
in brief, of all that pertains to the Gospel. It follows, therefore, as a
national sequence that if the Kingdom was taken from them, that King-
dom did not consist in “‘ the Gospel Kingdom,’’ whatever meaning may be
attached to it, for to this, if it denotes the present dispensation of the Gos-
pel, the nation was made first accessible, the preaching of the Gospel com-
mencing at Jerusalem. Other objections will be noticed in what follows.
608 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 92.

We append Dr. Brown’s (Com.) comment on Matt. 21 : 43: ‘‘ Therefore I say unto
you, ‘ The Kingdom of God’—God’s visible Kingdom or Church, upon earth, which up to
this time stood in the seed of Abraham—‘ shall be taken from you and given to a nation
bringing forth the fruits thereof,’ i.e. the great evangelical community of the faithful,
which, after the extension of the Jewish nation, would consist chiefly of Gentiles, until
‘all Israel should be saved.’” But (1) the Church was not taken from them ; (2) this
very ‘‘ nation” thus called is of the seed of Abraham, natural and engrafted ; (3) that the
bestowal of this Kingdom is future, when the “nation’’ is gathered (comp. Props.
57-66). Some commentators, not knowing what to do with the passage, owing to their
Church-Kingdom theory, conveniently pass it by. Those especially who take the ground
(induced by Heb. ch. 11, Gal. 3:8; Heb. 4:2; 1 Cor. 10:24; Eph. 2:19, 20; 1 Pet.
1:10, 11; Jude 14, 15; Dan. ch. 7, etc.) that the Ch. Church is only a continuation of
the more ancient Church, are pressed by the passage. Imagination is the basis of nu-
merous interpretations and applications.
Prop. 93.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 609

Proposition 938. Zhe Covenanted Kingdom ts not the Christian

Church.
Desirous to respect and honor that overwhelming majority of
able and learned men, who hold and teach that the Christian church
is the Kingdom of Christ predicted by the prophets and so
solemnly covenanted to Him, yet truth and justice demand an
unequivocal denial of this doctrine. The reason for such denial
is found in the terms of the covenant itself. The church possesses
none of the characteristics of the kingdom promised to David’s
Son. The Theocratic relationship, the throne and kingdom of
David, are lacking.
Obs. 1. The Christian Church is an association of believers in Christ,
who, led by the same consciousness of God, truth and spirit, accept of the
terms of salvation, repentance and faith, and continue in the use of the
means of grace appointed by the Redeemer. Itis an association exclusively
for religious purposes, separate and distinct from civil or secular interests.
It is different from the Kingdom once established in that State and relig-
ion are separated, hence involving no civil or State relationship, for mem-
bers of all nations and States, without absolving their allegiance due as
citizens to their respective civil powers, can become members of this ex-
clusive religious organization. It is different from the Jewish Church, be-
fore and after the Theocratic rule, in that it embraces new ordinances,
discarding the Mosaic, and is open to both Jew and Gentile by an expres-
sion and experience of faith in Jesus Christ. It was formed solely on ac-
count of the rejection of the Kingdom by the Jews, in order that through.
it a body of believers might be raised, through whom finally, when all gath-
ered, the Kingdom might be reorganized in the most effective and tri-
umphant manner. Originated for this special purpose it was designed, as
its commencement proves, to be separate and distinct not only from the
Jewish State but all other States. Union with secular powers was not con-
templated, because it was not in accordance with the design of its estab-
lishment, viz. : to call and gather owt of the nations and kingdoms a
believing people. If the object had been to organize a Kingdom, we then
undoubtedly would have had a specific form of government given to us,
and direct declarations concerning the union of State and Church, and the
exercise of civil and political power. The absence of such directions
abundantly confirms our argument. It is necessarily outward so far as the
persons, ordinances, assemblies, expansion, form of worship, etc., is con-
cerned ; and inward, so far as individual experience, adoption, union with
Christ, etc., relates. It is a community of saints, who, while occupying
yarious positions in life, are not deprived by it of civil, social, or family
relations, but rather by the formation of such a community find their con-
610 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 93.

duct in all these relations regulated and controlled. Having no eccle-

siastical constitution for government (such as were afterward produced by
human invention), given by divine authority, it rests in a few indispensable
commands respecting its organization and perpetuity, acknowledging in
these the Sovereignty of God and the Headship of Christ, and constantly
realizing by obedience to the religious and moral precepts, of which it is
the guardian, that it is under Divine guidance, and in reality the product
of Divine power and grace.
This interpretation of the Church, with the exception of the excessive High Church
view, which, against the testimony of both Scripture and History, insists upon the im-
mediate establishment of a Hierarchy, and with the exception of that of Erastianism,
which, against the Apostolic order, prescribes a union of State and Church, is substan-
tially that adopted by many of our opponents, who, however, are forced by their theories
to add to it the notion of an existing predicted Kingdom. Aside from the latter idea,
when we read the interpretations given by various writers directly of the Church, we
find but little difference from the one presented, and none to necessitate the view that it is
a Kingdom. Neander tells us that the Church is ‘‘ a union of men arising from the fel-
lowship (communion) of religious life ; a union essentially independent of, and different
from, all other forms of human association.’’ Then what he adds enforces our position
instead of his own: “ It was a fundamental element of the formation of this union, that
religion was no longer to be inseparably bound up, either as principal or subordinate,
with the political and national relations of men,’’ etc. (See Ch. J/is., sec. 81, ch. 4,
and then compare sec. 52 where he contradicts this by giving the Church such relations
and a world dominion.) We might well ask, Why not so bound? There must be some
substantial reason. Mosheim (Jnst. of Eccl. His.), in his preface, is guarded not to call
the Church a Kingdom, whether intentional or not. Admitting that as an association it
is governed by certain laws and institutions, and has its officers, he calls it “ a society or
community” formed by the body of Christians. Dr. Hagenbach, in his Acad. Address on
Neander’s services as a Church historian (Bib. Sacra, Oct., 1851), shows that according
to Planck in his His. of the Origin and Formation of the Christ. Eccl. Constitutions, the
Church is no Kingdom, but a union of individuals voluntarily coming together, bound
by the same religious belief, etc. Da Costa attributed, according to Hurst (His. of Ration-
alism, p. 360), only ‘‘ a relative value to the Church of the Gentiles, the Church before the
Millennium,” refering us to the Millennial era for a proper and developed Kingdom.
This is the position of many Millenarians (Da Costa being regarded one), and seems
partly also to be the idea of some of our opponents, especially of Neander, in his view of
the final world-dominion. These few quotations are amply sufficient to illustrate our
own view, that in the definition of the Church there is nothing that requires us to enter-
tain the idea that it is a Kingdom.
The reader can find numerous illustrations in various Confessions, His. of Doc-
trines, Sys. Divinities, Theological writers, Works on the Church, Controversial Essays,
etc. In this wide field the student will find every shade of opinion, from that of an
association of believers to Schleiermacher’s ‘living organism, i.e. the body of Christ?’
(or Lange’s ‘the planting and development of the salvation and life of Christ in the
social sphere,” and ‘‘the typical commencement of the world’s transfiguration’’) ;
from that of a simple congregation of receptive men and women to Schlegel’s “great
and divine corporation,’ ‘free, peculiar, and independent corporation,’’ or to the
most extravagant idealistic and mystical conceptions, or to the sterner idea of an ex-
isting, conquering Kingdom in a visible form (as e.g. Papacy), destined to a world-
dominion. High-Churchism, Low-Churchism, Broad-Churchism, Spiritualism, Mys-
ticism, etc., have here a favorite topic, but always, with few exceptions, considered
isolated from the covenanted relationship. Many of the definitions could be adopted,
provided the assumed transformation into a Kingdom were set aside. The most simple
definition is that of the Apostles’ Creed adopted in an art. in the Princeton Review, Ap. 1853
entitled ‘‘ The Idea of the Church,”’ viz.: that the Church is ‘‘the communion of the
saints,” in which, leaving ont the notion of ‘‘a monarchy, an aristocracy, or a democracy, ”
two affirmations are presented: (1) ‘‘the Church consists of saints, and (2) of saints
in communion—that is, so united as to form one body,”’

Obs. 2. The first churches and the apostolic Fathers and their immediate
successors, as already shown had no conception of the Church being the
Prop. 93.] THE TITEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 611

promised Kingdom of the Covenant and Prophets. They looked and

prayed for its speedy coming at the Second Advent. Origen was the first
one who made the Church the mystic Kingdom of God (see p. 112, Voice
of the Church, by Taylor). Others followed in his interpretation ; and if
we narrowly examine history it will be found that two things materially
aided in entrenching and extending this notion of Origen’s. The first was
the Hierarchical encroachments which such an opinion sustained and flat-
tered. ‘The second was the fact that religions everywhere, among the Ro-
mans, Greeks, Egyptians, Asiatics, etc., were firmly united with the State,
thus paving the way for a similar union and the exhibition of the Chris-
tian religion in a sphere not inferior to Pagan.
The student will be amply repaid in tracing these influences in confirming the Origen-
istic notion, and thus giving power into the hands of designing, and even of conscien-
tious men. Against this conversion of the Church into a Kingdom there was a protest,
which was ultimately silenced as the Papacy increased in power, until finally it was
only held by the Paulicians and Waldenses (see p. 126, Voice of the Church, by Taylor).
Coming down to the Reformers, great allowance must be made for them, seeing that the
magnitude of the work before them scarcely allowed it to be consummated within the
period of their lives. They could not readily rid themselves of all the prejudices en-
grafted by former Church relationship, and resulting from the growth of centuries.
Their immediate successors, as all Church historians sadly acknowledge, instead of prose-
cuting the work of Reformation, engrossed themselves in disputes, and pressed each other
on points of differences—many non-essentia]—until as a measure of advancement they
seized the former Church idea, and taking advantage of the Kingdom notion as a source
of protection and strength, they granted fatal concessions (which the Reformers refused),
even to Royalty and the civil magistrate, vesting to a certain extent ecclesiastical
power in their hands, uniting Church and State, elevating the civil head to a religious
position over the Church, which speedily brought forth its bitter fruit in proscriptions,
disallowance of freedom to individual conscience, heresy-hunting, the imposition of ex-
tended symbols and formulas, depositions, imprisonments, banishments, and even in
some cases, death itself. The leverage underlying all this was the unfounded doctrine,
that the Church being a Kingdom here on earth, a real power in actual sway over men,
such power was to be manifested and exerted in an external authority felt and acknowl-
edged by all. For the exertion of such authority, civil and ecclesiastical power were,
more or less, combined. While history abundantly attests this to be the case with their
followers, the Reformers themselves held views which it is difficult to explain as consis-
tent with the notion that the Church is the predicted Kingdom of Christ. They speak
of the Church as a voluntary association for strictly religious purposes, and with all their
concessions to the civil magistrate, they still emphatically declared that Church and
State were separate in their existence, and they could not merge the one into the other,
(Neander’s Ch. Ilis., Mosheim’s Eccl. His., Fisher's His. of Ref., etc.). Their language is
sometimes contradictory, but that they opposed, on the one hand, a secular rule of be-
lievers, and, on the other, an absorption of religious power by the civil head is positively
stated. The contradictions that we find noticed by historians clearly indicate that they
had no well-defined and authoritative conception of the Church as a Kingdom. Indeed, we
find them using language respecting the future manifestation, and even speedy, of
Christ's Kingdom at the Second Advent, the very spirit of which is opposed to the
Church’s now exerting a predicted kingly authority, and which fully accords with our
own doctrine. The reader will find extracts given from Luther, Calvin, and others, by
Taylor (Voice of the Church), by a Congregationalist (Time of the End), by Brooke’s (El. of
Proph. Inter.), by Elliott (Hore Apoc.), and others, which are difficult to reconcile with
any other theory than that of the doctrinal position of the early Church, viz. : anticipat-
ing the Kingdom of Christ to be set up at His Second Coming. With all the honor that
is due to these noble men, with respectful consideration of their vast and splendid ser-
vices, yet the student feels that on some important points they are indecisive, indistinct,
and somewhat contradictory. Hence their opinions, whatever they are, must be sub-
jected, as they themselves desired and expressed, to the test of Scripture (Prop. 10).

Obs. 3. One class of our opponents who contend that the Jewish Church
which existed at the First Advent was no Kingdom, certainly cannot
612 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 93.

make the Christian Church such, if the Kingdom as they inform us only
denotes ‘‘ God’s reign’’ for that was characteristic of the Jewish Church.
Another class, too circumspect to fall into so palpable an inconsistency,
insist upon the points of identity between the Jewish and Christian
Church, and pronounce them to be one and the same Kingdom of God.
That this is erroneous will appear from the following considerations (1)
The announcements of the Kingdom with which the New Test. begins is op-
posed to it, Prop. 19 ; (2) the expectations of the pious Jews, Props. 20, 47,
40, 41, and 43; (3) the condition of the Church does not accord with pre-
dictions of the Prophets respecting the Kingdom, Prop. 21; (4) the
Church does 2o¢ correspond with the preaching of John, Jesus and the dis-
ciples, Props. 22, 23, 38, 39, 54, 42, 44; (5) the Church is not like the
Kingdom of God once established, lacking the Theocratic arrangement
once instituted, Props. 25, 27, 28, 29; (6) the Church is not like the
Kingdom once established, overthrown and promised a restoration, Props.
31, 32, 33; (7) the Church is not the Kingdom, otherwise the disciples
were ignorant of what they preached, Prop. 48 ; (8) that the Church is the
promised Kingdom is opposed by the covenants, Props. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,
52; (9) the preaching of the Kingdom as nigh and then its postponement
is against making the Church a Kingdom, Props. 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
61, 62, ete. ; (10) the preaching of the apostles after Christ’s death con-
jirms our doctrine, Props. 70, 71, 72, 738, etc. ; (11) the Church was noé
taken from the Jews but the Kingdom was, Prop. preceding, etc. ; (12)
the Church is not the Kingdom because it will not be given wzéil the elect
are gathered, Props. 62, 63, 65, 68, etc. ; (13) The Second Advent is the
period when the Kingdom is established, Prop. 51, 52. In brief the Pro-
positions preceding all contain so many reasons for not making the Church
the promised Kingdom of David’s Son. The simple fact is, that if we once
take the covenanted promises in their plain sense, and view the testimony
of Scripture sustaining such a sense, it is utterly impossible to convert the
Church into the promised Kingdom without a violation of propriety and
unity of Divine Purpose. ‘I'he remaining. Propositions that follow, nearly
all, are additional proofs sustaining our doctrine.
Incidental proof corroborative of our position, can alsd be alleged. Thus e.g. the
conduct of the apostles, after the Christian Church was established, to conciliate the
Jews in attending the sacrifices and services in the temple, and adhering in many re-
spects to the laws and customs of Moses, can only be satisfactorily reconciled with
our view, that the Christian Church (just as the preceding Jewish) is preparatory to the
Kingdom. If a Kingdom was established, as Fairbairn and others assert, then the
charge of unbelievers, that they had but an imperfect notion of the Kingdom and its
proprieties, remains in force (and crushing, becauseif imperfect in knowledge on so
important a matter as the goal, how can we trust them in other matters?) But from
our standpoint we see only a matter of prudence, a manifested desire to avoid diffi-
culty, etc., which, connected with things non-essential, was far from being inconsis-
tent with a correct view of the church, its meaning and design. In the controversy be-
tween Paul and Peter, our opponents forget what they previously asserted respecting
Peter’s knowledge of the Kingdom in Acts, ch. 2 and 3 (excepting some, who tell us
that even in those sermons he manifested great ignorance, possessed only ‘‘the husk,”
etc.)—for they inform us that Peter had low ideas respecting the Kingdom. They
forget also that Paul’s objections to Peter were based (1) on the rites and ceremonies
being non-essential ; (2) non-essential, but yet burdensome and leading to bondage ;
(8) non-essential, but yet calculated, if pressed too far, to obscure repentance and faith
in Christ ; (4) non-essential, so that even he (Paul), for the sake of conciliation, at-
tended to some rites, but without sacrificing Christian truth. Nowhere does Paul base
his rejection of Mosaic rites, etc., upon the fact of a Kingdom being established, but upon
the fact of the provision made through Jesus for salvation, and the call of the Gentiles
 Prop. 93.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 613
through repentance and faith. The Church-Kingdom theory feathers the shaft which
infidelity (so e.g. Duke of Somerset, Ch. Theol., p. 76) sends against inspiration, see-
ing that Paul is pressed as the exponent of a Kingdom, over against Peter, James,
etc. Our attitude and belief indicate no such antagonism. If one is overtaken in
weakness by the effort to conciliate the prejudices of the Jews, this only intimates the
nature and design of the church, and is no reason for.the rejection of fundamental
truth, because it is a mere matter of conduct, probationary discipline, test of character,
etc., to which the apostles, having to fight the good fight of faith, were, like all other
men, subject—the very church relationship evidencing the same.

Obs. 4. Some occupying higher ground, take the view that the Kingdom
of God existed continuously before and in the Christian Church, asserting
that the form of the Theocracy was changeable and temporary (so Kurtz,
His. of the Old Covenant, p. 110), but that the essence was retained and
transferred to the Christian Church, thus forming an unbroken Kingdom
of God. To this we observe : (1) That the Theocratic arrangement as spec-
ified in the Davidic covenant 1s not changeable or temporary. It is pro-
mised by oath that His throne and Kingdom as established in His Son is
eternal ; (2) to make it temporary is equivalent to saying that God’s effort
to act as an earthly Ruler wasa failure ; (3) the only change that was
made in the form was that caused by the Jews seeking a visible King and
in this God acquiesced, and incorporated the principle, as we have shown,
in His purpose of Redemption ; (4) admitting the change of form, then
the Church has Jess honor than the past Theocracy, in that it has not God
for its earthly Ruler, and that, therefore, in this respect, there is a retro-
gression from the higher Kingdom to the lower ; (5) it overrides with in-
conclusive proof the reasons we have already presented for the contrary
view.
To avoid repetition, it is taken for granted that the reader has passed over the
previous Propositions, and hence a mere reference to the line of argument is deemed
sufficient. The answer to Kurtz is found in the Davidic Covenant, the prophecies based
on it, and the first preaching derived from it. It is a most solemnly pledged truth, con-
firmed by the oath of the Almighty, that the Theorcratic order, as under David, will be
restored and most gloriously perpetuated at the appointed time under his Son, our Lord
Jesus Christ. Hence it is impossible to allow to the church the features of a restored
Theocratic Kingdom as covenanted ; for there is no restored Jewish nation, no restored
tabernacle of David, no restored earthly rule of God, no Theocratic rule manifested
through David’s Son, etc. Men may claim that this or that church is ‘‘ the Theocratic
Kingdom” (so Papacy), or ‘‘ the Kingdom of God’’ (so many Protestants), or ‘‘ Christ’s
Kingdom on earth’’ (so Shakers), or even ‘‘ the New Jerusalem state’’ (so Sweden-
borgians), etc., but all, without exception, lack the covenanted and prophetic marks,
so that a firm believer in the Word cannot allow any of them this coveted honor.

Obs. 5. It may be well in this place to illustrate the arguments that are
employed by others to elevate the Church into a Kingdom, and we there-
fore select a work which has been specially written to perform this ser-
vice.
In The Kingdom of Grace, ch. 2, the author gives us his Scriptural, and other author-
ity. The Church is a Kingdom, (1) because ‘‘the Kingdom of God is within you,’’
forgetting that this was addressed to the wicked Pharisees who were so unconscious of
a Kingdom within them that they inquired concerning it, see Prop. 110 ; (2) ‘‘ My King-
dom is not of this world,’’ which we also teach, as will be shown under its appropriate
heading, see Prop. 109 ; (3) that Jesus claimed to be King, which claim we admit to be
just, but is far from proving the establishment of the Kingdom ; (4) Jesus did not set
up any direct claim to occupy David’s throne while living, which we admit and clearly
point out the reason for not so doing, viz. : the postponement of the Kingdom, see Prop.
58, etc. ; (5) that David’s Kingdom was not of heavenly origin as the church :—this is
 614 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRrop. 93.

incorrect, as the reader will see by referring to Props. 28, 31, etc., and the covenant,
Prop. 49, all proving that it was God’s own ordering, the throne and Kingdom claimed as
His own, and the King himself being divinely consecrated or anointed to his position ;
(6) that Christ has not yet raised up David’s throne, and therefore it is argued, that He
never will,—this argument is presuming to point out what is right and proper for Deity
to perform, and has been already answered ; (7) the preaching of John, ** Repent, for
the Kingdom of heaven is at hand,’ is ‘‘ evidently the gospel dispensation,” for nothing
else appeared near at hand but this, etc.—the reasoning is this: the Kingdom was
predicted as near, the church was established, and hence the church is the Kingdom,
which overlooks the change in the style of preaching, Prop. 58, and the postponement,
Prop. 68. He continues (8) quoting Isa. 9:6, 7, and bases the alleged fact of the
church being the Kingdom on, ‘“‘of the increase of his government and peace there
shall be no end,’’ saying : ‘‘ This expression is, in my view, fatal to the theory of Mil-
lenarians ; for, according to the principles of that theory, the government of Christ is
to have no increase after the Second Advent. The elect will all have been gathered in
against that great day, when the Son is to be revealed in glory from heaven.’ It is
surprising to charge our theory with a doctrine which it pointedly repudiates, as can be
seen by the early church view and the history of our doctrine down to the present,
which insists on the reign of Jesus on the restored throne and Kingdom of David over
the Jewish nation, and the spared Gentiles, etc. (9) Refers us to Rev. 3 : 21, claiming
from the passage that Christ is on His throne, and now reigns in the predicted manner,
but (a) the Word says that He is ‘‘ set down with my Father on His throne,” indicating
great exaltation, but contrasted still with the “ my throne,’’ which in a special manner
belongs to Him as Son of man ; (b) he makes in this theory, as a present result, all the
saints now rewarded, crowned, associated with Christ in Mis rule, against the most direct
teaching to the contrary ; (c) and following His theory, as given in another place, he
makes these same rewarded and crowned saints lay aside their received honor to appear
at the judgment-bar and receive their sentences ; (10) He asks what advantage would it
be to have Christ’s visible throne on earth, for He could only be seen by a few ; those
in foreign countries. as China and America, could not see Him, unless ‘‘ they should
have new organs of vision given to them,” etc. This is altogether unworthy of notice,
and is only reproduced to introduce the remark : suppose after all that the apostolic
Fathers and that long line of noble witnesses to the Kingdom as covenanted, and as
held by Millenarians, are correct, would not such writers, who speak so disrespectfully of
the Saviour’s throne, its lowness and degradation if planted here on the earth, appear
before that King with the deepest confusion? Brethren, who think that they do God's
service by opposing us, should at least exhibit the respect due to discussions in which
the Saviour’s glory is involved. This observation is the more necessary in view of. what
follows. (11) For, he makes sport of the dominion attributed to Jesus by Millenarians,
taking only as much of it as happens to suit his style of witticism. Thus (qa) he refers to
Winthrop (Lectures), arguing that the original grant of dominion (Gen. 1 : 26-28), lost by
the fall, is restored by the Second Adam, giving as proof Ps. 8, comp. with Heb. 2 : 5-9.
(b) He examines this with the following result : (1) Adam reigned personally over fish,
fowl, cattle, creeping things, etc., so the Second Adam must do the same, and “ what a
glorious Kingdom this will be of our blessed Saviour! But we did not know that this
was the Kingdom which He bought with His precious blood.” Comment is unneces-
sary, for argumentation that can stoop to such absurdity, disallowing the dominion we
give to Jesus, is unworthy of a serious reply (comp. Prop. 203). (2) He informs us that
the phrase ‘‘ Son of Man,’ in the 8th Ps., has not ‘‘ the remotest allusion whatever to
the man Christ Jesus,’””—that it denotes man only, and sarcastically inquires whether the
animals, etc., are to be also resurrected over whom He is to reign. (3) He says that Heb.
2: etc., only applies to man so far as dominion over animals, etc., is concerned, and not
to Christ ; objects to Winthrop’s making ‘‘ the world to come’’ to mean “‘ the inhabit-
able earth to come,” on the ground that we are not at liberty to add a word as under-
stood ;—that we make by such application to Christ verses 8 and 9 contradictory ;—that
Son of man when it has a reference to Christ begins with a capital letter ; that our theory
makes David’s language unmeaning, which only indicates humility, for David could not
say, ‘‘ Who is Jesus Christ that thou visitest him,” etc. Against this argument based on -
the dominion promised to ** the Son of man,” it is sufficient to say, (1) that it is opposed
to the views of multitudes who are hostile to Millenarianism. The commentators, as
e.g. Barnes, Stuart, etc., decide in our favor—while theologians of all classes almost
universally contend that Winthrop’s argument is correct. (2) That it is in opposition to
the early church view, and in direct conflict with the promises given to Christ ; that as
the Second Adam, the Son of man, all things shall be in subjection to Him. (12)
 Prop. 93.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 615

Lastly he refers to Ezek. 36 : 23-28 (admitting the literal restoration of the Jews), Ezek.
37 : 11-14, and Dan. 2: but as these passages will be discussed under Propositions, we
leave them with this conclusion : Such is the line of argument which a work devoted to
make out the church a Kingdom, a visible and spiritual one, is only able to produce. From
it the reader cannot fail to see that it infers such a Kingdom, being utterly unable to
produce a decisive passage which declares either that the Son of man now reigns as
predicted or that the church is at present His Kingdom.
The reasons given by Brown (Sec. Coming) are of a similar nature (only not so dis-
respectful in tone), and the Scriptures relied upon to sustain a present Messianic cove-
nanted Kingdom are the following : Acts 2 : 29-36, Zech. 6 : 12, Rev. 5 : 6, and 3 : 7, 8,
12, Isa. 9 : 6, 7, Acts 3 : 13-15, and 3 : 19-21, and 4 : 26, 28, with Ps. 2, Acts 5 : 29, 31.
As all these passages are frequently referred to and explained,—as they have no reference
to a present existing Kingdom as covenanted (that being inferred),—as they must be
considered in the light of the general analogy of the Word,—it is sufficient, for the
present, to allude to them, so that the student may observe the exceeding slight founda-
tion upon which the prevailing view rests. A direct passage in favor of the Augustinian
view cannot be produced; it is supported entirely by inference, as e.g. Fairbairn (On
Proph.) infers it from the two discourses of Peter in Acts ;and Mason (Essays on the
Church, No. 1), after correctly defining the church, supposes it to be the Kingdom of
God, because he infers that such passages as Isa. 66 : 12, Isa. 49 : 23, Isa. 6 : 3, 5, and
especially ‘‘ He that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles,’’ must apply to the present
existing church. Now, we cannot, for a moment, allow that a Kingdom the subject of
covenant and prophecy, the object of faith, hope, and joy, can be left, if really estab-
lished, to mere inference. And more, we cannot believe, that if set up as many the-
ologians tell us, the early church for several centuries would be unconscious of the
same.

Obs. 6. A main leading feature in this effort to make out of the Church
the predicted Kingdom of the Messiah, is found in applying to the pres-
ent, things relating to the Church which are spoken of as prospectively
(the present used as the future, Prop. 65, Obs. 9), as e.g. Heb. 12 : 22,
23. Promises are given which can only, as we shall hereafter show, be
realized by the Church as a completed body. 'This principle must not be
overlooked, as e.g. the marriage of the Church, which (1) one party con-
fines to the Church now on earth as married to Jesus ; (2) another asserts
is done as every believer enters the third heaven, so that recently a pro-
minent theologian delivered a funeral discourse in which he made a dis-
tinguished minister, deceased, sitting down and already enjoying the mar-
riage supper, etc. ; (3) while still another declares the same to be still
future as the Scriptures and the early Church locate it, viz. : to occur only
at the Second Advent. It will be satisfactorily seen, as we proceed, that
many promises, that are only to be realized in the future Kingdom, are
seized and appropriated to the Church ; and this is not only done by the
Popes quoting and applying to themselves, as earthly Heads of the
Church, Millennial predictions, but by Protestants in their laudation of
Churches. This is done not only from motives of self-interest and am-
bition, but with a sincere desire to indicate the honor, stability, and per-
petuity of Christ’s Kingdom. Well may the former be attributed to some
of the representatives of the Papacy who even appropriated descriptions
applicable to Jesus unto themselves, while the latter is seen in the well-in-
tentioned denomination of the Church by the phrase ‘‘ the City of God,’’
given by Augustine, followed by the multitude, and recently re-introduced
by Mansel, Abbey, and others. It is notorious that the names Israel,
Judah, and Jerusalem are regarded by a host of writers as synonymous
with the Church, without any regard to the connection of the prophecy that
the same Israel, Judah and Jerusalem acted and overthrown for its sinful-.
ness, is to be restored to favor, and is thus meant. The curses pronounced,
616 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRopP. 93.

are all carefully heaped upon them severally and shown in their case to be
sadly realized, while the blessings promised to the identically same nation
and city are taken from them and carefully bestowed upon the Gentile
churches. Is this honest to the Record?
Cbs. 7. This view of the Church, as we have already seen (Prop. 78), is
not inconsistent with the earliest creeds. Those modern phrases and de-
finitions so current are unknown to them. 'They embody a Scriptural idea
of the Church, and are consistent with the doctrine received by the first
churches (Props. 72-76). The later confessions of various denominations,
generally, when speaking of the Kingly office of Christ and His Kingdom
either deal in general expressions susceptible of different interpretations,
and therefore indecisive ; or else passages are quoted which teach both
the Kingship of Christ and His Kingdom, but are practically misapplied
by not more explicitly asking when the same shall be manifested. ‘Thus
in looking over several, Isa. 9 : 6, 7 is the favorite passage with them in
making the Church the Kingdom of the Messiah. Instead of asking when
this is to be verified, leaving parallel passages and the preceding context of
Isa. 9, which predicts this to occur in union with the Jewish nation at a
time of mighty national deliverance (see verses 3, 4, 5, Barnes, Hengsten-
berg, Gesenius, etc., loci), they appropriate the passage zsolated and torn
from its connection. In one confession, more plain than others, it is as-
serted that ‘‘ Jesus Christ hath here on earth a spiritual Kingdom which
is His Church,’ etc., and the proof texts given are Matt. 11:11 and
18 : 19, 20. Neither of these texts have a direct bearing and are inferred
(wrongfully) to teach it.
Obs. 8. The same is true of works on Systematic Divinity. Thus, e.g.
Dr. Hodge in his recent work gives as proof texts Isa. 9:6, 7; Ps. 2,
etc., which only assert that Christ shall be king; also Dan. 7:13, 14 ;
Ps. 45, 72, and 110; Luke 1: 31-33, without attempting to show that
they are correctly applied, but in a manner, as if such an interpretation
was never questioned by the early church and many witnesses in the
church. This is characteristic of many of them, and is especially weak
when the design is to give a systematic view of Christian doctrine
thoroughly founded on the Word in a clear and decisive form. Theo-
logians of eminence take singular and contradictory views of the church
asa Kingdom. One of the latest, Dr. Thompson (Theol. of Christ, ch.
10), endeavors to define the Kingdom of God. He opposes the view of
Dr. Oosterzee, who makes the Kingdom of God a new thing not formerly
in existence ; he tells us, ‘‘ To the men whom Christ addressed, the King-
dom of God was no new idea, or rather, it was no new phase ; but it can
hardly be said to have represented any definite idea to a generation that
had so far lost the meaning of their own law and history’’ —this against
the preaching of John and the disciples, see Props. 39, 48, etc. After
correctly and forcibly stating that this Kingdom is based on a Deliverer
and redeemed people, although probably in a sense different from ours,
he then informs us that the Kingdom is ‘‘ not simply his providential
government over the world at large, nor his universal government over
this and all worlds’’ (thus sustaining our Propositions on the Sovereignty
of God the Father and the Son) ; ‘‘ nor the king and high priest set up in
His name ; but the presence and power of God felt and acknowledged an
Prop. 93.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 617

the hearts of those that trusted in Him and did His commandments’’
(comp. Props. 84, 85, 110, etc.). Subsequently he represents it as ‘‘ the
idea of a living present God who dwelt in the hearts of all true worship-
pers, as a monarch living among his subjects.’’ Such a Kingdom he says
Jesus preached, meaning “‘ the presence of God as a Saviour realized fo the
sowl,’’ and gives utterance, under what he calls ‘‘ a spiritual conception of
the Kingdom,’’ to a number of things as embraced in the preaching of’
Jesus that, so far as the Record goes, Jesus Christ never proclaimed. In
reply, see the Props. on the preaching of Jesus and disciples.
If Jesus really did preach such a Kingdom as Thompson claims, it ought to be decided
and established by the Gospels, but these unmistakably prove the contrary by the stubborn
fact that neither the Seventy nor the Twelve comprehended the nature of the Kingdom
to be such as he teaches. Another proof will be found below in next Prop., Obs. 2. We
are indeed told that the more devout and spiritual, such as Zacharias, Simeon, Joseph of
Arimathea, expected just such a Kingdom, but this is not only unproven, but contrary to
the general, universal expectation of the Jews, Props. 20, 21, 40, 44, ete. Again, he de-
clares that ‘‘ the Kingdom consists in doing the will of the Father ;’ that ‘“‘ coming to the
realization of God in His supreme Lordship over the soul, is the Kingdom ;” that the
Church, ‘‘ held together by a personal faith in Him, did not constitute the Kingdom of
God in the most pure and absolute sense ;’ that “ the external, visible Church may
shadow forth that Kingdom,’’ while ‘‘ the true Church of Christ’’ (i.e. as we understand
him, true believers in union with Christ, hence the invisible Church) ‘‘ is identical with
the true Kingdom of God.” All these definitions are of human origin ; not one is to be
found in the Bible (those expressions from which it might be inferred will be subse-
quently examined in Props. 108, 109, and 110), and every one of them mistakes the requi-
site qualification for entrance into the Kingdom, for the Kingdom itself. Repentance,
faith, obedience, union with Christ, etc., are essential for inheriting, but do not constitute
the Kingdom itself. The covenant forbids it.

Obs. 9. The church, as we have shown, being designed to gather out and
raise up those who should be rulers in, inheritors of the Kingdom, it is
“necessary for them to possess certain qualifications. Those just mentioned
are specified, and therefore true believers, instead of being im the King-
dom, are represented as being 77 a state of probation, of trial and testing.
The very nature of probation 7s opposed to the idea of the Kingdom as
given by the Prophets, and hence in the Epistles believers are exhorted to
hold fast to faith and obedience that they might attain unto the Kingdom,
1 Pet.1 :7 3 2° Thess. 1 :5-11, ete.

Obs. 10. The church, instead of being represented as a Kingdom, is held

up to us as a struggling, suffering people, Col. 1:24; 2 Tim. 1:8; 2
Cor. 1:5; 2 Thess. 1:4; 2 Pet. 4: 12,13, ete. The founders, the apos-
tles, themselves suffered, Acts 14:20 and 9:16; Eph. 3:13, ete. Saints
are to fill up the measure of Christ’s sufferings, Acts 14:20 ; 2 Thess. 1 :5,
etc. Saints have endured martyrdom, and as such are still waiting until
the body is completed. Take the descriptions given of Christians still
groaning (Rom. 8:23), as given by Delitzsch (Ser, Ap. to Sys. Bid.
Psyc.), in their trials, temptations, struggles against sin, etc., and how
can this possibly be reconciled with the idea of a Kingdom such as the
Prophets predicted under the Messiah, e.g. Isa. 25, etc.? “*Pilgrims and
strangers’’ in the Kingdom as promised, is something incredible. Tertul-
lian (Treat. on Prayer, ch. 5); teaching that the Kingdom in the Lord’s
prayer is xo¢t the church, whilst admitting, as we do, that ‘‘ God reigns in
whose hand is the heart of all kings,’’ locates the Kingdom, petitioned
for, in the future at the end of the age, and in view of the present condi-
618 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 93.

tion of believers rebukes those who pray that this age may be protracted,
on the ground that such a petition is virtually opposed to the spirit of the
Lord’s Prayer, and virtually asks for a delayment or detention of the
Kingdom, saying, ‘‘ Our wish is that our reign be hastened, not owr servi-
tude protracted,’’ etc. Such should be our spirit and prayer. For “ the
disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his Lord,”’ and if
Christ, whilst on earth, instead of reigning as Son of Man, suffered for us,
etc., we should, in our pilgrimage, anticipate reproach and suffering and
not reigning or the enjoyment of a Kingdom. ‘The sad history of the
church teaches us that there is a deepand abiding meaning in Luke 12 : 49,
and that she has indeed had a time of fire, and her trials indicate that
this is not yet the Kingdom of peace under the benign reign of the Messiah
as delineated by the Prophets. Individuals truly have peace with God in
believing, but 7ffaithful do not find it with their fellow-man, the world,
or even in a great extent in the church itself.

Obs. 11. Those modern phrases of ministers and people, ‘‘ of extending,

enlarging, building up, etc., Christ’s Kingdom’? are not to be found in the
New. Test. They are the result of viewing the church as the Kingdom.
The absence of such phraseology and eulogies of the church derived from
Millennial descriptions must also have some weight with the student.
For, if the church is what the many tell us, then surely we ought to find
the portrayals of it as a glorious Kingdom to be extended by believers given
by inspired men, But our argument logically and scripturally shows that
such language from them would be fatal to the covenant itself. Christ
Himself personally, and not men, can build up this Kingdom at the ap-
pointed time.
Much is said in books, sermons, hymns, prayers, etc., under the impulse of misguided
zeal, respecting the Church’s building up the Kingdom of Christ. This isa remnant
derived from Popish sources, and reminds one of the Spiritual Exercises of Loyola (Lit-
tell’s Liv. Age, vol. 122, p. 646), commending to the Order ‘‘ the contemplation of the
Kingdom of Christ Jesus under the similitude of a terrestrial king, calling out his sub-
jects to the strife.’’ The believer certainly carries on a warfare, constantly and unremit-
tingly, if faithful, against temptation and evil, and in behalf of the truth and God’s ap-
pointments, but never in behalf of an existing Kingdom. The latter is never asserted,
and is, therefore, of human origin. What must we say, then, when bodies of Christians
send forth circulars and proclamations urging believers to pray for the upbuilding, ete.
of a present existing Kingdom, when in fact none exists in the sense they suppose, or,
when an Official oath is required of ministers (as in Prussia, established in 1815, and re-
newed in 1835), in which they swear that they will ‘extend in my congregation the
Kingdom of God, and of my Lord and Master Jesus Christ,’’ when such a Kingdom is
given by the Father (Prop. 83) to Jesus at (Prop. 66) His Sec. Advent? Strange where
man’s wisdom, if the covenants are forsaken, leads him! Such a mode of procedure is
unbecoming the eminent divines who have, unreflectingly, indorsed it, and may safely
be left to others, as e.g. Mormons ; for so Miss Eliza R. Snow, the Mormon Prophetess
in the poem “ Our Prophet, Brigham Young :’’
“Help him to found thy Kingdom
In majesty and power,” etc.

Obs. 12. The church is not this Kingdom of prophecy, because the
establishment of the church does not meet the conditions of the prophecy -
respecting the period of suffering, etc., preceding the Kingdom. Notice
(1) the views of the Jews (Van Oosterzee, Theol. of N. T., p. 53), that
they expected the Messiah to come in a time of great trial; (2) this
derived from the declaration of the Prophets, as e.g. Zech. 14; Dan. 7
PRop. 93.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 619

and 12; this the language also of Jesus to the Pharisees, Luke 17, Matt.
24; (3) but instead of war, etc., as portrayed by Zech. and others, the
Christian Church was established in a time of peace. The destruction of
Jerusalem was afterward witnessed. This period of general peace is much
admired and lauded by writers, and justly so, but their inquiries in this
direction only proves the more conclusively that the church cannot be sub-
stituted for the predicted Kingdom, inasmuch as the very commencement
of the former is not in accord with what is prophesied of the latter.
If the student refers to Props. 115, 123, 133, 147, 160, 161, 162, 163, etc., he will find
the Scriptures relating to the period of war, suffering, etc., just preceding the establish-
ment of the covenant Messianic Kingdom, showing that there is a wide and material
difference between the First and Second Advents. And may it be most reverently said,
that this very distinction of the condition of things as witnessed at the First Advent, and
as shall be observed at the Second, is one of those incidental but forcible proofs of an
all-pervading Plan which God purposes to complete.

Obs. 13. That such a Kingdom is not to be sought in the Christian

Church appears also from the views entertained by our opponents of the
general judgment. If the judgment exists in the form and manner given
by them, and the believers, as well as unbelievers, are to be judicially
tried at the end of the world, etc., then it is difficult to reconcile such a
judgment with present admittance into the Kingdom of Christ, for the
simple reason that the Scriptures assure us that entrance into by inherit-
ing the Kingdom 7s inconsistent with a future judging of such persons.
For such admittance is represented as a reward for previous well-doing
and results from an investigation and approval of character (Matt. 25 : 34 ;
Luke 22 : 29, 30; 2 Thess. 1 : 5, etc.).

Obs. 14. Those who believe that the church is the Kingdom, differ widely
among themselves as to when it was established and in what it consists.
As we have repeatedly seen, the time of its commencement varies, and a
copious variety of definitions exist. 'Thisin itself would be undecisive, as
differences in opinion may exist, and yet the truth may be in some one of
them, but such, when they are found in the same party, clearly show that
with them the subject is more or d2ss involved in obscurity, giving rise to
numerous conceptions of it. One theory steadfastly adhered to indicates
at least, unity, whilst several feebly conjoined, or antagonistic, manifests
weakness. If we take the descriptions of the prophets and covenant
promises, it is impossible to believe that the Kingdom of God should
possess such characteristics that its commencement cannot be definitely and
decisively fixed, and that its meaning cannot be precisely given. If we
look at the prophetic announcements of the conspicuous nature, etc.,
of the Kingdom, it seems incredible that it should occupy the indefinite
position assigned to the church.
As soon as spiritualizing is applied to the Kingdom, then antagonistic interpretations
and opposite definitions are given, until we have in the same person two, five, ten, and
even twenty different ones (see Prop. 3). This is the case with even the most recent
writers, so that e.g. one (Van Oosterzee) makes Christ the Founder of this Kingdom at
His First Advent, and another (Thompson) has Christ only reviving what previously al-
ways existed. The utmost latitude is given to generalities, which mean nothing, and
qualifications for the Kingdom (and even the Gospel, preaching, etc.) are elevated into
the Kingdom itself. Surely all this—in the light of positive prediction that the King-
dom when established is something recognizable by all men, something that all will
620 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 93.

acknowledge as indisputable in its manifestation—should prevent us from accepting this

Origenistic view of the Church).

Obs. 15. Making the church the Kingdom of God is a plain violation of
some important rules of interpretation. Thus, e.g. take those given by
Horne (ntrod., vol. 1, p. 393) on the doctrinal interpretation of the
Scriptures, and we have a constant disregard paid to rules 1, 3, 5, 6, 10,
and 11, and (p. 407) to rules 1, 2, and 3. For, as already repeatedly
intimated, the view so generally entertained respecting the church is one
of pure inference, whilst the general tenor concerning the Kingdom, the
covenant and predictions in which it is specially discussed are practically
ignored, preference being given to a few isolated passages (easily recon-
cilable with the general analogy), or to parabolic captions, which, in the
nature of the case, must only be explained in the light of the more ex-
tended and detailed accounts given of the Kingdom. Besides this, our
doctrine is ¢he only one which preserves a consistency in the Old Test. idea
of the Kingdom as held by the pious Jews, as preached by John and the
Disciples, as covenanted, and which does not degrade the ancient worthies
into an ignorant or mistaken people ; interpreting as it does the Biblical
view of the Kingdom in accordance with the ancient language, expecta-
tions, covenant, preaching, etc., and not with the Origenistic ideas and
more modern modes of thought and spiritualizing.
Consequently we must logically and Scripturally reject any theory, no matter by
whom advocated, which would make the Church, or religion, or piety, or the Gospel, or
the dispensation, or the qualifications for eternal blessedness, equivalent to the Mes-
sianic Kingdom. Covenant, prophecy, provisionary measures, fultilment, ancient faith,
all forbid it. The Church, however exceedingly precious and necessary, is in no sense
the Kingdom, being simply preparatory for the Kingdom. Sustained as it is by the
Divine Sovereignty ; upheld as it is by the presence and authority of the Head, it has
not the characteristics of the promised Kingdom. It is sad to find that men who exert a
wide influence upon theological teaching do not discriminate in this matter, as e.g. illus-
trated in Robinson’s Greek N. T. Dic., which makes the Kingdom to be the Christian
dispensation, and then a principle in the heart, and then a people under the influence of
holiness, and then to be perfected at Christ’s Kingdom. (Comp. e.g. for reply to such
places as Prop. 59, Obs. 8; Prop. 65, Obs. 2; Prop. 68, Obs. 1; Prop. 66, Obs. 1 ; Props.
67 and 70, etc.) Such definitions overlook the most simple statements in reference to
this Kingdom, as e.g. that this Kingdom is allied with a Coming of the Messiah—not in
humiliation, but in glory ; with a restoration—not dispersion—of the Jewish nation ;
with a completed gathering of the saints, etc.
Prop. 94.] THE THEOORATIC KINGDOM. 621

Proposition 94. The overlooking of the postponement of this

Kingdom is a fundamental mistake, and a fruitful source
of error in many systems of Theology.
One of the most important events connected with the history of
Jesus (Props. 58, 66, etc.) is entirely ignored by the multitude ; an
event, too, plainly stated, and upon which result fearful (to the
Jews) and merciful (to the Gentiles) consequences. This remark-
able event, interwoven into the very life of Jesus as a controlling
JSorce, is the postponement of the once tendered Kingdom to the
Sec. Advent.
Obs. 1. This doctrine, noticed by, and influencing the faith and hope
of the Primitive Church, is now, under spiritualizing and mystical ascend-
ency, passed by in numerous Commentaries, Lives of Christ, Systems of
Divinity, Introductions to Theology, Histories of Doctrine, Practical The-
ology, and Exegetical Works, just as if it had no existence. The fact is,
that many writers, with their minds prejudiced and blinded by a previous
training, never even suspected its existence; for, following the lead of
others, swayed by previously given systems of belief and exegetical indorse-
ments by favorite authors, they receive their guidance without mistrust as
in accordance with the truth.
The leaders themselves proceed thus : overlooking the postponement of the Kingdom,
and assuming that a Kingdom was somehow established, they proceed, one in this fash-
ion and another in that, to find this Kingdom somewhere, if not visibly at least invisi-
bly, associated with the Church or the Divine Sovereignty. In their estimation, and as-
sumption of an unproven theory, a Kingdom must be erected, if it takes four, six, eight
or more Kingdoms in different stages and places, with various meanings attached
(comp. Prop. 3), to make it out, and this moulds the interpretation of Scripture, for
every passage not in harmony with it must be spiritualized uniil it is forced into an agree-
ment. And this creature of pure fancy, so antagonistic to the covenanted Kingdom,
which they are pleased to give the title of ‘‘ the Kingdom of God,’’ some even, like the
author of Lece Homo (p. 23), consider ‘‘ greater than prophecy had ever attributed to the
Messiah Himself.” In brief: the Prophets and the Covenants are ‘‘ too materialistic,”
‘‘tco Jewish’’ for this refined spiritually conceived Kingdom. Alas! men, eminent for
piety, ability, and usefulness, materially aid in this wide departure from the primitive
truth. While some of those theories form pleasant pictures, and are finely portrayed,
still, like some of the imaginary paintings of the old masters, they have no reality upon
which they are based—they, however widely spread and deeply rooted, are only the re-
sults of human suppositions. The writer has often been saddened to find believers,
from whom he has derived mucl/ valuable information on various subjects when enter-
ing into the discussion of the progress of doctrine, entirely discard the Primitive Church
view as if it had never been so generally and publicly entertained, although the post-
ponement forms the basis of the call of the Gentiles, the establishment of the Ch.
Church, and the distinctive Chiliastic views of the early Church (referring the Kingdom,
etc., to the Sec. Advent). Some writers even suppose that the preaching of Jesus as the
Christ is the present realization of the Kingdom in the person of Jesus. They illogically
make the “ preaching of the things concerning the Kingdom” the equivalent of the King-
dom itself.
622 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 94.

Obs. 2. A truth so fundamental to a correct understanding of the Doc-

trine of the Kingdom, is buried under a load of prejudice, preconceived
opinion, mysticism, etc. Infidel and Orthodox, unbelievers and believers,
alike maintain on this point a friendly relation. Thus e.g. Renan (Life
of Jesus) makes Jesus set up an ideal Kingdom, which is to appear im-
mediately, and which, he tells us, is established. Dr. McCosh, in replying
to Renan (Christ and Positiv., p. 243), admits the establishment of the
Kingdom, and designates it a spiritual one. Rejecting the early church
view (founded on the plain, unmistakable, grammatical sense of Scripture,
and received directly from inspired men), which found a profound meaning
in this postponement, and heartily embracing the Origenistic interpreta-
tion, which sadly mars the covenants and recognizes no postponement,
this must necessarily have a moulding influence, a coloring power over all
related subjects. One of the most radical defects in modern theology is
found on this point, and, so long as persevered in, certain avenues of
knowledge are closed ; mystical interpretation ; vain attempts to conciliate
the Divine utterances with prevailing theories of church and _ state;
labored, unavailing efforts to trace a methodical progress in the teaching of
the Saviour and disciples; spiritualistic applications which effectually
degrade the ancient faith of the church; the overshadowing and ignor-
ing of highly important truth—these and other evils attend such a posi-
tion. Thousands of volumes attest to the fact that, with this link missing,
it is in vain to form a complete, perfect chain in the Divine Purpose, and
at the same time preserve the integrity of the preaching of John, Jesus,
and the disciples.
The sad consequences of overlooking this postponement is e.g. duly exemplified in
the work (John on the Apoc. of the N. Test.) of Rev. Desprez (commended by Drs. Noyes,
Williams, and Stanley). This writer, no doubt urged on by the critical attacks of unbe-
lief in this direction, fully and frankly acknowledges ail that we have stated concerning
the preaching of the Kingdom and its expectation by the apostles and their immediate
successors ; but overlooking the plain and distinctive Scriptures which portray its post-
ponement, he arrives precisely at the same conclusion with the destructive critics, viz. :
that all this matter referring to a Jewish Kingdom, to the Second Coming of Christ, and
to the final re-establishment, must be ruled out as no part of the Word of God (being the
result of Jewish prejudice, misapprehension, etc.), because the lapse of time has fully
demonstrated that nothing of the kind occurred as they expected. Alas! when accred-
ited ministers of the Gospel give themselves up to such fearful destructive and delusive
criticism to the delight of unbelievers! Of course, such an attitude at once eliminates
a large proportion of the teaching of the Gospels and Epistles, utterly rejects the Apoca-
lypse as revolving around a chimera, sets aside the covenants and God’s oath as untrust-
worthy, and overshadows all the remainder with a heavy pall of doubt. If Desprez is
correct, what confidence can we possibly have in the apostles, or in the utterances of any
of the inspired writers ;for if in error on the leading important subject of the King-
dom, why not also in error on the resurrection, the atonement, and, in brief, all other
doctrines? No! never can such outrageous, dishonoring interpretation be received, al-
though Desprez boasts of a phalanx of interlaced shields (of proof), for it lacks coherency
in that it totally ignores the proof given by these writers themselves respecting the post-
ponement of the Kingdom. The past is no criterion in the sense alleged by Desprez (al-
though it proves the correctness of the postponement), and he had better wait until
““ the times of the Gentiles ” are fulfilled before he thus decides. If Gentile domination
ceases, if the Jewish nation is restored, and Jerusalem is no longer downtrodden, ete.,.
and then the Kingdom does not come, it will be in place to receive his criticism ; until
then it amounts to nothing.

Obs. 3. The rejection of the postponement of the Kingdom, is a rejec-

tion of the only key that can unlock the singular and otherwise mysterious
Prop. 94.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 623

sayings of Jesus. The consistency of the Divine narration of Christ’s

Life, and of the faith and conduct of His disciples before and after His
death, 7s alone preserved by its adoption. We have learned and able
treatises on this life of Jesus, which give varied and subtle theories in
order to reconcile events and sayings, and to preserve the unity of Purpose,
but every one of them, even those written by believers (as Neander’s,
Lange’s, Cave’s, Fleetwood’s, Milner’s, Pressense’s, Taylor’s, Farrar’s,
Beecher’s, etc.), must, more or less, resort to the favorite ‘‘ germ’’ theory,
to ‘‘ a hidden leaven development,’’ by which is understood that the truth
is at first concealed or enveloped in language which—if understood as it
reads, according to the letter, is error—the ‘‘ growing consciousness’’ of
the church, by a spiritualizing process through such men as Origen,
Augustine, Jerome, etc., is to bring forth in its developed form, having
discarded ‘‘ the husk.”’
Volumes, some from most gifted, learned, and pious writers, are filled with just such
mystical and philosophical reasoning, and all arising from a misconception of the cove-
nanted Kingdom and an ignoring of its postponement. Another class of learned writers,
rejecting in part the Origenistic principle of finding a concealed meaning or another
sense, subjecting the New Test. to a searching grammatical interpretation, find that such
a Kingdom, as we argue for, was promised, preached, and fondly expected, but, overlook-
ing this postponement so explicitly declared, tell us that Jesus, failing in the designed
restoration of the Davidic throne and Kingdom (expecting but not receiving aid through
angelic interference—-so Renan), He then contented Himself, under the pressure of cir-
cumstances, to sacrifice His life and found a spiritual Kingdom. Some men ( Wolfen-
biittel Fragments, pub. by Lessing, etc.) declare that Jesus in His efforts to establish a
Kingdom, failing of the popular support, miserably perished, the victim of ambition.
Becker (in his Univ. His. for the Young, quoted by Hurst, His. Rat., p. 190) thinks that
Jesus received the idea of putting forth His claims from John and John’s father, and that
an arrangement was made between them to take advantage of the predictions relating to
the Messiah in the Old Test., with the same result. Bahrdt, and many others recently,
exult and triumph over this fancied interpretation, without in the least noticing hovo the
expressive language and predictions of Jesus, in postponing this Kingdom, refutes their
scandalous and vindictive assertions. What must we think of men who only take as
much of the Record suitable for the purpose of condemnation, and carefully leave unno-
ticed the very testimony included in the same?
It may be suggestive, if not instructive, to contrast two classes, who both ignore the
reasons assigned for and the predictions of Jesus relating to this postponement. In
Ecce Homo, the writer informs us : ‘‘ He (Jesus) conceived the Theocracy restored as it
had been in the time of David, with a visible monarch at its head, and that monarch
Himself.” ‘‘ Christ announced the restoration of the Davidic Monarchy, and presented
Himself to the nation as their King ; yet, when we compare the position He assumed
with that of an ancient Jewish king, we fail to find any point of resemblance.’’ Now let us
consider the reply of Hece Deus (p. 333) to Ecce Homo, viz. : that the Davidic Kingdom
was only “ typical’’(just as if the covenant included a type) “‘ of government and purpose
which lie beyond the merely political horizon.” And the writer argues from the fact
that because such a restoration was not effected at the First Advent and since, Jesus
never announced the restoration of the Davidic Monarchy (i.e. the language descriptive
of it is ‘‘ typical ” of something else), and then, satisfied with his illogical reasoning, in
his own fancy triumphantly concludes : ‘‘ If the facts contradict the theory, what confi-
dence can be placed in the theorist?” Precisely so: both writers ignore plain facts as
given by Jesus and the apostles respecting the Kingdom, and not content with leaving
these out of the question, confess that their unbelief is grounded on a non-fulfilment of
prophecy and prediction, just as if God is bound to fulfil them, not according to His own
Purpose and Time, but, to accommodate Himself to their mode of exercising faith. Such
writers had better wait until “ the times of the Gentiles’’ have ended, until the elect are
gathered out, until the Sec. Advent arrives, until Christ’s intermediate predictions are
fulfilled, before rashly giving us those conclusions. We see from this what estimate to
place on rationalistic criticism, which concludes, because the Kingdom that was cove-
nanted, predicted, and preached was not at once realized ; that, after all, Christ’s relation-
ship to the Old Test. was one of mere accommodation to circumstances ; and this is
624 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 94.

arrived at by persistently turning away from Scripture, which tells us why it has not yet
been realized and when it is to be witnessed. The same is true of that class, who, be-
cause the Kingdom did not appear in the form grammatically expressed, declare that the
language applicable to it must either be understood spiritually or as pertaining to the
Church—i.e. a Kingdom, in some form, visible or invisible, must be recognized to suit
preconceived views.

Obs. 4. Let the student reflect over the singular attitude of the Primitive
Church, viz. : in view of this very postponement laying the greatest stress
upon Eschatology or doctrine of the last things, looking forward with hope
and joy toaspeedy Advent, the re-establishment of the glorious Theocratic
Kingdom under the Messiah, etc., and can such a state of things de satis-
factorily explained to take place wnder inspired teachers and their imme-
diate successors without condemning the doctrinal position of the early
church and reflecting upon the founders of the church, unless the same
doctrinal teaching is accepted as Scriptural? Leaving the history of the
doctrine for future reference, it is sufficient for the present to say that the
idea of the postponement of the Kingdom had a most powerful influence,
for at least three centuries, in moulding the doctrinal views of the church.
Hagenbach (His. of Doc., vol. 1, p. 74), in summing up the general doctri-
nal character of the early church period, indicates this feature, when he
says: ‘‘The doctrine of the Messianic Kingdom ruled the first period.
This turned upon the point that the Lord was twice to come: once in His
manifestation in the flesh, and in His future coming in judgment.’’
It has been remarked by many (as e.g. Ecce Homo, p. 22), that at the First Advent
there was a general expectation that the Messiah would, by an irresistible and super-
natural exertion of power, crush His enemies and establish His Kingdom, and that
‘‘ this appeared legibly written in the prophetical books ;’”’ that He was rejected by His
countrymen because He refused to put forth such power, etc. We have seen, under vari-
ous Propositions, why He refused to exhibit such power. The time had not yet arrived,
for the moral conditions imposed were not observed by the nation, But notice: the
Primitive Church, instead of spiritualizing those prophecies, only postponed the fulfilment
to the Sec. Advent; the traditional doctrine, the general expectation derived from the
prophets, still continued in the Church, only allied with the Second Coming of Jesus.
The apostles, instead of correcting this opinion, favor it by speaking of Him as one who,
in strict accord with the prophets, shall come with supernatural power to destroy His
enemies, etc., while the last revelation (the Apoc.) informs us that He will come “ to
make war,” etc. The student, if judicious, will carefully consider this correspondence,
and seek for its basis where alone it is to be found, viz. : in the Scriptures themselves.
This meets the objections urged in various works, as e.g. Hengstenberg’s The Jews and
the Ch. Church.

Obs. 5. Writers commenting on the passage, ‘‘ Nevertheless I tell you the

truth, tt is good for you that I goaway ; for if I go not away the Comforter
will not come unto you,’’ etc. (John 16:7), have much to say concerning
the coming of the Holy Spirit as an advance doctrinally, etc., but fail to
tell us why the Holy Spirit, whose special (for He had been previously
present), manifestation is thus announced, could not come unless Jesus went
away. ‘This was necessary, because the sinfulness of the nation had post-
poned the predicted promised Coming of the Spirit with the Kingdom
(comp. Prop. 170), hence a special interposition of the Saviour was requi-
site both to prepare the way for the gathering out of the elect and to give an
assurance of a future fulfilment by an inchoate fulfilment secured through
the obedience and exaltation of Christ.
This also enables us to answer the question proposed by unbelief, why Jesus Christ
does not personally manifest Himself, at least now and then, to remove the unbelief of
Prop. 94.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 625

the world. The reply is, that having been rejected by the covenanted elect nation, and
that nation suffering the consequences of such rejection, the Kingdom itself being post-
poned until the time arrives for the removal of the inflictions imposed, the withdrawal
of the Messiah is part of that punishment entailed. Until ‘‘ the times of the Gentiles’ are
ended, an open, visible manifestation cannot be reasonably expected. Besides this, the
engrafting of Gentiles is, as we have shown, done on the principle of faith and not of
sight. It ill becomes the dignity of the King to appear before the time fixed for the ces-
sation of punishment and the gathering ovt of an incorporated people by faith. Killen
(The Anc. Church, p. 46) asks the question, why so little notice is taken of the seventy in
the New Test., and answers, because it was typical or symbolical of the future transmis-
sion of the Gospel. They could, however, be no type of the future, owing to their exclu-
sive mission and message. The answer is found in the speedy postponement of the
Kingdom ending their mission to the nation, and a sufficient amount of evidence being
produced to show both the tender of the Kingdom and the rejection of the Messiah.

Obs. 6. The postponement of the Kingdom (with the events connected

therewith), being the truth itself joining other truths in an intelligent and
satisfactory manner,—is admirably adapted to meet and remove the objec-
tions of the Jews. The Jews, abiding by the plain statements of the Old
'l'est., survey the various prevailing theories, advanced respecting a present
existing Messianic Kingdom, and finding them one and all antagonistic to
the covenanted and predicted promises, reject Christianity itself,—as if
this humanly interpolated view was a part of Christianity (which it was not
for the first three centuries). Compare Prop. 193.
Thus e.g. the objection urged by Rabbi Crool (Restoration of Israel), against Jesus as
the Messiah, is, that He did not sit on David’s throne or set up the Davidic Kingdom as
it was predicted by the prophets and as covenanted ; and also, that the Jews, instead of the
promised peace, joy, exaltation, etc., under the Messianic Kingdom (if it really com-
menced at or immediately after the First Advent), found trouble, suffering, dispersion,
etc. Now to such objections, the postponement, with the Scripturally given reasons for its
occurrence, affords the only satisfactory reply, seeing that we leave the covenanted King-
dom intact, the covenants and predictions just as they are written, and the promises to
the Jewish nation, in its covenanted relationship, to be yet fulfilled in all their greatness
and glory.

Obs. 7. This acceptation of the taught postponement effectually removes

the chief argument against, what some are pleased to call, *‘ prophetical
literalism.”? Fairbairn (On Proph., p. 495, Ap. F.) attempts to make the
charge preferred against his system (viz.: that it is calculated to repel
Jews), to recoil upon us by boldly asserting that ‘* prophetical literalism,
essentially Jewish,’’ aids the Jews in rejecting Christ, because we claim
that many things referring to Christ still remain unfulfilled. (Comp. pre-
ceding Obs.) This is unfounded : for we show a sufficiency, already ful-
filled, literally, in Jesus tojustify His being received as the Messiah, while
the main leading objections relating to the covenants, the Kingdom, the
covenanted position of the nation, its supremacy as predicted, etc., are
answered by us without any perversion of Scripture under the plea of spirit-
ualizing, accommodation, a better sense, etc. The proof is found in the
conversions effected by the relative systems.
We hold to the covenants as given to the Jews ; accept of the predictions received
by them ; indorse as they did the literal fulfilment respecting the Kingdom, so that we
are not guilty of that spiritualizing of promises into a vague and invisible fulfilment so
exceedingly unsatisfactory toa Jewish mind. We do not take the promises expressly
given to the Jewish nation and heap them, without regard to their connection, upon the
Gentiles. Our position, and the proving the fulfilment of covenant and promise in the
future ; our showing a postponement to the Second Advent of predictions especially near
626 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 94.

and dear to the Jewish heart, must necessarily be more acceptable to Jewish faith than
the wholesale disclaimers of popular systems. The Jew finds in our system of belief a
harmony with the language of Scripture that he sees in no other ; and so much is this
the. case that many Jews have accepted of the Messiah under its influence, as witnessed
in the numerous Jews who have been Millenarians, publishing Millenarian works and edit-
ing Millenarian periodicals. Indeed Fairbairn breaks the force of his own objection, for
if our ‘‘ prophetical literalism is essentially Jewish” it cannot be hostile to, but must be
favorable to, the Jews. Besides this, it is worthy of notice, when once the principles of
interpretation of the Alexandrian school (indorsed by Fairbairn) predominated, conver-
sion among the Jews became fewer and fewer, until finally, under the spiritualizing sys-
tem, they for centuries almost entirely ceased. And it was only after a more literal in-
terpretation of the Bible was revived, that conversions:among them increased. (Comp.
works of McNeil, Margoliouth, Brooks, Bicheno, etc., and sermons before the London
Soc. for the Conv. of Jews by Cooper, etc., etc.)

Obs. 8. The most amiable piety, as well as the grossest unbelief, is alike
arrayed against an acknowledgment of this postponement, owing to the
pervading influence of the church-Kingdom theories. It is observable that
the former even in its comments on things which are utterly inconsistent
with the state of the predicted Messianic Kingdom (which the prophets
make one of peace, release from suffering, deliverance from enemies, etc.),
endeavors, by the force of the sheerest inference, to conciliate such a state
of things now existing with the prophetic delineation of a Kingdom in a
peaceful and flourishing existence.
Thus, to illustrate : Steir (Lange’s Com. Mait., vol. p. 199, Doc. 1) attributes the in-
timations of Jesus that His disciples must endure persecution, tribulation, etc., to the
fact that a Kingdom very different to the one expected must intervene. But where is this
intervening Kingdom, combined with suffering, etc., covenanted or predicted? Jesus, too,
nowhere says that His. followers must endure tribulation in His Kingdom; more than
this, in view of the covenanted and predicted blessings, He could not truthfully say it, for
one single utterance of this kind would raise up an irreconcilable antagonism. The New
Test. perfectly agrees with the Old, fully sustains the gladdening consistency, by attrib-
uting to and associating with the Messianic Kingdom only happiness, blessing, honor,
and glory. Once to be in the Kingdom is freedom from all evil and deliverance from the
curse. The peculiarity has already been noticed, that in the Old Test., so far as the
Kingdom is concerned, there isno discrimination between the First and Second Advents.
So much is this the case, that if we had only the Old Test. and knew nothing of the
First Advent, as separate and distinct from another, we also, like the Jews, would be-
lieve this Kingdom to be subsequent to His First Coming. (We have shown why this
feature became necessary, because of the tender of the Kingdom at the First Advent.)
While this is true, the postponement of the Kingdom, in view of the refusal of the
nation to comply with the required moral conditions, indicates what coming is meant,
not the coming to humiliation, rejection, and death, but the coming in glory. We are,
therefore, not at liberty to change the nature of the Kingdom in order to accommodate it
to the state of things existing during this period of postponement.

Obs. 9. The Kingdom being thus postponed, and the process of the
gathering out of the elect now going on, is sufficient reason why no addi-
tional Revelation is necessary. The Apocalypse of John, to encourage our
faith and hope, includes all that is additionally required to be known, ap-
propriately closing the direct Divine communications, and confirming the
voices of the Prophets. Jesus Himself refrained from penning down any-
thing, contenting Himself with the testimony of chosen witnesses, because
He foresaw that such writing, if given, would have been perverted by His
enemies and employed against Himself in accusation to the Roman power
(as was even done through His reported words).
For the same reason, in part, the Apocalypse is given in symbolical language, and the
apostles (as Paul in Thess.) are guarded in their expressions. After the reader has
Prop. 94.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 627

passed over our entire argument, the reader will find abundant reason why the Kingdom
is mentioned in the Gospels and Epistles without entering into the specific details given
by the prophets, and why the same is represented under symbolic forms in the Apoca-
lypse. Taking into consideration the nature of the Kingdom, the restored Theocratic-
Davidic throne and Kingdom, which necessarily embraces a restored Jewish nation, etc.,
a more extended and detailed notice would unnecessarily (owing to this postponement)
have excited the jealousy, hostility, and persecution of the Roman Empire.

Obs. 10. Jesus having come to fulfil the Prophets, and that fulfilment
being in large part postponed to the Sec. Advent, the statements of the
Prophets remain and include in them a sufficiency of information needed.
To fully know what His mission was, and how it will be eventually real-
ized, we must refer not merely to His life, to the preaching and testimony
of His disciples, but also to what the Prophets have written, ever remem-
bering that the covenants form the basis of all pertaining to the Kingdom.
From these united, the doctrine of the Kingdom can be clearly adduced.
We strongly suspect (giving it as a suggestion) that in view of the postponement,
and this being merely a preliminary stage to the final ushering in of His Kingdom, He,
foreseeing (as has happened) how the words of the Prophets descriptive of this Kingdom
would be perverted from their literal meaning and torn from their connection to sustain
Church and hierarchical claims—He, foreknowing how His own words as reported would
be changed in their meaning for the same purpose, left as little as possible on record
indorsing the preliminary nature of this dispensation, in order to avoid additional per-
version and spiritualizing of language ; and in order, above all, to make the covenants,
and predictions pertaining thereto, the objects of continued humble faith and hope.
The prophecies that He has fulfilled, the testimony of Himself and disciples, the incorpo-
ration of all this in a regular Divine Plan possessing unity of Purpose, and which is only
sustained and manifested when the prophecies which He is to fulfil at His Sec. Coming
are included, evince that we possess @ sufficient guide.

Obs. 11. By this postponement the special Davidic covenant remains

unfulfilled (excepting that David’s Son and Lord is born, and qualified for
the immortal reign), and ‘‘ the tabernacle of David”? continues ** fallen
down’ and ‘‘in ruins,’’—‘* The house’’ remains ‘* desolate.’’? It demands
the harshest interpretation to deny or spiritualize away existing facts.
Yet men, involved in asystem which, of necessity, must have the predicted
Kingdom in actual establishment, endeavor to get rid of all this in the
most summary way. Thuse.g. take any prediction relating to the Messiah
reigning on David’s throne (as e.g. Isa. 9 : 7, etc.), and see how it is con-
nected with (1) a fearful overthrow of the nation, preceding, and (2) a
deliverance of the same nation, contemporaneously with the reign. ‘Take
prophecy after prophecy, and notice how the rule of David’s Son is insepa-
vably allied by the Prophets with the Jews nationally, and well may we
stand surprised at the bold presumption which rudely severs this connec-
tion made by inspired men, giving the curses to the Jews and the Oless-
ings (promised to the same nation), to Gentile nations. Why such an
unjust and arbitrary interpretation? Simply because the Alexandrian-
monkish theory, having the predicted Kingdom wnpostponed, must in
some way bend these prophecies to suit its pre-determined condition.
Alas! great and good men have been engaged in ¢his destructive work,
forcibly reminding us that “‘ the wisdom of man is foolishness with God,”
and that ‘‘ the things of God’’ can only be obtained by observing what the
Spirit has recorded and retaining what is written unaltered.
We give numerous illustrations from eminent men, who, with an honest desire to
honor Jesus, deliberately change the divine record of facts. Unbelievers take a much
628 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 94.

shorter method to get rid of the covenanted and predicted Kingdom, as e.g. Tuttle (The
Career of the Christ. Idea in History), who reiterates and compresses an old view: “ He
(Jesus) was actuated by a grand political motive, which met with a sad defeat ; then we
observe the sorrow of disappointment. The temporal scheme is laid in the dust.’’ Both
parties, the one believing and the other unbelieving, do not allow the Scriptures to pre-
sent their own testimony on the subject ; both come to the Word with preconceived
views of its teachings, and under a pious prejudice or a hostile feeling, explain the
same so as to make it harmonize with their respective opinions. Both do injury to the
truth as revealed : the one, by so dressing it up that its natural appearance disappears ;
the other, by attempts to destroy it. The one party may, indeed, plead a sincerity of
purpose, and the other may give as its motive the claim of reason, etc. ; but the truth,
God’s truth, as written, is dependent for its realization upon neither of them, and will
find its ultimate verification notwithstanding the misconception of its friends or the
cavils of its enemies. Some few, however, properly discriminate, and realize the im-
portance of this postponement. One of the best articles on the subject is from the pen
of Dr. Craven (Lange’s Vom. Rev., p. 95), which fell under the writer’s notice after these
Propositions had been worked out. It was a gratification to find the same so strongly
corroborated by such a scholar ; and the student will be amply repaid by a perusal of
his “ Excursus on the Basileia.’’

Obs. 12. The evidence in behalf of this postponement has already been
given (e.g. Prop 58, 65, 66, 6%, 70, etc.), but it may be instructive to
notice how the passages affording it are treated by many. Thus e.g. con-
sider what Jesus said to the Jews (Matt. 23 :37-39; Luke 13 : 34, 35),
respecting His leaving their house desolate until a certain period elapsed,
viz.: until “‘ the times of the Gentiles’ were fulfilled, and until the pre-
dicted time (as e. g. Zech. 12 : 9-14; Joel 3 : etc.), of their repentance and
willingness to receive the Messiah. This ‘‘ howse’’ receives singular treat-
ment at the hands of those who overlook the postponement of the King-
dom. Forgetting how this word is used in the Davidic covenant and by
the Prophets, we have a variety of significations given, which are not in
accordance with the covenant, or the Prophets, or the facts as they existed
when Jesus spoke. Grotius, Meyer, and others make ‘‘ the house’’ to be
the city of Jerusalem ; De Wette and others, the city and temple ; Theo-
phylact, Calvin, Kwald, Barnes, and others, the temple; Lange, and
others, the temple, city, and land. But how could those be ‘‘ left deso-
late,’? i.e. remain in continued desolation ; for history shows that the
temple (as indicated Mark 13 :1, 2, etc.), by the additions made by Herod,
was a splendid edifice, while the city and land were far from being deso-
late. ‘The same history, however, informs us what was desolate and re-
mained desolate, viz.: the Davidic Kingdom which was overthrown,—the
Davidic tabernacle which was fallen down,—for the Jewish nation, instead
of having their former covenanted Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom, were
under the rulership of the Roman Emperors. This corresponds precisely
with what David himself predicted, Psl. 89: 38-45. Let the careful
student but reflect : if Jesus came to fulfil the Prophets, He will use the
word ** house’ as they employed it, and especially as it was given in the
covenant. This He did, taking the word to denote the fallen Davidic house
or Kingdom, which was indeed ‘‘ desolate’’ for a long time, and, being left
by Him in that state, continwes so to the present day. Let the reader but
notice how the word is employed in the covenant itself, how it is used by
the Prophets, (as e.g. Jer. 22:5, ‘‘ this house [Davidic] shall become a deso-
lation’’), that neither temple, nor city, nor land were desolate at the time
the words were spoken, and he will see that consistency requires the inter-
pretation that we have given. This might be abundantly confirmed by
Prop. 94.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 629

quotations taken from the Prophets, but one or two references will be
amply sufficient. Thus Amos 9:11 explicitly states that the tabernacle of
David itself, fallen and made desolate, shall be restored, and no ingenuity
can make this fallen throne and Kingdom or house the throne of the
Father in the third heaven (to which the Davidic throne is likened by
many writers). So likewise Hos. 3: 4, 5. Christ, as our argument
evinces, could not, owing to the nation’s disobedience, restore this fallen,
desolate tabernacle of David, and therefore tells the nation that this deso-
late “‘ house’’ shall be left thus until another era, when the words of the
Prophets shall most assuredly be verified.
The careful student will observe that, owing to this foreknown postponement, certain
prophecies are framed to meet its foreseen condition, and others to correspond with it as
an already determined fact. Thus e.g. Dan. 2 and 7, as connected with the ultimate re-
establishment of Israel, does not refer in the slightest manner to the first Coming of the
Christ. The subject-matter is Gentile domination, and as the Messiah’s Kingdom, which
is to supersede the same, was not then set up but postponed, the prophecies only, and in
strict accordance with what has taken place, direct our attention to the Sec. Advent,
when this will be accomplished. Thus also Jesus, after He announced the postpone-
ment, gives an epitome of Jewish destiny (Matt. 24, Mark 13, Luke 21), and only when
the Sec. Advent arrives does Jewish tribulation cease. Thus again the Apoc. is so
framed, that from beginning to end it directs the eye of faith to a Sec. Advent in power
and glory, which shall overcome ali enemies and bring in a realization of covenant prom-
ises. In none of these, extended as they are, is the slightest hint of a Messianic King-
dom already existing (as many teach), but the postponement being assumed as an accom-
plished fact, believers are spoken of as suffering, tried, tempted, persecuted, etc.—en-
during things which never, never can be—as the prophets predict—associated with the
Kingdom of the Christ.

Obs. 13. To Millenarians it may be observed, that a remarkable an-

nouncement of the postponement of this Kingdom, its ultimate establish-
ment in the restoration of the tribes of Israel with the glory that shall
follow, is found in Isa. 49 :1-23 (Comp. Alexander’s version), in Micah
5:2, 3, 4 (‘‘give them up until,’ etc.), in Zech. 13 : 7-9, etc. This feat-
ure, the postponement, will be corroborated by many succeeding Proposi-
tions,—forming a regular series of connected reasons confirmatory of this
important characteristic of the Divine Plan.

Obs. 14. Neander (Ch. His., vol. 1, p. 36) sees clearly that to preserve
unity, it is requisite to advocate a restoration of the Theocracy, but,
unfortunately, overlooking this postponement and wedded to a church-
Kingdom theory, he connects such a restoration with the First Advent
instead of placing it, where the Scriptures do, at the Sec. Advent. No
Theocracy has been established, as covenanted, from the First Advent
down to the present, for that which is the kernel or life of the Theocratic
idea is lacking, viz.: God condescending to rule over man i the capacity
of an earthly Luler.

Obs. 15. This doctrine of the postponement rebuts the unbelieving at-
tacks against the Messianic Kingdom and the attempted explanations con-
cerning it.
As e.g. that Jesus having failed to realize the Kingdom “ by political means,” and
seeing ‘‘ the folly of military Messianism,’’ He then “‘ relied implicitly on the establish-
ment of His Messianic throne by the miraculous display of the divine power ;”’ but this
finally gave place to ‘‘ the idea of spiritual supremacy, through the religious reformation
of His people.” (So Abbot, p. 243, Freedom and Fellowship, being a reiteration of Renan
 630 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 94.

and others.) This is a complete ignoring of the Record, and a reversing of that which is
plainly written, being pure assumption without a particle of historical proof to sustain it.
Where e.g. is the least evidence that Jesus changed the popular idea (admitted to have
been at one time entertained by Himself), of the Messiah into ‘‘ the sublime idea of a
spiritual Christ ruling by love,’’ etc.? Aside from no such a change being expressed in
the New Test., it is also refuted by the Primitive Church being utterly unacquainted
with such an alleged transmutation.

Obs. 16. The postponement indicates that a very large Judaistic ele-
ment remains yet to be realized in fulfilment.
Neander (0h. His., vol. 1, p. 339) and others assert that Christianity is ‘‘the fulfil-
ment of Judaism.” This is true, but only in a limited sense (as e.g. relating to the sac-
rificial and ceremonial law) for in the higher sense (viz. : the Theocratic) there is still
lacking the fulfilment of the covenanted Kingdom with all that pertains to it. In the
very nature of the case, if God’s promises are ever fulfilled in their plain, unmistakable
grammatical sense, much that is ‘‘Jewish’’ must eventually be incorporated. Our argu-
ment will necessarily develop this feature as we proceed.

Obs. 17. This view also shows how ungrounded is the insidious (and
to the philosophic mind, fascinating) theory, so prevalent, of distinguish-
ing between the Gospels, making them different types or stages of expres-
sion.‘ The simple fact is (comp. Prop. 9 and 10), that the Gospels are a
unit in representing the leading subject of the Kingdom and of the King,
and all of them have the same Jewish covenanted position presented.
1 As e.g. Bernard (Bampton Lectures, Lec. 2, The Progress of Doctrine), making Matthew
a Gospel from the Hebrew standpoint ; Mark, a Gospel more disengaged from the Jewish
connection, adapted to Gentiles, with a ‘‘ habit of mind colored by contact with Juda-
ism ;” Luke, a Gospel passing from Jewish associations to those ‘‘ adapted to a Greek
mind, then, in some sense, the mind of the world ;’ John, a Gospel still more removed
from Judaism, and planted upon universal principles, ete. The objectionable feature
(admitting characteristics and peculiarities belonging to each Gospel) in such unwar-
ranted distinctions, is the total ignoring of ‘‘the Jewish conceptions” (necessarily) of
each, the fundamental Jewish covenanted position of each, and that none of them show
any progress in the direction of Gentilism, but the reverse, viz. : striving to bring Gen-
tiles to the acknowledgment of the Jewish covenanted Seed as the Messiah (which is
sustained by the Acts and Epistles, showing that Gentiles are urged by the acceptance
of this Messiah to become “ the seed of Abraham,’’ etc.).

Obs. 18. Unbelief,—rejecting the Messianic position, its rejection by

the nation and the resultant postponement,—endeavors to deteriorate the
actions of Jesus by ascribing to mere human passion what evidently was
caused by the legitimacy of His station and His treatment by the nation.
Thus e.g. unbelievers assert that at the beginning of His ministry, Jesus was most
amiable and mild, but that a change of disposition took place, owing to opposition and
His expectations not being realized, so that He sternly rebuked and denounced His oppo-
nents. This is artfully represented as a deterioration of character—an indication of
human frailty. The reader will observe, however, that the unity of character was pre-
served to the end, as witnessed e.g. in His weeping over Jerusalem and lamenting its
doom, and in the utterances at His apprehension, trial, and crucifixion, when grossly in-
sulted and deeply suffering. The alleged sternness and reproof was based on the rejec-
tion of the Kingdom by the representative men of the nation, who refused the condition
of repentance and delighted in their sins. He, therefore, as was requisite to His position
and tender, portrays their corruption and unfitness for the Kingdom. The Theocratic
ordering perversely refused by non-repentance, exposed their own King—seeing their
secret machinations for His death—to a righteous indignation, mingled with bursts of
compassion. In the very nature of the case, such an indignation is not only just, but it
is the very thing needed to complete the chain of evidence, since it is not merely enfore-
Prop. 94.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 631

ing holiness as a prerequisite, but it harmonizes with His claims of Messiahship. It is

the rejected King speaking to His despisers, and His language, denunciatory and stern,
adds force to the validity of His claims upon them, when He points out to them their
moral unfitness for entrance into His Kingdom. He speaks as the Messiah, with au-
thority, and His enemies felt the same. This whole subject of the postponement, also,
proves how untenable are the theories of a late origin of the Gospels, for such a delicate
and consistent presentation of the same could not have been the result of the periods
alleged.
 632 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 95.

Proposition 95. Jf the church is the Kingdom, then the terms

“church” and “kingdom” should be synonymous.
Those terms ought, if such is the fact, to be convertible or inter-
changeable without vitiating the sense. That they are not synony-
mous can be readily tested by every one. The numerous definitions
and conflicting opinions of those who entertain this view already
sufficiently indicates that they are not to be substituted, the one
for the other.
Obs. 1. It may be proper to illustrate the application of the test. A
few examples will suffice, as the subject is too momentous to be triflingly
touched, being forced to it by the argumentation of our opponents. The
word church is used for (1) an individual congregation. This usage of
the word, of course, will not bear the test, for then there would he as
many kingdoms as there are congregations. (2) For the general body of
believers. Passing by the passages which would then make believers to
inherit the church, and which would teach that the church itself shall in-
herit the church, we select such as Eph. 5 : 23-30, in which the church
(i.e. Kingdom) was once so lost that Christ ‘‘ gave Himself for it’? (comp.
Eph. 1:73; Gal. 2:20, etc.), that it needed special sanctifying and cleans-
ing ‘‘ with the washing of water by the word,’’ etc. Or, Acts 20 : 28,
where the church (i.e. Kingdom) is to be fed, ‘‘ which He has purchased
with His own blood,’’ phraseology applicable to believers and not to the
predicted Kingdom. Take every place where the word church occurs, and
either in the passage itself, or in the context, or by a parallel passage, the
notion of believers in their associated capacity is understood. But let us
take the word kingdom and substitute for it that of church, and the result
is seen e.g. in Mark 11:10; Luke 12 : 323 22:29; 21:43; Mark 9:47;
Acts 14 ; 22, ete.
If the Church is synonymous with the Kingdom, then what becomes of the notion
held by many that the Kingdom is invisible, seeing that the Church is spoken of as
something visible, externally manifested, as e.g. Matt. 18 : 16, 17; Acts 8 : 1, etc., being
used in the same sense so far as visibility is concerned, as that in Acts 19 : 32 (Greek :
where it is employed in a secular sense).

Obs. 2. But the absurdity of making such terms synonymous will be

more clearly seen if we take the definitions given of this Kingdom, and
observing their intimate connection with this church notion. Selecting
the example afforded by Dr. Thompson (see preceding Prop., Obs. 8), we
are told that this Kingdom consists in ‘‘ the presence and power of God
felt and acknowledged in the hearts of those that trusted in Him and did
His commandments,’’ etc. Put this “‘ spiritual conception’’ in place of
the Kingdom or church, and sad work will be made of God’s oath-bound
covenanted promises. If this is all that is meant, ¢hen the most solemn
Prop. 95.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 633

pledges given by God will be set aside and remain unfulfilled. It is

strange that men of ability are so wedded to this mystical conception of
the Kingdom that they cannot see how, with their own theory of Christ’s
delivering up the Kingdom (1 Cor. 15 : 24), if the Kingdom be such as
above, or “ God’s reign in the heart,”’ etc., them such ‘‘ a presence,’’ etc., or
‘‘ reign’”’ once ‘‘ felt and acknowledged”’ will also be given up. Or, select
any one of those definitions, and substitute them for ‘‘ Kingdom,’’ in
Matt. 8:12; 16:19; Mark 11:12, etc., and it will be found that they
directly introduce a confusion of ideas, making the Scriptures inconsistent
and contradictory.
Take for example Dr. Neander’s (given in detail under Prop. 106) definition and apply
it to the first New Test. text where the Kingdom is mentioned (Matt. 3 : 2), and it then
reads as follows : ‘‘ Repent ye: for the whole of a series of historical developments, or
a great assemblage of coexistent spiritual creations is at hand.’’ Or, take Dr. M’Cosh’s
favorite, and then we have: ‘‘ Repent ye: for God’s reign in the heart is at hand.”’
Comp. Prof. Lummis’s Essay ‘“ The Kingdom and the Church’”’ (read before ‘“‘ The Proph.
Confer.’’ at N. York), in which the inconsistency of making Church and Kingdom synony-
mous, the absurdity of men talking of advancing and building up this Kingdom, the in-
ability of making a Methodist Kingdom, Lutheran Kingdom, etc., and of saying that the
Church (if Kingdom) is ‘‘ within you,’’ is shown. ‘This synonymous nature is so
much taken far granted, and so confidently held, that the titles of books indicate it, as
e.g. Maurice’s ‘‘ Kingdom of Christ,’ Jarvis’s‘‘His. of the Mediatorial Kingdom,”’
Gray’s ‘‘ Mediatorial Reign,” Symington’s ‘‘ Mediatorial Dominion of Jesus Christ,’’
Uhden’s ‘‘ New England Theocracy,’’ Wilson's ‘‘ Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ,”
an Anon, work, ‘‘ The Inner Kingdom.”’

Obs. 3. Such substitutions are unwarranted and dangerous, although

presented by most able men. Neander (Life of Christ, 8. 82) informs us
that while the name kingdom is “ borrowed from an earthly kingdom,”’
‘was immediately taken from the form in which the idea of the Divine
community was represented by the Jewish nation,’’ yet this idea is to be
discarded and a ‘‘ symbolical’’ one is to be substituted. This exchange of
ideas is, however, wnproven, and merely assumed to sustain the theory that
the church, in some aspect, is the Kingdom. If this is so, that the first
preachers of the Kingdom presented the leading subject (i.e. Kingdom) of
their discourses in symbolical language, we may well ask, If the Kingdom
was symbolical, why not then repentance, faith, and everything else con-
nected with this Kingdom? For, if the main subject is such, why not the
subsidiary? This leads us where some have, from a false premise, logically
landed, making the whole teaching of Jesus and the apostles a symbolical
or typical one of that religion of humanity which is now arising.
634 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [PRop. 96.

Proposirion 96. The differences visible in the Church are evi-

dences that it is not the predicted Kingdom of the Messiah.
Having alluded to this, it may be well to particularize. The
Kingdom, as promised from the details of prophecy, is to exhibit a
visible outward unity. So much is this admitted by our oppo-
nents, that they are seeking for and advocating such a unity. The
feeling is almost universal that prediction demands it ; and hence
all, not finding it yet existing, anticipate it in the future. Isaiah,
chs. 60, 61, 62, 65, etc., are conclusive. But, on the other hand,
such a state or condition has never been realized in the church
after eighteen hundred years of trial, and therefore we conclude
that the church, not exhibiting the characteristics predicted of the
Kingdom and connected with its establishment, is something
different from that Kingdom.
Obs. 1. Let the unbiassed student contemplate how schisms, etc., are
foretold in the church (Acts 20: 29, 80; 1 Cor. 11:19; 2 Tim. 4:3, 4;
Rom. 16:17, etc.) ;how it was organized amidst dissensions and antag-
onism even among its leaders (on the subject of circumcision and obsery-
ance of the law); how it affected compromises concerning the law and the
ritual ; how it arose without a direct verbal abrogation of Mosaic institu-
tions, so that some followed the latter and others annoyed the Gentiles who
refused the same. Christ Himself, Paul tells us, was preached a conten-
tion. ‘These and other marks of weakness, infirmity, etc., certainly pre-
vent us from accepting the church as the predicted Kingdom, seeing that
the latter is to come in a very different manner. Its beginning (i.e.
church’s) is not that assigned by the Prophets to the Kingdom of promise.
Even the Apostolic Church evidenced great infirmities, as noticed in Ch. Histories by
Schaff, Kurtz, Neander, etc. As illustrative, we only quote Conybeare and Howson’s (1 ec.
1, p. 488) statement : ‘“‘ It is painful to be compelled to acknowledge among the Chris-
tians of the Apostolic Age, the existence of so many forms of error and sin. It wasa
pleasing dream which presented the Primitive Church as a society of angels ; it is not
without a struggle that we bring ourselves to open our eyes and behold the reality.
But yet it is a higher feeling which bids us thankfully to recognize the truth, that ‘ there
is no partiality with God,’ that He has never supernaturally coerced any generation of
mankind into virtue, nor rendered schism and heresy impossible in any age of the
Church.’’ This feature has never been lessened, but has increased until e.g. in England
alone, according to “ Whitaker's Almanack’’ (1879), there are 174 distinct denominations
and sects. The notion of a Kingdom is utterly opposed to the predictions relating to
the Church, viz. : its militant nature, a fighting and struggling Church, which shall ulti-
mately, by apostatizing (2 Thess. 2) and by lack of faith (Luke 18 : 1-8), fall under the
power, as a punishment, ofa culminated Antichrist, and endure a fearful persecution (e.g.
Rev. 14, Dan. 7, etc.).

Obs. 2. The progress of the church teaches the same. Surely a King-
dom established by Jesus in fulfilment of the prophecies could not possibly
Prop. 96.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 635

have the conflicting elements that the church has so lavishly shown. Antag-
onism in belief, compulsion in requirements, dogmatism in teaching, relig-
lous warring, persecution, error, false doctrine, etc., are incorporated with
her history. Corruption not merely external, but imbedded in the very
framework of her organization, and transmitted for centuries (diversity of
Ch. government, belief, and practice) ; antagonism even in relation to the
most important things (sacerdotalism, baptism, Lord’s supper, etc.); ex-
hibition of a spirit hostile to Messiah’s Kingdom, even in the most noble
of Christian men [as e.g. Luther’s treatment of Zwingli, Zwingli’s
resort to the sword, Calvin’s treatment of Servetus (Mosheim’s His. of
Servetus), Melanchthon’s epistle to Calvin, Oct. 14, 1544, commending
Servetus’s execution (Calv. Epis. No. 187, p. 341,) etc.]—these are land-
marks, not of Christ’s Kingdom but of a preparatory stage subject to in-
firmity, characteristic of all, even of true and noble believers. While here
and there enlightened piety exists, willing to fellowship with and acknowl-
edge as brethren in Christ all who repent and believe in Him, yet mul-
titudes, organized bodies, counting their ministry by hundreds and their
laity by hundreds of thousands, stand forth in doctrinal exclusiveness,
even in the same denomination (as e.g. some of the symbolical Lutherans,
High-Church Episcopalians, Close Com. Baptists, etc.), condemning all
others, denouncing all others, sitting in Christ’s seat and claiming Christ’s
prerogatives of judging, excluding all others of a diverse faith from the
Kingdom of heaven, here and hereafter.
This is done too by those whom, in spite of their weakness and dogmatism, we must
recognize as conscientious brethren in Christ. While the absurdity of such a position,
claiming that outside of its own special communion there is no true Church, but only rep-
robation and damnation, has been ably set forth by numerous writers, yet it is a sad
fact that multitudes still slavishly cling to it with tenacity and zeal. Does such a
Church, thus divided, etc., bear the imprint of Messiah’s Kingdom? No! never ought
such a portraiture as history but too faithfully gives, be mistaken for the divine one pre-
sented by the inspired prophets. Blindness voluntarily assumed alone can make such
a mistake. The divisions and controversies are not merely between different denomina-
tions, but between branches of the same Church, as e.g. between Episcopalians, Presby-
teriaps, Moravians, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Reformed, etc. The lack of union
and intercommunion is sometimes most painfully manifested, as e.g. in an exclusive
spirit of clericalism or sacramentarianism, which refuses acknowledgment and fellow-
ship with others, and even with each other. All Churches are, more or less, thus
leavened. The Roman Catholics, complacently overlooking their past bitter divisions
and contests, point to the differences, etc., of Protestantism ; Protestantism, overlooking
the design intended by the Church, meets the charge by endeavoring to make out an in-
visible unity, which is truly so ‘‘ invisible” that no one has yet been able to discern it.
Two extremes are to be avoided, both suggested by the Church-Kingdom theory, in con-
templating the strange and painful pages of Ecclesiastical History ; on the one hand
Goethe's declaration : ‘‘ Mischmash von Ir1thum und von Gewalt,” which looks only at the
evidences of infirmity and wickedness ; and on the other, Chateaubriand’s painting a
beautiful ideal of the past and present, which ignores the corruptions, errors, and sinful-
ness manifested. Truth suffers by either method ; and the Church cannot be utterly
condemned or unduly exalted without doing violence to it. Neither blackening nor
whitewashing, neither defaming nor extravagantly praising, meets the divine portraiture as
given in the Scriptures.

Obs. 3. These differences, division into sects, etc. are not given under
the impression that the church has not, in a measure, carried on the de-
sign intended by its organization. When the object for which the church
has been established is duly estimated, we find that amidst all its weakness
and imperfection, prosperity and adversity, fightings within and without,
 636 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 96.

it has been forwarding and accomplishing the same. Hence, we give place
to no one in a high appreciation of the church ; and yet, in relation to her
the truth must be told—indeed has already been recorded—lest we ez-
aggerate her position, and dishonor the truth itself. Ecclesiastical His-
tory, Dogmatics, such works as Dorner’s His. of Prot. Theology, etc., give
painful evidence that controversies, bitter and unrelenting, have been
waged between portions of the church, between good and great men.
Passing by the lack of charity, the self-exaltation, the narrowness and
bigotry, the confessionalistic zeal, the personal contentions, defamations,
etc., we find that in important points, both theoretical and practical, de-
voted men of God were in direct opposition to each other. Were it not for
a few things held in common, such as faith in Christ, the antagonism
would be complete. Such a state of things, deplorable as it is, does not
vitiate the design to be accompiished by the church, which is, as James as-
serted in the Apostle’s Council, to gather out a people for His name,
This, notwithstanding the hindrances and obstacles mentioned, has been
carried on down to the present day. These evils may to some extent have
retarded and hindered the work, but still it has been going on toward
completion. No age, no century, no year, with its encompassing infirmi-
ties, but has brought forth, through the church, the called and adopted.
But to convert this design into the Kingdom itself requires an imagination
and a faith strong enough to plant—against the direct testimony of holy
men of old—these evils, these conflicting elements z2to the Kingdom of
the Son of Man. Whilst this diversity, etc., cannot be charged to the
teaching of Jesus and the Apostles (for they warned us against it) ; whilst
it is evidence of the probationary and not kingly condition of the church
which could not be avoided without destroying man’s free moral agency,
yet they have come to pass, and the church grievously erred in giving
place to them. Explanations and apologies do not lessen the naked facts,
and cannot break their force. Unbelief may foolishly level them against
Christianity, when Christianity itself in the New Test. pointedly condemns
it ; piety, on the other hand, just as foolishly endeavors to palliate the same
by claiming it as a necessity, a requisite historical growth, etc.; still the
facts remain, and can only be explained by placing them where the Bible
does, viz.: in the depravity and weakness of man.
To a considerate mind, the very condition of the Church, instead of reflecting in the
slightest degree upon the Divine Truth, most abundantly confirms it ; for, without unduly
exalting the Church into a Kingdom bearing on its bosom a mass of corruption, he sees
that amidst all this diversity, error, hostility, etc., the one great, grand design has never been
lost sight of, i. e. to save them that believe. If it be said that these evils are not inherent,
but foreign outgrowths, we may even admit this without weakening our argument, see-
ing that we proceed on the ground that such a picture as the Church has presented is
not the one drawn by the prophets. Whether produced legitimately or not, whether
necessary developments or not, they resulted in the Church, and as firm believers in
divine inspiration, we cannot, dare not receive the Church as the Kingdom predicted by
inspired men ; for if we do, to that extent do we make those men untruthful and their
record of the Kingdom an impossibility to be realized as presented by them (i.e. in the
grammatical sense). We cannot e.g. reconcile with the prophetic record of the increased
and constantly expanding power of Messiah’s Kingdom, the losses which the Church
has sustained in the past in Asia, Africa, Greece, etc. The prophets, instead of losses,
give us glorious permanent and eternal retention. Hence, while discarding the
notion of the Kingdom, we cling to the observable gracious design of the Church as
promised and developed in her history. This gives the proper antidote to a class of
books ably written, which artfully, and in many respects most truthfully, represent the
weakness, positive evil, incorporated with and extended by the Church, and from this
Prop. 96.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 637

deduce that the prophecies, being unfulfilled, the predictions are merely human opin-
ions. We believe with Lord Bacon, who long ago observed, in answer to the Papal argu-
ment of unity, ‘‘ that the Church of God hath been in all ages subject to contentions
and schisms ; the tares were not sown but when the wheat was sown before. Our Sav-
iour Christ delivered it for an ill-note to have outward peace. And reason teacheth us
that in ignorance and implied belief it is easy to agree, as colors agree in the dark ; or if
any country decline into Atheism, the controversies wax dainty, because men do not
think religion scarce worth falling out for ; so as it is weak divinity to account contro-
versies an ill sign in the Church.’’ So long as tares and wheat continue mixed—which
is down to the Sec. Advent—so long will this state continue.

Obs. 4. This leads to a brief consideration of the unity of the church.

The notion of a Kingdom attached to it, involves that of unity. To carry
out the design of the church does not necessarily require unity ; unity in-
deed would facilitate its execution, and for various reasons it is desirable,
and hence is enjoined, but really is not essential, as the history of the
church conclusively proves. ‘‘ Them that believe’’ are found in al] denom-
inations ; those that are savingly united to Christ are found in Roman
Catholic and Protestant churches ; admixture of error, difference in Ch.
government, etc., has not prevented, in the opposing camps, persons to
become justified by faith, adopted by grace, and engrafted as the elect.
The prayer of Christ, so often quoted, for union has special reference to
the ultimate end of the church, and is identified with the manifestation of
His glory (see Prop. 184). Many contend that union now isessential, or at
least necessary. Keeping in view the object intended by this dispensation,
we may concede its desirableness to expedite the gathering of the elect,
but it is not absolutely requisite for this purpose. At the very commence-
ment of the Christian Church, as every historian concedes, even in the
Apostolic age, there was a tendency (even among the Apostles), to diver-
sity, which has continued down to our day, and we are assured by the Word
will continue until Christ ushers in the Mill. Kingdom. Just as God has
used the peculiar temperament, disposition, style, etc., of men in giving
His Word, so He also employs the various temperaments, dispositions,
talents, etc., of men in gathering out ; but whilst in the former diversity
exists without breaking the unity of that Word being under the restrain-
ing influence of inspiration, the latter amidst its diversity has no such re-
straining medium, saving that Word which is already given. Therefore,
the unity is not to be sought in the utterances of the church as such, not
in its outward external form, not even in its inward experience and feel-
ing, but only in three things: (1) in working out, consciously or uncon-
sciuusly, a common design, i.e. the salvation of believers ; (2) that every
member savingly united to Christ, whether recognized or not, whether
agreeing in all things with us or not, sustains the relation of brother and
joint heir with those who also thus believe ; (8) the common relation that
all believers sustain to Christ even now, and which is finally to be openly
manifested. Therefore, the efforts of those who urge for unity among
brethren, without the exclusion of a diversity which is inseparable from a
probationary state, are to be commended.
Such as the labors of Dr. Schmucker, the Christian Alliance, and others. The Augs-
burg Confession, Art. 7, pointedly says : ‘‘ That subordinate differences do not abolish
the unity of the church.’’ This unity, as the reader sees, does not bear the marks of
the covenanted and predicted Kingdom, being more of a spiritual and invisible nature,
and preparative to the unity that shall be manifested when the Christ and His members
are revealed.
638 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 97.

Proposition 97. The various forms of Church government tn-

dicate that the Church is not the promised Kingdom.
Taking the prophetic record, which gives the Messianic Kingdom
a uniform government with a uniform faith, it is impossible to
accept of the church, with its diversified forms of government, as
an intended exhibit of the Kingdom.
Obs. 1. While men differ in their interpretation of the church, yet it is
generally admitted, excepting by the Roman Catholics and a High-Church
party, that Christ did not found His church with an accurately defined and
fixed form of government for its associated capacity, but left the forms it
should assume in society, and among nations, to the development made by
Providence and human agertcy. ‘This view, perhaps slightly but not
materially modified, is the belief of multitudes. If we accept of it, then
it refutes the notion of the church being a Kingdom, for it admits at once
that the church at its commencement lacked one of the essentials of a
Kingdom, viz.: a regularly constituted form of government. With our doc-
trine of the church and Kingdom this omission remarkably harmonizes;
so much, indeed, that c¢ 7s requisite. If the Roman Catholic doctrine is
correct, that such a Kingdom under a regularly constituted government is
found in the church, ¢hen an important and serious objection would be
raised up against us. Millenarianisin has ever resisted her doctrine as an
envasion of the Messiah’s rights and privileges, and as hostile to the early
church view ; for her doctrine cannot be maintained, being merely the
result of the hierarchical growth of centuries, and lacks a Scriptural foun-
dation. The very design of the church does not require such a govern-
ment, it being fully met by the simple organization, few rites, sacraments,
worship, and rules which are given.
It is remarkable how guarded prophecy is, not to allow the Church-Kingdom theory to
find encouragement in its portrayals of the future. Thus e.g. Dan. 2 and 7 (comp. Props.
104, 121, and 160), in which we find that the nominal conversion of the Roman Empire
under Constantine and the resultant form of church government patterned after the civil,
is unacknowledged. The transformation formed no Kingdom of God (as multitudes vain-
ly dream) for the Empire still remains symbolized as a beast down to the end. Its
Christianity, nominal and hierarchical, pregnant with bitter evils and future persecu-
tions, properly remains unrecognized. The simple fact, Scripturally attested, is this,
that during these “ times of the Gentiles,’ believers, instead of inheriting a Kingdom,
are members of civil government, and are taught to render civil obedience, acknowledg-
ing earthly kings and rulers to be such over them. Let the student refer to Props. 3,
58, etc., and see the diversity existing respecting the time when this alleged Kingdom
was inaugurated, and he will find additional reason for rejecting the prevailing view,
because a Kingdom, to be such, must, of necessity, have some form of government
allied with it, but this vagueness, indistinctness, lack of form, is opposed to the notion
of such having been founded. :

Obs, 2. Some hold that by virtue of the church being a Kingdom,

Christ rules over it by a vicegerent (i.e. the Pope); others, by a divinely
appointed and regularly descended Episcopacy ; some, by the rules of the
PRop. 97.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 639

State, forming State religions ; others, by the ministry and officers of the
congregation ; some, by individual congregations who in the aggregate
form the Kingdom ; others, by General Councils, Conferences, Assem-
blies, or Synods ; and others, by the associated union of the civil power
with the church either as primary or subordinate. There is a variety to
suit all inclinations. Again, some tell us that the church isa Kingdom,
but that no one form of government is prescribed, it being left optional
with the church to organize that form best adapted to contingencies ;
others, that the government of the church must be so shaped as to ac-
commodate itself to the civil ; others, that the New Test. leaves the whole
matter discretionary with every individual congregation to assume one;
and still others inform us that the church, whilst a Kingdom, is not one in
the strict sense of the word, only symbolically, but is a society of believers
governed by the moral law and the institutions of the New Test., its
members being still subject to the civil power, etc. History is filled with
the bitter contests arising between the advocates of these opinions, and
every party nearly can enroll its martyrs who fell in defence of its peculiar
tenet of church government. Is such asad diversity consistent with the
idea of Christ’s covenanted Kingdom? ‘The idea of a stable, well-ordered,
acknowledged, and duly enforced government 1s connected by all the
prophets with the Messianic Kingdom, but if the church is it, what party
can rightfully claim it? So little is this the predicted Kingdom that there
is no one here (excepting we take the infallible Pope, or Young, or others,
who claim to speak by inspiration) to decide when believers differ among
themselves respecting the government itself. Is it not strange that 7-
telligent men continue to insist upon having such a Kingdom present, when
they differ so essentially among themselves concerning such a weighty
matter as the form of the Kingdom? Can we imagine that when Christ’s
Kingdom as covenanted and predicted is once truly set up, that it will be
in a shape so undecisive and peculiar, that men will contend with each other
as toits nature andform? No! never! In the day that the Lord is King
over all the earth (Zech. 14), and His majesty and power is seen in giving
and enforcing law, in restoring and upbuilding with Godlike energy and
force the Davidic throne and Kingdom, men will not find it so insignifi-
cantly or enigmatically expressed that its organization, etc., can become a
question like the preceding.
Singular episodes are to be found in this diversity. We mention a few as illustrations
of the inability of man to preserve a consistency when violating the Divine order relat-
ing to the Church. Some German divines, thinking that the Church as a Kingdom, to
be truly such, must have some point of external unity, insist (as e.g. Rothe and
Thierschs—see Pressense’s review of them, Early Years of Christianity, p. 411-412), that
the apostles must have held a second Council at Jerusalem, in which they instituted the
Episcopate! Savonarola, under the influence of this Kingdom notion, claimed that
Christ had condescended to become the peculiar Monarch of the Florentines (Roscoe’s
Life of Lorenzo de Medicis, p. 345). The Anabaptists, Fifth Monarchy men, Mormons,
ete., with this Church idea have claimed a special Kingdom of God as existing among
themselves. Fanatics have duly taken advantage of the notion, and carefully incorpo-
rated it into their schemes. Eccl. History (especially English and Scotch) contains nu-
merous instances where national establishments of religion were discarded on the
ground that they were opposed to the nature of Christ’s Kingdom, while the very men
who made such an objection made themselves liable, on the same ground precisely, of
rejection, because they too set up the Church separated from the State as the Kingdom.
Edward Irving, in his work Church and State, overlooking, even while expounding proph-
ecy, the design of this dispensation in gathering out a people for a future divinely con-
stituted Church and State, makes in his argument a divinely constituted State practical
 640 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 97.
and as, in a measure at least, existing. This plunged him into opinions intolerant, ete.
The notion of ‘‘ The Divine Right’’ is indeed ideally correct, but we must not forget
the period when God Himself shall practically and really manifest it in a chosen King
and His associated selected kings. This view of the Church and the State was one cause
of Irving's troubles, leading him to endeavor to realize the impossible, that which was in
the future and in God’s own performance. Such allusions as these could be multiplied,
which are given not for the sake of showing an abuse (for the abuse of a doctrine does
not disprove the doctrine itself), but rather how variously men are influenced by the
notion that in some way or other the Kingdom of Christ is to be now witnessed.
While thus employing the diversity existing as evidence that the Church is not the
Kingdom, we must not be understood as opposed to a form of Church government as a
necessity for its growth, ete. Hence we are compelled to dissent from the exceeding
lax views of the ‘‘ Plymouth Brethren’’ respecting Church government. It has been the
universal opinion of the Church, following the Apostolic age, that the Holy Spirit, in
and through the Church, called the Ministry, such a call being confirmed by a mediate
act of the Church. The Church, in its official capacity, is the instrument to determine,
by examination, the validity of the call, in order to avoid imposition, etc. This has been
the universal rule, founded on Scripture, however disputes, etc., arose respecting the
grades of the ministry. We cannot, therefore, sympathize with the ‘‘ Brethren’s” tirade
against ‘‘ Clericism,’’ simply because, if followed, it would result in disintegration and
perversion. Hence, to make baptism an ordinance not in, but outside of the Church de-
pendent on the individual and the teacher, is unscriptural (leaving out an ordinance of
the Church) ; and to make the ministry dependent on the will, or vagaries, or supposed
inspired influence, of individuals, is also unscriptural (making the Church virtually de-
pendent upon influences outside of it, and over which it has no control). The author-
ity—if any is claimed—depends not upon any official voice of the Church, but upon the
ipse diwit of this or that one claiming to be directed by the Spirit of God. ‘The door is
thus opened to claims and pretensions that pride, love of notoricty, etc., will speedily
avail themselves of, owing to human depravity. Alas! extremes in the Church have
already borne a mass of deadly fruit ; even with the greatest care and utmost watchful-
ness, unqualified and uncalled men have been foisted on the Church, but human weak-
ness, with no proper checks, untrammelled, and with power to claim a ministerial
position, will be sure to manifest itself. Studying such passages as 2 Tim. 2 : 2, and
those referring to the appointment of Elders, as well as the intimations of a continued
ministry in the Church, and then linking with these the universal custom of the early
Church, as testified to by history, that a ministry, no matter in what forms (for that is
another question, touching the Hierarchy, etc.), was perpetuated in and mediately by
the Church, it seems to us strange that men, evidently sincere and pious, will set them-
selves up at this late day as alone right in discarding all ‘‘ Clericalism,’’ and the whole
Church from the days of the apostles in the wrong. The result is, that however honest
in their views, they are only injuring the truth by associating such demoralizing opin-
ions, unnecessarily disquieting others in their Church relationships, and increasing the
number of sects by forming, with special and extraordinary high spiritual claims,
another. The effort to make the eldership an exceptional and mere introductory office
is unsuccessful and unhistorical. So the effort to overthrow the view, that men in the
Church, and by virtue of their position in the Church as teachers, are not to perpetuate a
ministry (as exemplified in Timothy, Titus, end Barnabas) by some act of setting them
apart (thus giving them an official recognition), is both unscriptural and unhistorical.
To leave the distribution of the Lord's Supper to a direct intimation of the Holy Ghost
is fanatical and substituting human imaginings for divine inspiration. To leave the
Holy Ghost, on an occasion of discipline, to designate who shall be, for the occasion,
the Elders or rulers, is, to say the least, dangerous, and may cause personal feeling or
prejudice to triumph. To allow special and specific claims to eldership or rulership,
etc., under the specious plea of being directed by the Holy Spirit, is the visionary
notion of a mystical enthusiasm, and tends to bring us under the subjection of false
claims and pretenses. The entire theory (as illustrated e g. Holden’s Ministry of the
Word, and Corinth and Sects) is calculated to lead astray and impair the usefulness of its
upholder. For it raises up an antagonism to other Churches, which, to say the least, is
uncharitable and unchristian. Thus Holden (Corinth and Sects) declares emphatically
that a man who has the truth, and is conscientious, cannot go to any of the Churches
(saving that of the ‘‘ Believers’’) to worship, for in doing so he virtually connives at
schism, sectarianism, etc. It will be well indeed for these ‘‘ Brethren"’ if they have the
piety, usefulness, etc. that many in these Churches manifest. This intense bigotry (and
there are others who just as freely condemn the ‘‘ Brethren’’) is the natural, logical
outgrowth of their system, and evidences that it is based on error.
Prop. 98.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 641

Proposition 98. That the church is not the Kingdom promised

to David’s Son was the belief of the early church.
This has already been distinctly shown under Props. 69-75, but
some additional remarks to enforce the same can be readily given.
Obs. 1. If the church is the predicted Kingdom of God, we certainly
ought to find some direct passage teaching this, either in the writings of
the Apostles or their immediate successors. But such an one cannot be
found. For two reasons it ought to be contained in the Epistles. (1) If
the Apostles at one time in their ministry misapprehended (as learned
men tell us on Acts 1:6, but which we deny), the nature of the Kingdom,
then surely at a later period when, as we are again told, they understood
that the church was meant, we should reasonably expect that on so vital a
matter some decisive utterance should be given, explanatory of the mistake
made in their previous preaching and confirmatory of a change of view.
Simple justice to the truth and to thentselves required this at their hands,
in view of their peculiar position. (2) The Jews held that the predicted,
covenanted Kingdom was an external, visible reign of the Messiah on the
restored Davidic throne, etc. Now in consequence of having continually
to meet such prejudices, it is peculiarly significant that hey employ no
reasoning so prevalent at the present day, viz.: that the church is the
Kingdom, etc., when such would have been 17 place and eminently proper
if the Jews were in error. If the reader says that other errors of the Jews
were not noticed, we reply, that all that were of importance in their rela-
tion to the Christian dispensation the Apostles met and refuted. And this
one, if really an error, is of such magnitude and weight, had such a direct
influence, sustained such a relation to the very thing they were taught to
proclaim, viz.: ‘‘the Gospel of the Kingdom,’’ that 2¢ 2s impossible to
believe that they would have passed it by without a distinct rejection and
a substitution of the truth. A whole nation under a mistake respecting
the Messiah’s Kingdom which the Apostles were specially commissioned to
preach ; and yet an error so fundamental is not directly corrected, but must
be inferred or implied! Is it reasonable or credible? The truth is, that no
such repudiation of error was needed.

Obs, 2. At the risk of repetition, it may again be said, that the declara-
tions of the Apostles concerning the nearness of the Advent (Prop.74) pre-
vented them from entertaining the view that the church is the promised
Kingdom of Christ. How could they believe the church to be such as the
glorious Kingdom predicted, e.g. by Daniel, whose dominion was to be
world-wide and everlasting, when they were constantly looking for the con-
summation ? We confess no sympathy with Dr. Neander’s method of rec-
onciliation when, referring to this point, he exonerates the Apostles b
showing that they were still wader Jewish forms of thought, but that the
seeds of truth then sown by them would, by a foreordained development,
642 THE TIHEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRrop. 98.

finally be stripped from this apostolic shell or husk. We dare not take
such liberties with apostolic men, and admit that they were mistaken in so
consequential a matter ; for if we do, what assurance have we that they did
not also misconceive other truths, enshrouding them also in ‘*‘ husks’? ? Did
the Spirit which promised to lead them into truth, which was specially
given to them to impart, conduct them to a lower plane of knowledge, and
contradict the inspiration given to Daniel? Were the Apostles, claiming
inspiration, more fallible than, say, Origen or Augustine, or Jerome, or
Eusebius, etc. Receiving the admissions of a host of writers (ase.g. Watts,
Essay prefixed to World to Come) that ‘‘ the Christians of the first age did
generally expect the Second Coming of Christ to judgment and the resur-
rection of the dead in that very age wherein it was foretold ;’’ that “‘ the
primitive Christians imagined the day of resurrection and judgment was
near,’’ etc., it follows that they could not possibly admit the Origenistic
view of the Kingdom. (Comp. Neander, Mosheim, Kurtz, etc.)

Obs. 3. The strongest possible argument that the Apostle Paul could
have used to convince the Thessalonians that they were mistaken as to the
imminency of the Advent, would have been the modern one concerning the
church, i.e. that Christ’s Kingdom was established in the church, and that
according to Daniel and the prophets a long career of honor and dominion
was before it, for it would be folly to suppose that a Kingdom just newly
set up should so speedily come to an end without fulfilling the prophecies.
Let the student reflect on the situation, on the abundant predictions con-
cerning the Kingdom, and then let him consider that if the church was
really intended to meet the prophecies of the Kingdom, surely such an ap-
peal; so simple, consistent, and convincing, would have been spoken. In-
spiration, however, to be consonant with itself, could not thus give it.
Instead of designating the church a Kingdom they (the Apostles) teach
that it 1s a probationary and preparatory stage to the Kingdom. In the
very Epistle (Hebrews) that above all others was designed for the Jews,
and where, if anywhere, the church should be specifically (if such) elevated
to the position of Messiah’s Kingdom, we have, instead of this, language
employed which is eminently calculated to confirm the Jews in their idea
of a Kingdom still future. Taking e.g. the phrase ‘‘ the world to come,’’
knowing the notions that the Jews (Prop. 137) attributed to it, and rep-
resenting Jesus as the One to whom it would be subject; speaking of
‘‘ the rest’’ as future and that it is ‘‘a keeping of the Sabbath’’ without
explaining that it was very different from that anticipated by the Jews
(Prop. 143) under David’s Son ; declaring that the covenant promises are
realized only in Christ when He ‘‘ should come the second time unto sal-
vation,’’—these, and the whole drift of the Epistle, are to the effect that the
church must wait for ‘‘ the appearing and Kingdom.’’

Obs. 4. Neander (His. of Plant. Ch. Church, vol. 2, p. 176) thus gives
Panl’s view : ‘‘ Such an universal sovereignty in reserve for the Kingdom
of God, Paul certainly acknowledged ; but the thought was then, and must
have continued to be, not familiar to his mind, that such a supremacy of
the Kingdom of God was to be formed by that developing process which
Christ compares to the leaven, through the natural connection of causes
and effects under the Divine guidance.’’ Neander argues that by this de-
veloping process the Kingdom of God would by degrees assume a suprem-
Prop. 98.| THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 643

acy *‘ brought about under other conditions than those of earthly existence
by the Second Advent of Christ.”’ It is but too true, that such a theory
built upon the parable of the leaven, was unfamiliar to Paul ; it cannot be
found in his writings, and yet he was also (more so than Neander) familiar
with the parable. This theory, which its advocates so learnedly prefer,
und. which. is claimed to have been developed through ‘‘ the life of the
church” (rather through Hegelian philosophy), was unknown to the early
church. For the sake of the truth, ‘‘ the simplicity and ignorance’’ of Paul
is vastly to be preferred to the philosophical ‘‘ leaven theory,’’ which over-
rides the most solemnly given promises, and oath-confirmed Davidic throne
and Kingdom,—and which assumes that Apostles, to whom the parables
were explained by Christ, who conversed much with Jesus respecting the
Kingdom, and who were specially guided by the Spirit, knew less about
the parables than uninspired men following centuries after.

Obs. 5. So little, indeed, did the first Christians hold the notion that
the church is the Kingdom, that they refused even to allow the saints after
death to have ascended into the third heaven (see Brooks’ £7. Proph.
Inter., Bickersteth’s Guide, etc.), and be in the enjoyment of it, placing
them in an intermediate state, awaiting in Hades the coming of the King-
dom (so, e.g., Justin Martyr explicitly declares). And even down to Ter-
tullian, who is willing to make an exception in behalf of the Patriarchs,
Prophets, and Martyrs, this intermediate state or Paradise ‘‘ is not, prop-
erly speaking, the Kingdom of heaven, into which they will not enter
until after Christ’s Advent.’’ (So Neander, His. of Dogmas, p. 252, vol.
1.) How then if even unwilling to admit this, as Justin informs us, could
they constitute the church a Kingdom? Hence, in the earliest writings,
there is not a decisive passage which teaches the prevailing modern view.
‘While the Fathers insisted on the universal government of God, the Head-
ship of Christ over the church, yet they do not designate the church the
Kingdom of God, or profess to be in the Kingdom, but represent them-
selves as looking for it still future. Barnabas, Ireneus, Justin, and
others freely give us their opinions, and they fully correspond with our
doctrinal position. This fact alone is strongly corroborative of our belief.
Let the reader refer e.g. to Prop. 93, Obs. 10, and observe how Tertullian explains
the Lord's Prayer. ‘‘ Thy Kingdom come ’’ cannot be prayed for by those who already
possess it. The disciples (as we have shown, Props. 43, 44, 54, 55, 68, 70, etc.), who
prayed it, had no idea of the modern notion engrafted on the prayer. They prayed it,
looking for a Kingdom to come visibly in the future under David’s Son. We may well
ask, How could the Divine Master give them such a prayer, with such a clause in it,
which, as the facts evidence, was eminently calculated to confirm them in expecting the
covenant to be realized in its plain grammatical sense? Would Jesus give them that in
prayer which He foreknew would be (if the modern notion is correct) grossly misun-
derstood and perverted? No! consistency, the covenants and prophecy, require us to
understand the Kingdom prayed for as not then in existence, but as future and certain to
come. The prayer is given, without explanation, in view of a well-known covenanted
Kingdom, generally anticipated. (The delicacy, exquisite, expressed in the word
‘Thy,’’ in its Theocratic ordering, relating to David’s Son, is seen e.g. under Props.
83, 200, etc.) The clause ‘‘ Thy will be done on earth,”’ etc., is not now verified even
in the Church (e.g. Props. 96 and 97), and, so long as it remains in its present mixed
character, cannot be. The ‘‘ will” of God respecting the earth is easily seen if the eye
of faith is directed either to the past or to the future ; in the past, it is reflected before
the fall, and in the future it shines forth in the renewed earth. To make it manifested
now as originally intended, as covenanted and predicted, is to cover it over with the
passions, frailties, ete., of poor humanity. (Comp. Prop. 105.)
644 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 99.

Proposition 99. Zhe opinion that the church is the predicted

Kingdom of Christ was of later origin than the first and
second centurves.
In the first centuries Millenarianism was prevalent and generally
held, Props. 72-76. It was entertained in the form that we now
advocate, and, in the very nature of the case, cowld not receive the
opinion stated in the Proposition. The Fathers all looked and
longed for a speedy appearance of the Kingdom under the per-
sonal reign of Jesus. The opposers of Chiliasm in the third cen-
tury first gave a different interpretation to the church, by which it
was transformed into the Kingdom of Christ.
Obs. 1. The opposers mentioned designed such an exchange to offset
the idea of a coming Kingdom of Christ here on earth. If they could
point to an already existing Kingdom over which Christ then reigned as
predicted, it would go far to demolish the Chiliastic doctrine of the future
Kingdom. The Origenistic interpretation was admirably adapted to bring
about so desirable a substitution, and through its flexible and mystical
manipulations the work was accomplished. Origen was about, if not, the
first one who introduced ‘‘ the novelty.”’

Obs. 2. In justice, however, to Origen himself, we must add, that while

paving the way for others, and expressing himself somewhat like many
moderns, yet even he frequently writes guardedly, perhaps undecidedly.
Thus e.g. in his ‘‘ De Principiis’? when making a Kingdom to exist here
on earth in the church, he speaks of the church (B. 1, ch. 6) ‘‘ which is
the form of that Kingdom which is to come,’”’ and (in B. 3, ch. 6), he goes
on to show that ‘‘ the form’’ of a Kingdom does not include the reign of
Christ, but only that of Christ’s agents, for speaking of ‘‘ the consumma-
tion and restoration of all things’? when ‘‘ those better institutions’’ will
be introduced, he adds: ‘“‘ For, after his Agents and servants, the Lord
Christ, who is King of all, will Himself asswne the Kingdom.’’ As we
cannot tell whether Rufinus added to this or not, we are content to receive
it as also Origenistic, and proof that he himself could not entirely rid him-
self of the early church doctrine of a Kingdom still future belonging
pre-eminently to Jesus Christ.

Obs. 3. After the Roman Empire nominally became Christian, then,

indeed, a host of writers sprang up, who lavished the Kingdom upon the:
church with so liberal a hand, that the union of state and church under
Constantine and his successors was pronounced to be not only the Kingdom
of Christ, but the Kingdom in Millennial bloom, even to a New Jerusalem
condition. (See Eusebius and Jerome.) When the Papacy was unfolded
 Prop. 99.| THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 645

and in power, it was impossible, with its idea of vicegerency, etc., to ex-
pect any other than an anti-chillastic view of the church. ‘This brief
synopsis, with Props. 76, 77, 78, and what follows, is amply sufficient for
the present.
The Popish Church is called “ the Kingdom of Christ” in the Dogmatic Decrees of the
recent Vatican Council, thus only confirming the ten thousand previous utterances.
Out of a multitude of illustrations, it is sufficient to give Bh. Vaughan (Gladstone’s Vat-
icanism, p. 55), who says that the Church has been created ‘‘ a perfect Society or King-
dom,’’ ‘‘ with full authority in the triple order, as needful for a perfect Kingdom, legisla-
tive, judicial, and coercive.’” (Comp. Arch. Manning’s Vatican Decrees, p. 43, and as
illustrative of this ‘‘ perfect Kingdom” read the lives of the Popes.)

Obs. 4. The history of the doctrine of the church should not influence
any one to reject the truth itself. The Scriptures, in the cautions and
warnings given, teach us to anticipate the result witnessed. No doctrine
of the Bible, however important, but has been perverted and abused by
men, and has been allied with error and even extravagance. The doctrine
of the Kingdom has not escaped the withering touch of depravity ; and as
we read, again and again the testimony comes how enthusiasm, mysti-
cism, fanaticism have sought to engraft upon it the most outrageous and
blasphemous assumptions, even to the extent that persons have given them-
selves out to be the king of such a Kingdom. Reflection, however, enables
us to perceive that such abuse and perversion are only, in the light of
prophecy, corroborative evidence of the truthfulness of Scripture.
This notion of the church being the covenanted Kingdom of Christ (instead of being,
what it really is, a preparatory stage for the future introduction of the Kingdom) is
deeply rooted in prevailing Theology, and even in literature. It is an idea long held in
veneration, fortified by great names, embellished by eloquence, supported by philos-
_ophy, strengthened by policy, power, and age, enriched by the cumulative reasoning of
many centuries and the concessions of piety, so that, in view of its position, dimen-
sions, and intrenchments, the person who ventures to meet it is almost placed like one
in “ aforlorn hope.’’ Ideas, consecrated and cemented by the expressed opinions, attach-
ment, and submission of multitudes, embracing men of the highest ability, piety, and
learning, are not to be eradicated, saving by a higher hand, when fulfilling His own
counsels and covenanted promise. The notion, as we have abundantly shown, is
variously presented, and is so general that it is even adopted in the titles of books,
as e.g. a history of Congregationalism in New England is designated by its author,
H. F. Uhden, ‘‘ The New England Theocracy”’ ; a history of the church is called by
the writer, Dr. Jarvis, “ The History of the Mediatorial Kingdom,” etc. Under its
influence the most extravagant claims have been enforced, not only by the Papacy but
by Protestanism. Sects have taken advantage of the opening, and pretended that their
several organizations were the predicted Kingdom. The Mormons (Seward’s Travels, p.
19) declare, ‘‘ that, according to divine promise, the Kingdom of God came upon the
earth immediately after the departure of the Saviour ; that this Kingdom has a key;
that the church early lost it, and that the Latter Day Saints have found it,’’ etc., being
the Kingdom. Enthusiasts have pressed it to an extreme.

Obs. 5. With infidel writers no view of the church is satisfactory.

Thus e.g. the Duke of Somerset boldly informs us, that the early church
doctrine, once entertained, but properly rejected by the church, does not
satisfy modern thought and wants, being too ‘‘ deeply colored by the popular
traditions and poetical imagery of the Hebrew race.’’ On the other hand,
the doctrine substituted by the church in the place of the one rejected is
contrasted with the early one, and being found so diverse, the deduction is
drawn, that the Word itself is unreliable, erroneous, etc. Or, contrasting
646 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 99.

the modern church views with the prophecies, they claim that one or the
other is incorrect, etc. The Kingdom not existing, as predicted, in the
church at present, causes them to refuse the Biblical account ; the King-
dom professedly in the church is obnoxious to them, and leads to the same
refusal on the ground that it does not correspond either with the early
church or the record.
Prop. 100.| THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 647

Proposition 100. Zhe visible church is not the predicted King-

dom of Jesus Christ.
The covenant forbids the idea to be entertained, for the Davidic
covenant and the promises based on it, as we have shown, remain
unfulfilled, unrealized in the church. This Proposition is ad-
vanced in this form only to direct attention to the fact, that many
writers affirm that the visible church itself is the kingdom. The
arguments already advanced refute this notion, but leaving these to
speak for themselves, we give some additional observations.
Obs. 1. Aside from Roman Catholic and Protestant divines, who declare
in the most positive manner (as e.g. Bellarmine—Fisher’s His. of Refor.,
p. 465—Romanist, says that the church-Kingdom is as tangible as the Re-
public of Venice, and Gresley—in his True Churchman—a Protestant,
who takes the same ground), that the visible church is the Kingdom, it is
painful to follow the inconsistent and half-way utterances of a large class
of writers, who on one page affirm the same and on another page, con-
fronted by its mixed state, conclude the contrary, or else concede a kind
(lower) of Kingdom to the external (“‘a shadowing forth’’) but the
true notion to the internal or invisible church. In the latter, a distinct
‘and uniform theory is lacking ; whilst in the former, claim can be made,
at least, to a unity, etc., for it contains a form of government, having its
rulers, subjects, etc.
An illustration of these two opinions may be in place. Thus e.g. whatever may be
the Scriptural and historical value of presbytery itself, under the idea, taken for granted,
that the visible church is the Kingdom, Rev. Porteus gives us a Prize Essay with preface
by Dr. Bonar, bearing the significant and far-reaching title. ‘‘ The Government of the
Kingdom of christ: An Inquiry as to the Scriptural, Invincible, and Historical Position
of Presbytery.” Again, e.g. Schmid (Bib. Theol. of the New Test., p. 250) clearly sees
the difficulty of making the visible church in its present state the Kingdom of God, and
yet forced by this theory to find an outward development of the Kingdom of God here
on earth, and such a church being the only thing present to which it can be attached,
he gives us this paradoxical assertion : ‘‘ It may be said that the church is not in any
respect identical with the Kingdom of God ,; but yet the actual Kingdom of God on earth coincides
with the church.” To prove this we are led into mystical and philosophical reasoning,
based solely on assumption, and which is afterward contradicted by his own showing,
that the church is the Kingdom because baptism, the Lord’s Supper, Christ’s Word, are
“the groundwork of God’s Kingdom on earth,’’ ete. The efforts to soften and tone
this dowr to a spiritual nature does not deliver him from palpable contradictions, as
e.g. in one place telling us that these ordinances thus related to the Kingdom are
external and outward, then in another that the Kingdom upon which these external
ordinances are based is inward, and then still in another that the Kingdom is also
outward, working from external ordinances, and from within outwardly. A theory that
needs such a confused bolstering requires no special comment, although some of the most
able men, forced by a preconceived notion, tenaciously cling to it. And it is a matter of
amazement that many men, like Neander, who insist so strongly that the invisible church
is the Kingdom predicted, finally, by a series of mystical transfusions, have this same
invisible Church-Kingdom made an outward visible Church-Kingdom here on earth, thus
648 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 100.

violating the fundamental principles of the very theory which causes them in the first
place to adopt the invisible ; for, if correct, the church should always in this dispensa-
tion possess the same characteristics, undergoing as it does the same leavening process
described by him. Fuller (Strictures on Robinson's Sentiments, Let. 3), to indicate that the
church is a Kingdom, says: ‘‘ The-church of God is represented as a city,’’ etc., and
quotes as confirmatory Isa. 26:1, 2. But this passage does not refer to the church as
now constituted, as is apparent from the context, following as it does the resurrection of
the saints, the complete overthrow of all enemies, and the restoration of the Jewish
nation. Passages which refer exclusively to a still future dispensation are thus con-
stantly applied to this one, without the least attempt to show that they are properly
used. This is only a continuation of the Papal view. Thus e.g. a recent Romanist, Dr.
Alzog (Univ. Ch. His., vol. 1, p. 153), says : ‘* Christ, therefore, recognized the necessity
of such an institution, founded a visible church, which He calls indifferently the King-
dom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Kingdom of Christ.” It is this idea that
infused such a spirit (see Spiritual Evercises) into Loyola and others, and is the basis of
the infallibility doctrine (as also exemplified in the Metropolitan, Arch., Macariur,
teaching the infallibility of the Czar—the Greek Church being leavened with the Church-
Kingdom idea), as brought out in the recent Sermons, Lectures, etc. of Rev. Burke and
others.

Obs. 2. The reader will notice, that the visibility of the Kingdom in the
church is a matter fully admitted by a host of our opponents. Even those
who cleave to the invisibility of it (i.e. under the invisible church), as at
first and now constructed, in some way bring ultimately out of this invis-
ible a visible Kingdom. ‘They, notwithstanding the inconsistency in-
volved, are simply compelled to this by the testimony of prophecy, which
(as e.g. Dan., chs. 2 and 7), wnmistakably predicts such an outward, visible
dominion. ‘The singular feature in this 1s the following : in the construc-
tion of such a visible Kingdom either as now existing or as it shall ulti-
mately in the future, they find 2o difficulty in the declaration ‘‘ my King-
dom is not of this world,’? in making out the church to possess a world
dominion, having church and state united, etc., but the same passage is
persistently paraded, and false inferences drawn from it, against the visible
Kingdom, the world dominion when presented by Millenarians. Another
fact is to be observed in this controversy, that all divines, who oppose our
view, agree that either now or at some future time when the church has
this external development predicted by the prophets, the phrases Kingdom
of heaven and Kingdom of God are applicable to @ visible state here on the
earth. This feature is then yielded to us by the large majority of our op-
ponents ; if not universal, it is generally held. If so, it should certainly
aid in removing prejudice against us.
The works on the Church, Church and State, Ecclesiastical Polity, Church Govern-
ment, etc., evidence this widespread notion, derived from the prophecies. Many of the
ideas advanced are fundamentally correct, but the mistake which vitiates the whole is
the transference of the fulfilment from the period after the Sec. Advent to the “ times of
the Gentiles,’ between the First and Second Advent. A multitude of able writers
advocate a present visibility of the Kingdom, a present realization of the prophecies,
and a Theocracy already established, as can be seen e.g. in Jewell’s Apol. for the Church
of England, Hooker’s Kecl. Polity, Buckle’s His. of Civ., vol. 2, p. 271, Gladstone’s State
in Relation to the Church, and Macaulay’s Essay on same, Warburton’s Alliance of Church
and State, Paley’s Defence of the Church, etc., etc.

Obs. 3. The prophecies so decisive of a visible manifestation of Christ’s

Kingdom, it being something that all men can see and realize in its organ-
ized and exerted power, drives some to a singular classification and division
of the church, such as that the Kingdom is (1) the church, (2) the church
Prop. 100.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 649

in the Millennial age, and (3) the church in heaven ; or, as a commentator
has it, (1) the church an internal Kingdom, (2) the church an external
Kingdom, (3) the church as a future Kingdom, and (4) the church in
heaven. A Kingdom is often formed (as e.g. Olshausen, Com., vol. 2, p.
172) at the will of the writer to swit the occasion. 'The Kingdom instead
of being one (Prop. 35), is really made into several. And in some
instances, if we understand the authors correctly, one within the other.
This, in the light of prophecy, is evidently incorrect. Dr. Neander (Life
of Christ, Sec. 52) feels that there is a difficulty in making the church a
<ingdom ¢o accord with prophecy without an external, outward manifesta-
tion of governing power ; therefore, he mystically distinguishes two stages
of the Kingdom ; first, a hidden or inward condition, and then the second
stage was by means of the first ‘‘ to establish His (Christ’s) Kingdom as a
real one, more and more widely among men, and subdue the world to his
dominion.’? And this reality is to be witnessed in ‘“‘ a real world domin-
ion,’ ** a perfect world dominion,’ an ‘‘ universal empire.’’ Now aside from
this theory being flatly contradicted by the parable of the tares and wheat,
etc., it certainly looks, with his ‘‘ leaven theory’’ to alone accomplish it,
suspicious and accommodating to make the Kingdom (1) unreal or ideal,
and then (2) real or the ideal realized. Multitudes embrace the notion,
that in some way the church must be the Kingdom, because they suppose
that it will ultimately in this dispensation become universal and exhibit
outwardly, more and more, the form essential toa Kingdom. We request
the reader to notice the important concession made by it, viz.: it admits an
outward, visible form requisite to fulfil prophecy, and that the church has
not yet attained to the period when this is tv be manifested. Such admis-
sions, as far as they go, materially confirm our own doctrinal position.
Probably one of the most vigorous efforts to make the church the promised King-
‘dom of Christ is that found in the Scottish Church in its struggles with Popery and
Prelacy. (See the Epitome given by D’Aubigne in his Germany, England, and Scotland,
chs. 4, 5, and 6.) Opposing the pretensions of others, the assumption is taken that such
a Kingdom is to be inferred from the headship and kingship of Christ. During the
entire discussion there is no discrimination made between the Divine Sovereignty and
the Kingdom promised to the Son of David ; the covenants, which underlie the whole
subject, are totally ignored (in grammatical sense), and issue is made on isolated pas-
sages of Scripture torn from their connection and unity. It is supposed that the church
is the Davidic Kingdom (spiritualized) ; it is taken for granted that Jesus now sits on
David's throne (but how the Father’s throne is thus substituted does not appear) ; and
Luke 1 : 32, 33 is often quoted, without any attempt at explanation, as if applicable to
the present. The holding of His Kingdom in abeyance for purposes of mercy and love
(to gather out a people) ; the postponement of the Kingdom to the Sec. Advent (clearly
taught) ; in brief, those characteristics which evidence the preparatory nature of the
church and its non-identity with the Kingdom—are left out of sight, and the greatest
stress is laid on visible sacraments, a visible ministry, a visible government, etc., with-
out excluding the invisible. A writer (anon., but withal Protestant) builds his entire
argument that the church is the Kingdom upon ‘‘ Thou art Peter, and upon this rock,”
etc., laying special stress on the words ‘‘ And I will give unto thee the keys of the
Kingdom of heaven” (for which comp. Prop. 64, etc.). Indeed, the Reformed Pres-
byterian Church, or Covenanters (see an Art. on, by Rey. Hutcheson, in M’Clintock and
Strong’s Cyclop.), makes not only the church the covenanted Messianic Kingdom, but
even includes the State : ‘‘ They consider the church and the State as the two leading
departments of Christ’s visible Kingdom on earth.’ This is done by ignoring the
grammatical sense of the covenants, spiritualizing the predictions, applying to the
present what belongs to the future, and misapprehending the “times of the Gentiles”
and the design of this dispensation. But it is a legitimate following out of the prin-
ciples of Calvin (from which others swerve), for Calvin’s rule in Geneva resulted from
the misconception that “the Kingdom of God” was to be realized in the lives and
650 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 100.
society of the people (comp. Fisher’s His. Refor., p. 217, ete.; D’Aubigne’s His. of
Refor., etc.). He so framed the State that the Church through a consistory had the
controlling influence, and the State was only co-operative in enforcing a code, which
was the resultant of the opinion that God’s Kingdom was established in the Church,
and that a sort of Mosaic legislation under an alleged existing Theocratic organization
was in place, by which all—even such as were not predestined unto salvation —were
forced, by penalties, upon their good behavior and obedience. History records the
sad conflict, and infidelity, overlooking the conscientiousness (however mistaken) of
“<the venerable company,” makes itself merry at the expense of the trivial and bloody
stringency (repeated again in Puritanism) of its laws, without considering that men who
sincerely entertained such views of the Kingdom of Christ could not, if really honest in
their convictions, act otherwise. This mistaken doctrine affords an apology for a code
which advocated coercion in matters of religion, and made the State, as in the Papacy,
the executioner. Neal (His. of the Puritans), when summing up the differences between
the Puritans and the High-Church party, adds finally that both insisted upon a uniform-
ity of worship and of ‘‘ calling in the sword of the magistrate for the support and the
defence of their several principles.’’ The spirit of the Papacy is by some most strenu-
ously enforced, as e.g. illustrated in Cartwright (Disraeli’s Cal. of Authors, vol. 1, p. 365,
note), who made out a Republic of Presbyters to be superior to all sovereigns, for the
latter ‘‘ were to be as subjects ; they were to vail their sceptres, and to offer their
crowns as the prophet speaketh, to lick the dust off the feet of the church” (misapplying
the prophet). He says: ‘‘The monarchs of the world should give up their sceptres
and crowns unto Him (Jesus Christ), who is represented by the officers of the church.’’
Alas! by a perversion of Scripture, honestly and most tenaciously held, what disastrous
results, what crimes, what persecution and death; have resulted. Those who desire this
Church-Kingdom theory ‘‘ run to seed” may refer to the dying testimony of Alex.
Campbell, as given in the London Quarterly Review, 1851, p. 165.

Obs. 4. A number of authors, who declare that ‘‘ the church on the

earth, or the body of the faithful, is a true and visible representation of
Christ’s Kingdom, the Kingdom of Grace, the mediatorial Kingdom,’’
also say, ‘‘ the Patriarchal Church, the Jewish Church, and the Christian
Church are but different names for the same church—they are all the
Church of Christ.’? Identifying the two, making one and all the same
Kingdom, i.e. Christ’s, they involve themselves in the absurdity that the
Kingdom specially promised to David’s Son, said David’s Son held in pos-
session before David’s Son was ever born! The most fatal objections, as pre-
ceding Propositions show, beset this theory on all sides. Even the simple
matter of John’s preaching sets it aside; for, if correct, then John’s
preaching of the Kingdom was equivalent to his saying, ‘‘ Repent, for the
church is at hand.’’ But bow could such a declaration be made, if the
church, as Christ’s Kingdom, existed previously and at that time? One
writer, however, thinks that he finds the solution in saying that the church
had previously to John’s time existed “‘ under types, in a typical state.’’
This only involves the subject in still greater absurdity. For, while all
admit that types existed that were to be superseded, nearly all also retain
the reality of the church itself; but this theory makes the church itself
unreal, simply ‘‘ a shadow of good things to come,”’ thus constituting it in
itself a mere typical establishment or Kingdom, instead of its being, what
it really was, a real, organized, visible establishment having and observing
some typical ordinances.

Obs. 5. Men of the greatest reflection, such as Rothe, Coleridge, Arnold,

and others, seeing the past and present condition of the church, and
frankly acknowledging that it does not in its visible aspect correspond with
the conditions imposed by prophecy, and yet hampered by a theory which
Prop. 100.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 651

requires them to regard the church as a sort of embryotic Kingdom or

state, they contend that the church will not be complete, i.e. assume the
predicted aspect, until it is absorbed in the state, or the state is identified
with the church—ecclesiastical perfection being civil perfection, the state
constituting the church—the present separate condition of the church
being only provisional. Thus deep thinkers have of their own accord
adopted the early church view, that the present state of the church is only
provisional, but they certainly mistake when they (i.e. some of them) at-
tribute the ultimate result, i.e. the development into a visible Kingdom
such as prophecy demands, to the progress of the human race through
religious, moral, mental, social, scientific, etc., influences, instead of,
where prophecy places it, to the personal intervention and power of Christ.
This will be examined in detail hereafter, and it is sufficient now to say,
that the covenant itself, descriptive of the Kingdom, forbids our accept-
ance of such a theory. The line of argument adopted by them makes,
however, valuable concessions, equivalent to what we contend for in this
future Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom, as e.g. the perfect union of church and
state. The Millenarian view is not specially concerned in adopting any
of their ideas; only it insists, that with such opinions certainly xo
serious objection can be alleged against the visibility, etc. of the cove-
nanted Kingdom as entertained by us. Their statements even go farther
than we have seen in Millenarian writings. Thus e.g. according to Rothe,
the state is finally to absorb the church, taking up Christianity in itself
and becoming the Kingdom of God (consummated, Dr. Lange adds) ; and
according to Bluntschli the church will yield up its specifically Christian
character, thus paving the way for the culture of Mohammedans, Japanese,
etc. In all this, the admission is constantly made that the visible
church, as now constituted, does not yet present the predicted appearance
of the Kingdom. In pressing their theory to make it correspond with
prophetic announcements, they, without the guidance of the description of
the Kingdom already solemnly covenanted, go to unnecessary lengths ; on
the one hand, making an enslavement or subjugation of the church under
the state ; or, on the other, such a radical change of the church that in
this dispensation it loses its specific character. We, however, show that in
the future Kingdom there is a perfect union of church and state under one
Head without absorption or prejudice to either one or the other.
Again, we caution the student that able Pre-Millenarians hold to the idea that the
Church is a provisional or introductory Kingdom, or as some call it, ‘“‘an embryotic
Kingdom’’ or ‘‘a Kingdom in mystery.” But not one holds that this is the proper
covenanted and predicted Kingdom, for they all teach that the Sec. Advent can alone
introduce it. The few passages which cause such Pre-Millenarians to retain this view,
will come up hereafter for detailed examination. We vastly prefer the simple, plain
grammatical sense to guide us in connection with the general analogy of the Word, which,
as we have already seen, reveals to us only one distinctive Messianic Kingdom. To
such who may read this, the writer simply points to Luke 17 : 22, and reminds them
that this period of time, during the absence of the Son of man, cannot possibly—aside
from the Divine Sovereignty and the headship of Jesus over the church—bring us into
the enjoyment of a Kingdom, although it brings us the faith, hope, and joy of “‘ heirs.”
Taking the view advocated by us, it introduces a consistent logical position. As
illustrative of the vague and inconsistent interpretations which the other involves, we
select an esteemed writer. Dr. Nast (Com. on Matt. 16:19) makes the church the Kingdom
of heaven, but not satisfied, and evidently realizing a discrepancy, he adds: ‘‘ Yet the
visible church and the Kingdom of heaven are not, in every respect, identical.’? But
he fails to tell us in what respeet they are identical—a task which no one has yet
undertaken. Such a statement at once vitiates his own application. But in an Art. in
652 THE TIEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 100.

The West. Ch. Advocate, Aug. 6, 1879, opposing Bh. Merrill’s view that the sending of
the Comforter was the coming of ‘‘ the Son of man,’’ he justly adds : ‘* The ‘ ecclesia’
(church) is not the ‘ basileia’ (Kingdom) in the Biblical sense of the term, and therefore
the establishment of the Ch. Church on the day of Pentecost was not the coming of the
Kingdom Christ had referred to in the promise, Matt. 16 : 28.”

Obs. 6. The unsatisfactory correspondence of the present condition of

the church with the condition of the Kingdom of God as delineated by
prophecy, has led sincere and ardent Christians, with most honorable
motives, to agitate and press for constitutional amendments, by which
states and nations, civil governments, are to become identified with the
church as a sort of allies or guardians of Christianity. This is done under
the supposition that in this way the Kingdom of Christ will be established
and extended to meet the requirements of prophecy ;-and much laudation
is expended in this direction. As our entire argument in all its phases is
opposed to such a theory, we may very briefly say, that thisis te be rejected,
(1) as opposed to the covenanted Kingdom; (2) to the design of this dis-
pensation and of the church itself; (3) to the time when (under last
trumpet), and the order under which (Second Advent) this is to be ac-
complished ; (4) to the representations of the church in this dispensation
as separate and distinct ; (5) to the predicted overthrow and destruction of
states and kingdoms at the end of this dispensation. Indeed, we have no
prediction that the church in this age can accomplish it ; for a comparison
of prophecy teaches us that down to the very Advent of Jesus the church,
instead of being in the condition represented by such writers, is more or
less oppressed by the state, and at the very ending of the age endures a
terrible persecution. Moreover, the Bible, when alluding to such unions,
represents them as unsatisfactory and oppressive, even going so far as to
represent states and governments identified with such a union (e. g.
Roman Empire) as beasts, a whore, and mother of harlots. Whatever may
be thought of the last assertion, whether conclusive or not, one fact con-
firms such a Biblical representation, viz.: that history teaches that the
union of church and state has almost always resulted in a positive injury
to the church—the state imposing its confessions, fettering by its symboli-
cal deductions, lording it over believers, and frequently wielding the sword
of persecution. Experience has shown that it is impolitic and dangerous to
lodge a controlling power over the church in the state, and any movement
in this direction ought to be avoided. Let us be content with our
‘‘ stranger and pilgrim’’ allotted condition until the time comes when God -
and His Son shall unite church and state, not under rulers liable to cor-
ruption, etc., but under tried and tmmortal ones.
Obs. 7. Many of the last class also profess to guard their view against
some objections by upholding the unchanged condition and supremacy of
the church, making the state a very subordinate part in the future pro-
gramme. But in doing this they sacrifice in a great measure the pro-
phetic announcements of the greatness and extent of the world-dominion
of the Kingdom. It conduces to a vagueness which proves very unsat-.
isfactory, and it produces in abundance glittering generalities, which in
themselves establish nothing.
Obs. 8. It isa truth, that a vast number of works are published in the
interest of controversy and of doctrine respecting the church, in which the
Prop. 100.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 653

most important of all the questions concerning the church is either taken
for granted or else entirely ignored. The leading, fundamental question,
whether the church 7s truly the covenanted Kingdom of God, is, in many
instances, entirely untouched. Under the assumption that it is such, we
are treated to an immense array of learning and disquisition entirely based
on an alleged and arrogated doctrine. No proof is even attempted ; just
as uf the assumption had never been questioned. ‘This itself is evidence of
great weakness.

Obs. 9. Just in proportion as the notion that the visible church is the
Kingdom of God is entertained and extended, in the same proportion will
there also be an extravagant idea of superiority and supremacy over others.
This is true from the earliest period when this was asserted, down to the
recent establishment of Mormonism, which also claims ‘‘ a visible Kingdom
of God,”’ ‘‘ the Latter Day Kingdom,”’ the stone of Dan., ch. 2, which is
to be converted into the mountain (so Elder Pratt, etc.). This opinion,
arbitrarily received, has had a most powerful influence among the nations,
and it has proven a most fruitful sowrce of aggrandizement, contention,
and oppression. Out of it has sprung those hierarchical tendencies ac-
cepted by Roman Catholics and Protestants, and to it even the most
liberal of Reformers have made sundry concessions which has hampered
Reformation itself.
Arrogance, animosity, and even bloodshed have been some of its bitter fruits as
witnessed in the Latin, Greek, English, and other churches ; and down to the present
day its claims are characteristic of various antagonistic parties. It has urged popes,
kings, queens, bishops, etc., to enact and enforce arbitrary and cruel penal laws;
and it has proven the root from which has proceeded a growth of misery, persecution,
and martyrdom. If is a sad truth, that if we once admit that the visible church, in any
one of its forms, is the Kingdom of Christ on earth, we close the doors to the exclusion
of freedom of investigation and of private judgment, elevating said church into the
position of a dispenser and arbiter of God’s Word in the form (confession) it then may
possess. This is abundantly made manifest by the pleas of Popery and of national
establishments in the past. And we do not blame these for pressing very logical claims ;
for, if the premise be once conceded, i.e. that the visible church is such a Kingdom,
then the rest legitimately follows. Consistency then demands an outward unity, and, in
the efforts to secure such unity, force must be employed, and as a result, violence is
done both to religion and man. The edicts of the first Christian Emperors become a model
of church authority ; the fulminations of certain Councils are cherished as the lawful
exhibitions of authorized dominion ; the canons and work of fallible man are elevated
to tests of allegiance, resulting in crimination, excommunication, and anathema. The
fountain itself being impure, the stream flowing from it, whatever pure and refreshing
springs alongside of it may commingle with it, will carry on this impurity.

Obs. 10. This claim of making the visible church the Kingdom of God
has been conducive to infidelity. Arrogating to itself such pre-eminence,
the imperfection so palpably existing (e.g. its contentions, retrogressions,
lapses, diversity of faith, conflicting creeds, various systems of interpreta-
tion, church government, etc.) has vitiated in the eyes of such not only
the claim itself, but unfortunately Christianity along with it. The device
of making an invisible Kingdom to meet their objection did not materi-
ally alter the case ; for they observed that even the purest and truest of
believers retained imperfection and antagonism in belief even as to the
nature of this Kingdom, etc.
The Encyclopedists rejected, and in more recent times numbers have arisen who
repudiate the church because of its attempting to occupy such a position. Sneeringly
654 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [Pror. 100.

but truthfully they point to the prophecies and then to history, telling us that the
church, if a Kingdom, does not correspond with the description given by prophecy;
sarcastically but fairly they refer to the early preaching and faith of the church in this
Kingdom, and laughingly contrast it with the preaching and faith now extant on the
same point; and from these infer that either the prophets, or the disciples or the
apostles, or the church, or all together, were mistaken. Others, however, pretending
great friendship for the church, more soberly point out the same, and discard divine
revelation, retaining a belief in a religion of humanity. These endeavor to show that
such claims that the church put forth were probably necessary in the march of human
development, but that now they must give place to another new Kingdom of heaven,
predicted by themselves, as a result of a new development of progressive humanity. If
you reply to.these also, that the Kingdom must be conceived of as purely spiritual and
invisible, they answer that what pertains to humanity, its amelioration, and elevation,
must, if it professes organization, form, etc., be also exhibited externally, and that growth,
extension, etc., as predicted, can only be predicated of such. In looking over this con-
troversy, the fact remains that the church has set its claim so high that it cannot be suc-
cessfully sustained. Even the efforts of Neander and others to set this claim in a phil-
osophical light has by no means retarded the progress of infidelity, for it is widening and
extending in all countries, probably in many cases, with this change, that it now, under
the garb of professed regard, accepts of the church as a Kingdom, not in the light, however,
of Roman Catholicism, or Protestantism, but of a part of the natural, inevitable develop-
ment of the races of men, placing this church and Kingdom, with ill-disguised contempt
and a flourish of learning, among the Oriental and other religions of the world. Without
pretending that our doctrine would have met with a better fate at their hands (for the
root of infidelity is in the heart and not in the head), yet it is true that the simple
design which we hold that the church was to accomplish, and the position which she
was to occupy while carrying it out, being so widely different from this pompous claim,
and being more consonant with bistory and Scripture, if entertained in place of the
other, would have rendered many of the arguments now arrayed against the church so
irrelevant and worthless that they never would have been broached. In the first cen-
turies of the church infidelity could and did not, in view of the faith generally enter-
tained, employ them.

Obs. 11. The simple predicted facts, that the visible church is to be over-
come by the Antichrist (comp. Props. 123, 162, 160, 161, etc.), and that
the church is saved by the personal Advent of Jesus when under the most
terrible of persecutions in the future—are sufficient in themselves to
show that the nature of a Kingdom, as covenanted and predicted, does not
appertain to the church. For, when the Kingdom is once established, all
prophecy declares that, instead of being overwhelmed by its foes, it obtains
dominion over the nations and ever afterward retains the same. No Anti-
christ can then give the option of worship or death.
If it be alleged that “‘ the gates of Hades shall not prevail” against the church, we
fully agree by saying that while the saints are persecuted and under its death-dealing
blows enter Hades, Jesus, who has the keys of Hades, will deliver them at the first
resurrection (Prop. 125-129). The church, however persecuted, is safe ; our argument
only insists upon it that persecution and a low, oppressed condition of the church is
incompatible with the predictions relating to Christ’s Kingdom, and that, in con-
sequence, the church is only a preparative stage for the incoming Kingdom.
ae Rop.
ev 101.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 655

Proposition 101. The tnvisecble Church is not the covenanted

Kingdom of Christ.
Whatever of truth we may concede to the theological division of
the church into the invisible and visible, neither of them meets the
conditions imposed by the covenant. Instead of an invisible King-
dom, the covenant and the prophecies relating to it wimistakably
point out a visible Kingdom, outward and universal in a world
dominion. So plainly is this stated, that even those who advocate
that the invisible church is the predicted Kingdom of Jesus, in
some way, either by development or by copious outpourings of
the Spirit, etc., make this invisible Kingdom assume wltimately
the form of a visible one.
Let the student but consider the Kingdom covenanted to David’s Son, a real, visible,
external Theocracy here on the earth, and he will see at once that to transmute this into
an invisible, indefinite Kingdom is to take undue liberty with the Divine Record, and
to introduce an element perverting the proper application of much Scripture.

Obs. 1. This division of the church into the visible and invisible is of
comparative recent origin. Dr. Knapp (Ch. Theol., p. 471) traces the
use of these terms, saying: ‘‘ These are, indeed, new, and bave come into
use since the Reformation.’’ Many able Divines have since then em-
ployed them, whilst others reject them. So far as our argument is con-
cerned, it is immaterial whether they be received or not ; for the church
may indeed be invisible, if by that is only meant the body of real and true
believers who are saved, and also visible, if by this is denoted a mixed
body containing believers and professing believers, without, however, con-
stituting either of them a Kingdom. Reference is therefore only made to
the use of the terms to indicate that they were never thus employed in the
early history of the Christian Church.
Oosterzee’s (Ch. Dogm., vol. 2, p. 700, etc.) reasoning is unsatisfactory, inconclusive,
and contradictory. The key-note of hisargument is found in the sentence : ‘‘ As Christ
was the fulfilling of prophecy, so in a certain sense is the church the fulfilling of the
Theocracy, though under an entirely different form.’’ But Christ fulfilled prophecy
only to a certain extent ;much remains yet to be fulfilled at His Sec. Advent. The
reference to “ the Church” being ‘‘a fulfilling of the Theocracy in a different form’’ is
pure conjecture to help out a preconceived Church-Kingdom theory ; and the whole finds
its proof in the parable of the leaven applied to the church and the world, instead of to
the individual believer. The contradictory part is found (p. 702) when, speaking of the
church as ‘‘an independent society of a moral, religious nature,” he says: ‘ Its
members are, as such, not yet citizens of the Kingdom of God, but must be regenerated
and trained up within its bosom,’’ and yet insists that, as a spiritual, mystical body, its
members are citizens of the Kingdom of God, which spiritual, invisible Kingdom will
finally be visibly realized. That is, he seeks refuge for his theory in the invisible
church for the present, and ultimately in the visible. He admits that this distinction of
visible and invisible church ‘‘ was not made, or was scarcely made, by the oldest teachers
and fathers of the church,” but that it “slowly reached the desired development.”’
656 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 101.

Strange that believers for centuries lived in the church utterly unaware, unconscious,
that they were in the predicted Kingdom of God. Admitting the spirituality of the
church, its union by faith with the Head, the interest and power of Christ exerted in
behalf of the church, its preciousness in its means of grace, etc., yet all this by no
means elevates it to the position of a Messianic Kingdom. Covenant and promise,
entirely unrealized in it, forbids the idea, and forces us to receive the Word, which
teaches that itis introductory, preparatory in its nature—the means introduced to secure
a desired end. Simple consistency demands this view of the church and Kingdom.
Litton (The Church of Christ) quotes the Romanist theologian Moehler as defining,
“that the difference between the Protestant and the Romanist view of the church may
be briefly stated as follows : The Romanist teaches that the visible church is first in the
order of time, afterward the invisible ; the relation of the former to the latter being that
of cause and effect. The Lutherans (Protestants), on the contrary, affirm that the
visible church owes its existence to the invisible, the latter being the true basis of the
former.” The student will appreciate Litton’s remark : ‘‘He adds, very justly, that
this apparent unimportant difference of view is pregnant with important results.”’ Our
line of reasoning does not require a consideration of these, and we only add that many
eminent Protestant divines have rejected the view of an invisible church, as a theory
introduced to combat the Romanist objection of a succession, etc. Thus e.g. we in-
stance Rothe (Beginnings of the Ch. Church and its Constitution, p. 109), who expressly
declares that the church is alone visible, and tracing the rise of the idea of ‘‘ the
invisible church,’’ pronounces it “a mere hypothesis, a pure fiction, a notion involving
a contradiction,” and presents (Introd.) a series of reasons why it should be rejected.
It is very sad to find in many, otherwise excellent, writers the two ideas combined and
appropriated to the Kingdom of God, for the invisible Kingdom offers an easy applica-
tion of passages which cannot be made to fit a visible Kingdom, although both do
violence to covenant and prophecy. Of course, such writers as Bunsen (comp. Art.
Bunsen’s Church of the Future, in North Brit. Review, Nov., 1847), in their ideal of a
national church, are, as a logical sequence, hostile to an invisible church (comp. Litton’s
Church of Christ, in its Idea, Attributes, and Ministry).
Obs. 2. To illustrate how men write on this point, we select several ex-
amples, which, whilst confirming our previous Proposition, also affirm the
contrary to our present one. Van Oosterzee (Theol. of NV. T., Sec. 41),
explicitly says: ‘*‘ The church or congregation of the Lord is by no means
the same as the Kingdom of God and of Christ. This latter is a perfectly
spiritual society whose ideal will be fully realized in the future ; the former
is the union of those who are already here on earth, through faith and
love, members of the Kingdom.’’ Again, Dr. Luthardt, (Apol. Lec.—see
Quarterly Review, Jan., 1873) makes ‘‘ the church now in the form of a
servant over against the Romish view, which makes the church in ‘ her
outward reality the Kingdom of God,’ whilst in the Reformed view ‘ the
eternal Kingdom of God has its home in that nner nature of the church ;
this temporal form of the church, on the contrary, is only the external
covering in which the treasure of the Kingdom is deposited.’ These are
very mystical conceptions of the Kingdom, and they originate from an
effort to observe a consistency which the mixed condition of the church
does not outwardly allow. Thinking that from the captions attached to the
parables, the phrase ‘ the Kingdom of God within you,’ etc., that a King-
dom must in some way be found, this one that cannot be seen, being spirit-
ual, beyond our perception, is thus presented for our acceptance. The
simple truth is, that it is even more inconsistent than the opinion enter-
tained that the visible church is the Kingdom, for the latter, at least, cor-
responds with the visibility and external manifestation insisted on by the
covenant and prophets. But its inconsistency is still more apparent by its
being flatly contradicted by—adopting their mode of interpretation—the
parables, upon which they rely. Thus, e.g. if the church is the Kingdom
of heaven in some form, then the parable of the Virgins includes the
Prop. 101.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 657

whole ten, not merely the five wise (i.e. spiritual), but the five foolish
(i.e. not spiritual). So also the parable of the tares and wheat, on the
same principle, being prefaced by ‘‘ the Kingdom of heaven,’’ includes in
the same church the tares (i.e. those not possessed of ‘‘ the inner nature’’)
and the wheat (i. e. those having ‘‘ the inner nature’). Admit the church
as the Kingdom, and there is no escape from this dilemma, provided the
parables are (on their own theory) consistently applied (comp. Prop. 108).
This application of the Kingdom to an invisible church to avoid one diffi-
culty is too one-sided ; and it only plunges them into a still greater one.
Such a refined view of the Kingdom ignores and disbelieves the oath that
God made to David, that in and through his Son a Kingdom, eyen
Dayid’s then visible and outward, should be set up, that all men would rec-
ognize and obey, owing to its distinguished external exertion and mani-
festation of power. It is strange and sad, that some of the most eminent
and talented men of the church, blinded by a subtle theory, cannot and
will not see how antagonistic such a theory 7s to God’s faithful promises.
No wonder that we are so carefully cautioned to beware of mere human
wisdom.
We again refer to some eminent Pre-Millenarians, who hold, evidently, to some kind
of a Kingdom connected with this invisible theory, for they designate a present existing
Kingdom as ‘‘ the Kingdom in mystery.’’ Unable to comprehend exactly their meaning,
I will quote the definition given to this ‘‘ Kingdom in mystery” by Rey. Dr. Brookes, in
The Truth, vol. 4, No. 3, p. 101: “It is not equivalent to the Church, but it indicates
the peculiar sphere here below in which the ascended Christ is carrying on His work,
or, in other words, it refers to what is called Christendom.’ This is entirely too vague
and indefinite to meet with acceptance, and really is not needed in the interpretation
and application of Scripture. Such a view, however, is not in conflict with Pre-Mille-
narianism, because the covenanted and predicted Messianic Kingdom is not placed in
this dispensation, but in the one following the Sec, Advent ; but we object to it, on the
ground that it is not required by the Word, and that it only burdens the doctrine with a
Kingdom-theory which tends to confuse the student and mars the simplicity of inspired
statements. Others introduce a confusion of ideas, evincing an imperfect knowledge of
the covenanted Kingdom, as e.g. Swormstedt (The End of the World Near, p. 114) makes
“‘ Christ's Kingdom represented in the world by the visible church ;’ then he has “‘ the
gospel net or invisible Kingdom’’ drawn up to heaven, and when this earth is purified,
“then this invisible Kingdom is to be let down again in the midst of this new Eden,”
and with Christ becomes ‘‘a visible and temporal power.” Such representations re-
quire no reply. Some Pre-Millenarians mistake the Divine Sovereignty (comp. Props.
79 and 80) for this present Kingdom, Even Lange (Bremen Lectures, sec. 8) falls into
this error, and, therefore, speaks (p. 221) of ‘‘ the still conceded Kingdom of God,
which is finally to be openly manifested at the Sec. Advent. Fausset (Com. Rev. 20 : 6)
more guardedly says: ‘‘ As the church began at Christ’s ascension, so the Kingdom
shall begin at His Sec. Advent. Auberlen in his Biblical Doctrine of the Kingdom of God
(a brief epitome is given by Nast in his Com. on Matt. 6:10) maintains our doctrinal
position, but in connection has the church also a Kingdom, for in T'he Prophet Daniel
(p. 372) he correctly portrays the future Kingdom as not merely internal but also
external, outward, ‘‘ Israelitish, but by no means carnal, a Kingdom of glory, precisely
as the prophets have pictured it, and whom Jesus contradicts in no part,’’ etc., but
confuses the whole subject and ignores the covenanted conditions requisite for a Mes-
sianic Kingdom, when in the connection he says: ‘‘ Thus the Kingdom of God has
different periods. It has appeared in Christ, Matt. 12 : 28; it spreads in the world by
inward, hidden spiritual processes, Matt. 13 : 33; but properly as a Kingdom in royal
. glory, it comes only at the Parousia, Luke19 : 11, 12, 15, even as the Lord Himself has
taught us to pray, day by day, ‘Thy Kingdom come,’ Matt. 6:10.” (The passages
referred to we examine in another place.) So Schmid in Bibl. Theol. of the New Test.
advocates Chiliasm, but holds to a number of Kingdoms, or stages, or developments, as
e.g. ‘‘ As the Kingdom of God on earth, it is, in the first place, in fellowship of men. It
also embraces humanity as a whole, without limitation to any particular part thereof, in
contrast to the choize of the Jewish people. The Gospel will be preached to the whole
658 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 101.

world. It also comprises heaven and earth, and likewise the coming periods of the
world, both before and after the judgment.”’ The reader can see from this briet extract
that the writer has no distinct conception of the one covenanted Kingdom, but mixes the
Divine Sovereignty, church, person of the king, dispensations, etc., all together in a
bewildering manner. So Theurer (Das Reich Gottes, p. 36-9) affirms the Millenarian
doctrine as held by us, but has a present existing Kingdom which finally gives place to
a higher, Thus compare Ebrard (Ch. Dogm., p. 747-9, vol. 2), Shenkel (Ch. Dogm., 2
Ab., p. 1195-6), and many others whom we esteem as able defenders of Chiliasm. One
of the most consistent articles on ‘‘ the Kingdom of God” is that given by a writer
with initials ‘‘ M. A.,’’ in the Proph. Times, July, 1873. A proper conception of the
Kingdom is also presented by ‘‘ Senex” in some articles in the Luth. Observer of 1880.
The same is true of others, a tendency being observable to return to the Primitive
Church view. This is especially observable in the Excursus on the Kingdom by Dr.
Craven, p. 93, etc., Lange’s Com. Rev., a perusal of which will amply repay the reader.

Obs. 8. The doctrine that the invisible church is the Kingdom of God
was unknown to the early church. Even amidst the controversies which
shortly raged between antagonistic parties respecting the church, no one,
although in churches planted shortly before by inspired men who ought
to have known it—broached such an idea. Neander (His. of Dogmas)
acknowledges this, and says that they overlooked this distinction. Such
an acknowledgment, coming from such a source, is the more valuable,
since it is a favorite theory of Neander’s that the invisible church is the
Kingdom (although he has it finally merged into a visible Kingdom).
But the manner in which he accounts for this distinction being over-
looked is highly objectionable. His theory, as shown in his different
works, is the progressive development, one by which the truths given by
the Apostles were only ‘‘ germs’’ to be developed by the future growth of
the church. We have already protested against this germ principle when
applied to doctrine, Props. 4, 9, 10.
For while we freely admit growth in numbers and even in knowledge, etc., we admit
none in Biblical doctrine. The doctrinal truths enunciated by the apostles were not
merely germinal truths leading to engrafting of others or enlargement to another form,
as from the seed to the stalk, and then to the flower and fruit. No! it was, asa dis-
tinctly announced doctrine, the whole doctrine. By this we do not mean that it would
not be suggestive of thought and even, by comparison, lead to other truths, but we
mean that, as far as the apostles revealed doctrine or truth, it is so complete in itself—
i.e. no seed to sprout into something unlike itself—that no part of it can be safely
omitted or transmuted without making it in so far imperfect. Hence to say that the
invisible Kingdom doctrine is the result of a growth of knowledge in the church is to
do it at the expense of the truth itself (that is to say, the Kingdom idea was imperfect),
and at the risk of the reputation and veracity of the first teachers of Christianity.
Neander even, in some places (as e.g. p. 5, Lis. of Dogmas), throws a guard around this
developing process conformable to our position and hostile to some of his own deductions,
viz. : ‘‘not that we obtain anything absolutely new, but we have a deeper insight of its
contents.” Such a deeper insight is obtainable, however, not by a growth of the
doctrine itself, but by a comparison and study of the Scriptures containing it. In order
that the critical reader may see how an able writer transmutes the Church-Kingdom
theory, we refer again to Dr. Neander (Plant. and Train. Ch. Ch., p. 499, etc.). The
Church is ‘‘ the particular idea,’’ related to the Kingdom of God “as the more general
and comprehensive one.” Hence: ‘‘ The idea of the church is subordinate to that of the
Kingdom of God, because by the latter is denoted either ‘‘ the whole of a series of his-
torical developments, or a great assemblaye of coexistent spiritual creations.’’ (The student
can readily test this mystical conception—that overrides covenant and amalgamates the
Divine Sovereignty—by employing it as synonymous for the Kingdom.) He then makes
the Jewish Theocracy a type of this Kingdom. (We have proven, in detail, that it was
no type, and the predictions of its ultimate restoration prove it be none.) Then, in
opposition to some of our opponents, he says: ‘‘ The Kingdom of God was not first
founded by Christianity as something entirely new,” but was grafted on to the old,
Prop. 101.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 659

extended to all people, transformed, and made “‘ spiritual and internal.’’ And the proof
of such transformation is, Eph. 2 : 19, 20, Rom. 11 : 18, the unity of God’s people founded
on the apostles and Jesus Christ. (A unity that we most heartily adopt, but which says
nothing of the Kingdom.) Then he admits that Christianity at first allied itself with
the Jewish view of the restoration of the Theocracy (thus confirming our past proposi-
tions) in a glorious outward form under the Messiah, and placed this in the future ‘‘ as
the perfected form of the Theocracy ;’’ ‘* but in accordance with a change in the idea of
the Kingdom of God, a different construction was put on this opposition of Chris-
tianity ; it was transformed from the external to the internal, and withdrawn from the
future to the present.” (This change, he informs us in various places, was brought out
in “ the consciousness of the church’’—whatever this may mean—but we have traced it
directly to the Origenistic and Alexandrian influence, and is in direct conflict with the
Word.) He then defines the change thus: ‘‘ By faith in the Redeemer, the Kingdom of
God, or of the Messiah, is already founded in the hearts of men, and thence developing
outward, is destined to bring under its control all that belongs to man,” so that ‘‘ the,
Kingdom of Christ coincides with the idea of the Church existing in the hearts of men,
the invisible church, the totality of the operations of Christianity on mankind.” (Thus
a principle actuating men is elevated into the covenanted Kingdom, lacking every
covenanted characteristic. For the heart-Kingdom, see e.g. Props. 110, 84, 85 ; and for
the unscriptural statement of its working outward until 1t conquers all, see e.g. Prop.
175.) But then to reconcile the passages which locate a Kingdom of Christ in the
future, he admits that this Kingdom now present is only the germ of the future, and
that this future Kingdom ‘‘ Paul represents not as something which will spontaneously
arise from the natural development of the church, but as produced, like the founding of
the Kingdom of Christ, by an immediate intervention of Christ.” Hence he divides
the Kingdom into an inward (1 Cor. 4 : 20), an inward in connection with the future
(1 Thess. 2 : 12), and a consummated Kingdom (2 Thess. 1:5). Mistaking the Divine
Sovereignty for the Kingdom, he appeals to it as confirmatory, and also to the head-
ship of Jesus, the victory of the church, etc. (This mixture and floundering under
several Kingdoms are fully met in our Propositions. )

Obs. 4. It is remarkable to notice how, in the advocacy of the invisible

church as a Kingdom, its advocates involve themselves in a sophistry 7-
consistent with their own development theory of a growth of this invisible
Kingdom until finally at some time in the future it shall become visible as
a world dominion, etc. Taking the same able writer as an exponent of
this view, we find him (L7fe of Christ, sec. 213) explaining the phrase ‘‘ the
Kingdom cometh not with outward show’’ to mean “‘ cannot be outwardly
seen by human eyes,’’ and in a foot-note adds: ‘‘ The antithesis is, that it
reveals itself zvsibly, so as to be seen only by the eye of faith.”? Now if
it is only the object of faith, something not tangible, how comes it that
its nature is so changed by growth that it is converted from the unseen, ex-
cepting as viewed by faith, into the real, tangible, visible Empire here on
earth? If in the region of invisibility, it ought in consistency remain
therein according to its mode of propagation. No wonder that we find so
many contradictions in its advocates, even so gross as the following: in
sec. 52, at the consummation, Neander has this world renewed and all con-
verted, ‘‘a real world dominion,’’ and then again, sec. 214, at the same
time it is ‘‘a corrupt world ;’’ in one place it is invisible and in another
visible, etc. The theory is not sufficiently plastic to cover every Scriptural
passage and description, and hence refuge is taken in what another of its
adherents calls ‘* varied forms.”’
A more systematic effort is found in Rev. Miller’s Mercersburg and Mod. Theol. (p.
41), in which a ‘‘ new Kingdom” is advocated as arising from a partaking of the divine-
human life of Jesus Christ, so that a new Organism is constituted. This mystical
conception, however plausibly presented, ignores the covenanted position of the human-
ity of Jesus, the covenanted Kingdom, the postponement of the Kingdom, etc., and is
 660 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [Prop. 101.

based on the development theory (incorporating the continued development of Christ's

humanity in believers), already sufficiently noticed. Like all other theories of the kind,
it largely rejects the grammatical sense, and is addicted to spiritualizing. Its positions
are amply met in various Propositions.

Obs. 5. This adhesion to an invisible Kingdom is based on the supposed

ground, that according to some passages we are taught that Christ will not
have an earthly Kingdom. These passages we will examine hereafter, and
now only allude to the fact, that when these same writers come to describe
the Millennial era of the church, this ground of objection xo longer exists,
and they have ¢o all intents and purposes an earthly Kingdom, 1.e. a King-
dom visible and extending over all the earth. .The Kingdom then, once
held to be ‘‘ hidden’’ or ‘‘ concealed’’ in the church, ‘‘ to be im but notof
the church,”’ is manifested openly to all the world, holding all under its
direct influence and dominion. Surely the advocates of such a system
should not object to our doctrine, which observes a consistency in the
manifestation of the Kingdom by fully explaining how and when this
occurs, without resorting to an unexplained and mystical growth, which,
in the very nature of the case, cannot produce the transformation claimed.
If the Kingdom is unseen and at the same time unchangeable as claimed ;
if itis as a writer (Proph. Times, vol. 2, p. 97) declares, ‘‘ the Kingdom
of God is simply where God reigns—this Kingdom is within—it is
spiritual,’’ and ever remains, as contended for, the same, we ask, How can
it then become the seen, the outward Kingdom of the Prophets? Here
among these writers we find the most hopeless floundering, and every reader
can for himself see the utter antagonism of their spiritual theories by com-
paring their utterances on the texts “‘my Kingdom is not of this world’’
(John 18 : 36), “‘ the Kingdom of God is within you”’ (Luke 17 : 21), with
those derived from Dan. 2:34, 35, 44, 45; Dan. 7:14, 27, and Rey.
11:15. In the former we have an invisible Kingdom in the church, and
in the latter the same church becomes a visible Kingdom. It is scarcely
necessary to refer to even a greater diversity existing among such writers :
e.g. extending this covenanted Kingdom from the heart of the believer to
an extent commensurate with the universe itself, etc.

Obs. 6. To indicate the vagueness of argument employed in this direc-

tion, reference is made to a leading and excellent writer. Olshausen
(Com., vol. 1, p. 264), to prove the existence of a spiritual Kingdom in
opposition to the Jewish idea of the Kingdom, says: ‘‘ As the carnal man
makes his God for himself, so he makes the Kingdom of God for himself.
The spiritual man has a spiritual God and a spiritual Kingdom of God.”
This, however, proves too much, for on the same principle we can prove
that the Saviour is wholly spiritual and is not the Son of Man; we can
deny the bodily resurrection, the renovation of the earth, or anything
that is outward or external. Just such unfounded premises lay the founda-
tion for an immense amount of deduced reasoning on this subject.
Reuss (His. Ch. Theol., p. 150), in order to prove the spirituality or invisibility of
the Kingdom, quotes John 18 : 36, Matt. 22:21, Luke 12:13, and the temptation of
Christ. Such is the slender foundation upon which to rest so important a doctrine.
Literally, multitudes follow such guidance, excepting those who have it already out-
wardly manifested, or such who deny any future visible revelation (comp. for such
proof, Props. 108, 109, and 110).
Prop. 101.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 661

Obs. 7. It is certainly curious to notice how even unbelievers avail them-

selves of this invisible Kingdom theory. Thus e.g. Renan, with great
complacency, and perhaps lurking sarcasm, claims that if the church
repels him, and others of like faith, ‘‘ let us console ourselves by reflecting
on that invisible church, which includes excommunicated saints and the
noblest souls of every age.”’
Perhaps the earliest advocates who carried the invisible church or Kingdom theory
to an extreme were the Petrobrusians (Kurtz, Ch. His., vol. 1, p. 456), who rejected an
outward or visible church, and only received one as in the hearts of believers. Some
recent sects are largely reproducing the same features.
662 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 102.

Proposition 102. Neither the visible nor the invisible church

as the covenanted Kingdom.
This has been shown by preceding Propositions, as e. g. Props.
75, 90, 91, 98, 68, 94, 96, 98-100.
Obs. 1. Some make the visible church the Kingdom, others the invisible ;
some unite doth in the same Kingdom, and others that doth are the same
Kingdom, but in two different, a higher and a lower, aspects. Having
shown that neither one nor the other is the predicted Kingdom, it follows,
from the reasons given, that a combination of both cannot transform them
into such a Kingdom.

Obs. 2. It is not surprising that the Papacy should so tenaciously hold

to the doctrine that the church is the Kingdom, since everything so dis-
tinctively Popish, as Bellarmine (quoted by Bowers, Pref. to His. of Popes)
assures us, depends upon it. For out of it proceeds the Pope’s supremacy,
the vicegerent rule, the entire papal governmental machinery. It is the
foundation upon which the superstructural pretensions are built. If this
1s removed, the whole falls. Itis also consistent for those who hold to
what the Germans call Cesero-papismus, or for those who advocate hier-
archical tendencies in any form, to adhere to such a doctrine. But it is
not necessary for pure Protestantism, as is evinced in the history of the
early church, for which see the candid confession of Neander under
Props. 49 and 101. Our view admits of nearly all that is said by a host of
esteemed writers concerning the church, excepting that of its being already
constituted a Kingdom. The latter theory is not only of no practical use
in the working of the church, but is really dangerous in its tendencies, as
is seen from the use made of it by various parties. Thus, e.g. on the one
hand, by those just alluded to; and on the other by Free Religionists,
Humanitarians, etc., who build the most extensive of Kingdoms on the
foundations laid by the orthodox, expressing the same in the most eloquent
terms. Here and there, indeed, we find a writer who holds to the early
church doctrine of the church, that it is no Kingdom, and occasionally
attention is called to it in church papers (as e.g. Luth. Observer, April
25th, 1873), but thus far with so little logical connection and argument
that it has scarcely aroused attention. Then we also find many writers
(Millenarians), who, conceding that the church is a Kingdom in some way,
yet distinctly announce that it is nof the covenanted and predicted King-
dom of Jesus, which they assert is still in the future. Then, again, we
have another class (as e.g. Prof. Seelye, Bid. Sacra, Ap., 1866, pp. 228-
234), which, whilst indorsing the prevailing view of the church being the
predicted Kingdom, confesses that the doctrine of the church—i.e. what
the church really is and its relations—is of yet understood, haying hither-
to been considered only as involved in other doctrines and not as a promi-
Prop. 102.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 663

nent theme standing alone—vital, it is true, but yet imperfectly compre-

hended, and which they regard as the great question of our time, etc.
Such confessions indicate that the prevailing doctrine is far from being satisfactory,
and accords with one made to the author by a professor in one of our colleges, who
acknowledged that he preached on the subject until he himself felt that his deductions,
drawn from the general view, were inconsistent. Indeed, is it not time to discard a
doctrine which causes some of the ablest defenders of Christianity to fall into palpable
contradictions? Thus e.g. Dr. McCosh (Christ. and Positiv., p. 245) makes the Kingdom
‘‘a mixed Kingdom,” admitting both good and bad, and on the same page he has it,
*“‘the reign of God in men’s hearts,’’ which can only apply to the good. In ore place
he asserts from Christ’s language to Nicodemus that only those who have realized ‘‘ the
new birth’’ are in the Kingdom of God, and then in another place he deduces from the
parables of tares and wheat, and drag net, that ‘‘ the tares’’ and ‘‘ bad fish,’’ who, of
course, have not experienced such a birth, are also in the Kingdom of heaven. The
only way to rid themselves of such contradictions is to erect several Kingdoms, one
within the other, or to establish several existing phases of the same Kingdom, but such
procedures do not logically help the matter, seeing that they are in opposition to cove-
nant and prophecy. Again, an excellent writer who attempts to avoid Dr. McCosh’s
“mixed Kingdom,” gives us the following arrangement. Van Oosterzee (Theol. of New
Test., p. 70) says : ‘‘ Even with the idea of the Christian Church, that of the Kingdom
of God must not be confounded. ‘The church is only the inadequate outward form of the
Kingdom of God—the Kingdom of God itself is a@ spiritual communion.’’ In a foot-note
he adds : ‘‘ the Kingdom of God, on the other hand, until its glorious manifestation
includes the outward church, which is in but not necessarily of it, comp. Matt. 13 : 41.”
Here we have: it is, and itis not; it is in, but not of it ; it includes it, and it does not
include it as part of it, etc. Alas for the Kingdom, if such nice mystical distinctions
are needed to ascertain what the Kingdom of God is as proclaimed by covenant and prophet.
Why not discard a theory which produces from the same fountain both sweet and bitter
waters, from the same tree sweet and sour fruit ?

Obs. 3. The very idea of the Christian Church, as given by these same
writers, forbids the notion of a Kingdom, viz.: that ‘‘it is a religious,
moral institution,’’ or ‘‘a society of exclusively religious interest, in-
dependent of and distinct from political relations and duties ;’’ or as
some have it, the same ‘‘ disconnected from the state or civil compact ;’’
or ‘‘ an organization of believers for religious purposes, which does not in-
terfere with their civil and other rights ;’’ or even Schlegel’s opinion, that
it is ‘‘ a free, peculiar, independent corporation.’’ Such, and many other
definitions of like spirit, might be adopted without bringing in the idea
of a Kingdom. They do more, they prevent its adoption. Let the reader
turn back to our argument, by which, under the Theocracy and the Theo-
cratic-Davidic Kingdom, God Himself gives us His idea of what consti-
tutes the Kingdom of God, and we find this distinctive element of a King-
dom, lacking in the Christian Church, and in these definitions of the
same. In the Theocracy, which gave outward form and prominency to
the Kingdom, the religious and political commonwealth, the church and
the state were, by Divine constitution, zdentical, one. A separation was
never made which allowed a distinction between citizen and worshipper.
It was this feature which gave force and validity to the idea of a King-
dom, and just so soon as the separation was effected by the overthrow of
the Jewish state, the distinctive idea of a Kingdom then existing, also, as
the nature of the case demanded in consistency, vanished. This arrange-
ment, this fundamental union we have already proven was God’s own ex-
pressed definition of a Kingdom, and when this was lacking all the holy
men deplored the overthrow of the Kingdom and predicted its restoration.
This feature, without which the Kingdom is wnpracticable as God has
664 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 102.

covenanted, was tendered to the Jews at the Advent of Jesus, conditional

on repentance. It was rejected. The Christian Church followed, but
this church also lacks the Theocratic peculiarity which exalts to the position
of the Kingdom of God. The question is, Will it always be lacking? Will
God’s efforts at restoration always prove a failure? Is God’s Kingdom,
which requires, as essential to its very existence, the union of church and
state, never to be re-established? Multitudes assert this, and cling to an
organization wanting God’s requisite order to constitute it His Kingdom,
and pronounce it against precedent, covenant, and promise, the Kingdom.
God’s promises will be verified im their appointed time ; present failure
does not imply continued ; the Divine Purpose, delayed by depravity, is
even merciful in this period of detention, manifesting grace toward us
Gentiles. When the time of ‘‘ the appearing and Kingdom’’ comes, then
will the appointed Son of Man, the covenanted David’s Son, restore that
Theocratic feature which elevates to the position and dignity of the King-
dom of God, a Kingdom in which, as formerly, worshipper and citizen,
church and state, are one. Since, then, no such union as precedent makes
necessary to God’s idea of the Kingdom, called and appropriated as His, is
to be found in those definitions, or im the church itself as organized by
the Apostles, we ask, Js 7¢ proper to give it this designation?
Can it be possible that David’s Son has a real Kingdom here on earth, when David’s
throne and Kingdom are overthrown? When Jerusalem is downtrodden? When Jesus
declared (Matt. 23 : 39, Luke 13 : 34) that He would be absent from it, leaving it des-
olate, until a certuin return? Alas! men by ignoring the express language of the
covenant, and by an unwarranted substitution, set up another as the Messianic King-
dom, overlooking the simple fact that no Kingdom (so called) can possibly be acknowl-
edged unless it restores (as e.g. Isa. 1 : 26, 27, etc.) the identical Theocracy withdrawn, It
is self-evident--as we have shown in detail—that the twelve and the seventy, who were
preachers of the Kingdom, had not the remotest idea of such extraordinary transmuta-
tions as have appeared engrafted, by human reason, on the doctrine of the Kingdom.

Obs. 4. If the church is the Kingdom of God, then the student, if can-
did, and allowing the prophecies their plain grammatical sense, must see
that the condition of the one is not like the predicted condition of the
other. Hence the result follows, as in Schleiermacher, Arnold (see Fair-
bairn On Proph., p. 96), and others, that the prophecies must be regarded
in another light than that of a predictive one. Then the prophecies as
given remain unrealized, and they must be received only as the longings
of humanity, the expressed desires of man respecting the destinies of the
world. An important and fundamental element of prophecy is frittered
away, until an wnreliable human one alone remains. The God-derived
power is left out, and a man-derived substituted. Why this result in the
minds of so many scholars? Simply because of the attempt to fit, by the
wholesale, prophecy concerning the Kingdom into something which it is
not designed to embrace ; these men, finding no just and reliable fulfilment,
are driven to the opposite extreme so injurious to the Word itself.
If the prophecies are taken in their plain connection and meaning (and not simply
a verse here and a verse there), it is simply impossible to predicate a fulfilment in the
church. Thus e.g. take Daniel’s four monarchies (Props. 104, 121, 160), and we find that
the church existed at the side of them without being recognized as a Kingdom, that the
church was oppressed by them until the Kingdom came, and that the Kingdom was
given after them in a regular succession, at which time and afterward the dominion of
the saints is represented as supreme, etc. This feature will be urged under several Prop-
ositions.
Prop. 102.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 665

Obs. 5. The question back of that of the Kingdom itself, which must be
decided, is that referring to the literal, grammatical sense of the Word,
Prop. 4. If it is assumed that a higher and more spiritual meaning is
attached to the recognized grammatical one, then the Kingdom is at the
pleasure of the interpreter ; if the grammatical sense is alone firmly re-
tained, then it is impossible to construct out of the church the predicted
Kingdom. Awarding to the church her just position and mission, we are
forced logically to accept of the covenanted Kingdom in the form delineated
by covenant and prophecy.
This objection to the plain grammatical sense as held by the early church is common
ground for the infidel and the spiritualizing believer. Renan employs it as a reason to
set aside the literal notion of a Kingdom, and thus to show that the first teachers were
mistaken (in this way attacking their credibility and inspiration) ; Neander argues from
it that they only presented ‘‘the husk,’”’ which contained ‘‘ the kernel” that uninspired
men afterward developed. The author of Ecce Homo on the one side, and the writer of
Ecce Deus on the other, are both agreed to relinquish the idea of a Kingdom as found
in the plain, unvarnished grammatical sense of covenant and prophecy. Thus, un-
believer and believer stand shoulder to shoulder, mutually supporting each other, in
attacking the Kingdom as originally preached and believed. Having assumed that some
ideal, or the Church, is intended, they either assume that the language itself is a mis-
take, or that in and under it is concealed a conception which, in some way, must fit
the estimate they haveformed. The more ultra, indeed, seeing the Church, and believing
it to be the only result that shall ever be witnessed in confirmation of covenant and
prophecy, declare that Christ and the apostles misapprehended its nature, and hence
reject both the Church and the Kingdom. One eminent writer in his apologetics and
eagerness to vindicate the Church as a Kingdom, even ventures to the unwarranted
length to assert that if the Kingdom had been established as preached by John the
Baptist and the disciples (Acts 1 : 6), it would have been “‘ a sinful measure.’’ What lack
of knowledge this evinces of God’s oath-bound Davidic covenant and the precious, en-
nobling Theocratic ordering (comp. e.g. Props. 81, 82, 200, 203). And what sinfulness to
sneer at and ridicule a Kingdom postponed to the Second Advent, when such is God’s
own arrangement. Ignorance can alone tender an apology for such conduct.

Obs. 6. Take any history of dogmas, and if impartial, it will enable us

readily to trace in the doctrine of the church that the present mixed inter-
pretation and confounding of it with the Kingdom of God is the growth
of centuries. In the first and second centuries the church was simply a com-
munity of believers, who, as is evidenced by the action of the Apostles in
reference to the Jewish and Gentile Christians, were united by a common
faith in Christ, without basing unity in a complete outward uniformity.
Fellowship with Christ in the use of the ordinances appointed, and in obe-
dience to the Word, was the ¢est of union, and no one arrogated to himself
precedence in the way of authority. The church was nowhere called the
Kingdom ; for the church, instead of admitting itself to be the Kingdom,
was looking for the speedy coming of the Kingdom. Admit that it was,
as one remarks, ‘‘ a sensuous interpretation,’ it is sufficient for our pur-
pose to receive the admission that the Apostolic Fathers had no other than
this ‘‘ sensuous’’ conception of the church. It may indicate weakness, but
we confess that ‘‘a sensuous interpretation’’ of so important a doctrine,
having the advantage of nearness to apostolic times, and remaining for so
long uncontradicted, is far more credible than the later refined and spirit-
ualized ones, because of its accord with Holy Writ.
Carefully tracing the doctrine, we soon see the entering wedge which mars the
simplicity of the early church view. Dr. Neander has well and candidly pointed this
out, in his various writings, as taking place in the history of the Gnostics. The notion,
666 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 102.
founded on that of a Kingdom, of an outward unity gradually obtained the possession
of men’s minds and resolved itself in endeavors to manifest the idea by definite form in
the visible Church. Antagonism to Millenarianism also contributed to the entertain-
ment of such views. It exhibited itself in claims of authority in sacred things, in
planting the germs and fostering the growth of a hierarchy, until finally the suggested
and fostered ideal presented itself, practically exemplified in the Papacy. Here was
indeed a Kingdom, with subjects, laws, rulers, and a central power, visible, and exerting
extensive dominions. It was the predicted Kingdom of heaven! It would surpass our
limits to show how the unguarded language of really sincere and good men were made
subservient to this development, or to indicate how during this growth protests here
and there were pronounced against this theory and its resultant effects. For centuries
it remained the controlling and enforced view ; taught by a Church in which both laity and
clergy were compelled to follow its teaching with unquestioning obedience. It is not
surprising that the meaning of the Kingdom should be almost eradicated, when for ages
the Bible was scarcely read, and was only interpreted by persons wedded and sub-
servient to the Hierarchy itself. To evince how imbedded this notion, that the Church
was the Kingdom, had become, it is only necessary to refer to Chancellor Gerson. In
the fifteenth century, when the reaction took place in the University of Paris respecting
the relation of the Papacy to church and state, Chancellor Gerson, the leader in the
controversy, hampered by the prominently retained idea that the Church was the
Kingdom of God, and that as such it needed an outward expression of unity and power,
conceded ‘‘ the whole Hierarchical Order as necessary for the organism of the Church.”’
Conceding the premise from whence the conclusions naturally flowed, retaining the
foundation upon which the system is built, his opposition was consequently very one-
sided and lacked in radical force.
Coming to the Reformation, two antagonistic Churches are arrayed the one against
the other. The Roman Catholic vested all authority in the Church simply because it
was, per se, the Kingdom of God, as tangible, Bellarmine informs us, as the Republic of
Venice. The Reformation, unable altogether to rid itself of the insidious and life-
interwoven notion of the Church-Kingdom, endeavors to check the hierarchical Church
position by advocating the authority of the Word of God, the universal priesthood of
believers, etc., and by turning to the early Church view respecting the Church. The
latter was in a great measure attained ; the fundamental maxim was laid down that the
Church is a community of believers in Christ, and embraces all such ; the utterances
were almost entirely scriptural, and were only marred in the efforts to conciliate the
Roman Catholics, or to favor civil government. To some extent there was a departure
from the primitive simplicity, which need not be wondered at, considering the age and
the influences surrounding the Reformers. Indeed, at times, as Neander, Mosheim, and
recently Fisher, in his His. of the Reformation, show, Luther advocated precisely the
government adopted and practised by the early churches, but regarded it, in view of
the condition and training of the Germans, impracticable in his time. It would be
interesting to note how on various occasions the entire truth seemed on the point of
enunciation. We have only place for the following exhibit of doctrine in remarkable
correspondence with the early one. In the Augsburg Confession (Art. 7) “ the Church is
the congregation of the saints, in which the gospel is correctly taught and the sacra-
ments are properly administered.”” Provision is made against the Catholic external
unity by asserting that ‘‘ for the true unity of the Church nothing more is required than
agreement concerning the doctrines of the gospel and the administration of the sacra-
ments.’’ But lest this Article be misconstrued to mean that all in the Church are saints,
and thus pave the way for the shafts of the enemy, Art. 8 is added: “ Although the
Church is properly @ congregation of believers, yet in the present life, many hypocrites
and wicked men are mingled with them.’’ The Reformers advocated an outward
Church, embracing good and bad, although admitting also, that to the pious alone, in
view of the demarkation in the future life, the name properly belonged. So that while,
as Dr. Knapp and others state, Luther first employed the term “ invisible’”’ in his reply
to the Roman Catholic party in answer to the question, ‘* Where, then, was the true
Church before him,” yet Neander (/is. of Dogmas, p. 687) shows that ‘“‘ the idea of the
invisible Church was for a time held to be doubtful’? by both Melanchthon and Luther.
‘‘ Melanchthon himself says : ‘ These passages treat. not of a Platonic idea, but of a visible
Chureh.’’’ ‘ And Luther says : ‘ They say the Spirit must do it. The merciful God
preserve us from that Christian Church in which there are only saints.’’’? From these
and other expressions, and from the Confession itself, it seems that in all probability
they used the term invisible to denote true believers in a sense very different from the
later engrafted ideas, ‘They endeavored to avoid, on the one hand, the Donatist idea
Prop. 102.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 667

that the Church ceased to exist when unworthy members were attached to it, and, on
the other, that it can exist exclusively of wicked, unregenerated men. Hence Neander
(p. 685, vol. 2) remarks : ‘‘ The distinction was therefore made between the proper and
improper Church.” This, in response to attacks of Romish theologians, was taken up
and enlarged by their successors, until an inner and outward Church, the inner ex-
clusively confined to the good, was advocated, the inner especially forming “ the King-
dom of Christ,’’ ‘‘a spiritual Kingdom,’’ also in a manner outwardly manifested.
Zwingli (Neander, His. of Dogmas, p. 686, vol. 2) has two churches, one of all who
profess Christ, embracing good and evil ; the other, in the true sense, composed of all
believers. Calvin also (dnsti., B. 4) has the external composed of professors ; the
internal or true Church of the elect of God. The same division characterizes nearly all
Reformers and divines ; and with it nearly all included the Kingdom of Christ, either
related to the one or to the other, or to both ; and in this Jast respect departing from
the original simplicity of the doctrinal position of the Church. Among these, however,
as we have already stated, there were many who professed the belief that the present
Kingdom appertaining to the Church was only a prelude to a future and still more
magnificent manifestation of the Kingdom, such as the prophets describe, and which
was in a higher and more significant sense the promised Kingdom. The history of the
doctrine, regarded in its connection with apostolic times, has nothing in it of sufficient
weight to deteriorate our view ; rather the indications of departure from the early one,
the manner in which it was produced, the fruit that it bore, the varied definitions it
gave rise to, etc., are decidedly favorable to our line of argument. The fact is, that in
view of the predicted blindness and lack of faith in Christ’s coming and Kingdom,
characteristic of the world and the Church before the Sec. Advent, the prevailing view
so deeply intrenched in the Church—the departure from the Primitive belief so widely
extended—is open to the gravest suspicion (comp. Prop. 174). The Augustinian view
of the Church is the one largely adopted, and the influence of The City of God is widely
felt. Comparatively few theologians but feel the preponderating tendency, and give
way toit. This is the position of the multitude—just as the Word predicts.
668 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRrop. 108.

Proposirion 103. This Kingdom ts not a Kingdom in the third

heaven.
Some writers, especially in answering Millenarians, inform us
that the Kingdom of Christ, of God, or of heaven, is now in heaven,
where the redeemed now dwell, and that it will continue to remain
there after the resurrection. Aside from its direct conflict with
covenant and promise, it is easily rebutted by Dan. 2 and 7, Rev.
14, etc., which describe the Kingdom as one existing here on earth
over the whole world.
Obs. 1. Whatever the authority and power of Christ in the third heaven
in His Divine and human natures (Props. 80, 79, 83, etc.), the same does
not meet the conditions either of prophecy (Prop. 35, etc.), or, especially,
of covenant, Prop. 49.
Simply to illustrate the conflicting views, we give Gregory (Four Gospels), who,
hampered by a preconceived notion, finds a difficulty to define the Kingdom ; for on
p. 126 he makes it, God reigning in the hearts of men ; on p. 146, influenced by the expres-
sion ‘‘ Kingdom of heaven,” he makes it a Kingdom in heaven above ; and on the
following page he makes the Church a manifestation of the Kingdom, etc. Many
writers have two co-existing Kingdoms, one on earth and the other in heaven, and some
call the one ‘‘ the militant Kingdom,”’ and the other ‘‘ the triumphant Kingdom.’’ Any
absurdity, under the specious language of pious phraseology, is eagerly received, and,
without examination, reiterated. To indicate how men flatly contradict themselves
when leaving the scriptural basis of the early Church, we give another illustration
from Lange’s Com. Acts 14:22. In the doctrinal part (1) Lechler declares that ‘‘ the
Kingdom of God,” here mentioned, is “ something that lies beyond the bounds of this
world,’’ etc. He affirms that believers, ‘‘ as long as they are passing through tribulations
or afflictions, have not yet entered into the Kingdom of God,” and concludes: ‘* ‘ The
Church’ and‘ The Kingdom of God’ are not equivalent terms : the former is the court ;
the latter, the sanctuary, or rather the holiest of all (Heb. 9 : 2, 3).’’ Now let the reader
turn e.g. in the same Com. to Acts 3 : 19-21, Doctrinal (6), and here on earth after the
Sec. Advent a complete restoration to blessedness, etc., is presented in accord with our
views (comp. Prop. 144, where the language is quoted).

Obs. 2. The Kingdom is not, as held by some, e.g. Dr. Lange and others,
the church in heaven before the Second Advent in a triumphant state
called ‘‘ the Kingdom of glory.’’ This theory is derived from mistaking
the Divine Sovereignty for the specially promised Kingdom to the Son of
man, and probably from a desire to cover up what defects may exist in
several lower grades or phases of Kingdoms simultaneously in operation.
But this is exceedingly unscriptural ; and the theory can be traced
directly to the Origenistic interpretation. It is utterly unreliable, from’
the simple fact, already abundantly proven, that this Messianic Kingdom
is based exclusively on the coveuaut and the prophecies elucidative of the
covenant, and neither of these promise a Kingdom in the third heaven, or
any other part of the universe; but explicitly predict its establishment
Prop. 103.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 669

here on the earth, with a world-wide dominion, etc. If believers are to be

heirs with Abraham, according to promise, ¢hen to behold our inheritance
with faith it becomes us ¢o confine ourselves to these promises. If so, then
it is impossible to find any one given to Abraham that has not a direct
reference ¢o this earth, or to his seed here on earth. Not one refers to the
third heaven, or to any place outside of the earth itself. What we are to
understand by the words ‘‘ heaven,” ‘‘ heavenly,’’ etc., will be duly con-
sidered under Prop. 107, and what relationship the earth under Messiah’s
rule will sustain to the third heaven has already been intimated and will
again receive consideration. Having also shown that the saints have not
yet received the promises, not yet inherited, etc. (Prop. 85, 90, 91, etc.), it
follows, that they have not received the Kingdom. ‘This Romish view,
which has a leaning toward Paganism, is indeed popular and deeply rooted,
so that the poet writes, and many devoutly sing :
‘*With thee we’ll reign, with thee we’ll rise,
And kingdoms gain beyond the skies ;”’

but it is im direct antagonism to the Kingdom promised to David’s Son

and to His brethren.
Lindsay's Art. Millennium in Encyclop. Brit., by exalting and pressing the inter-
mediate state beyond its scriptural representation, forms an objection against us. Thus:
saints are happy in heaven ; it is inconsistent to bring them to this earth from a higher
to a lower stage of enjoyment. But this is begging the question, for (1) it takes for granted
what remains unproven, viz.: a present inheriting of the Kingdom and forfeited
blessings ; and (2) that our doctrine brings the saints from a higher to a lower stage,
seeing that we expressly teach the contrary. Lindsay then adds something, which we
have seen advocated by no Millenarian author, viz. : that the saints ‘“‘ then return to
heaven to permit their enemies for a season to reign in their stead.” He may have found
some crude writer to express this view, but it is opposed to the universally expressed
views of ancient and modern Millenarians, and cannot, therefore, without injustice, be
charged to us.

Obs. 3. Another theory concerning this Kingdom being in the third

heaven during the thousand years or Millennial age, will be noticed under
a following Proposition.
“ The Perfectionists’’ (Nordhoff’s Com. Societies, p. 268) also say that at the destruction
of Jerusalem, A.p. 70, “ the final Kingdom of God then began in the heavens ; that the
manifestation of that Kingdom in the visible world is now approaching ; that its
approach is ushering in the second and final resurrection and judgment ; that a Church
on earth is now rising to meet the approaching Kingdom in the heavens, and to become
its duplicate and representative,” etc. This theory ignores the covenant, etc., and sub-
stitutes the Divine Sovereignty for the Davidic throne and Kingdom, spiritualizing the
Theocratic idea,

Obs. 4. The early church had no idea that this Kingdom was received
at or after death (see Prop. 98, 136). Whatever the view concerning the
intermediate state, whatever the condition allotted to the pious, one thing
is certainly affirmed, that they looked for the Kingdom, the inheriting,
crowning at the Second Advent of Christ and not at death. The departed
were also represented as waiting for the Kingdom, and the whole period
during which the bodies of the saints were not restored was characterized
as one of expectation, waiting for redemption, Rom. 8:23. The non-
crowning of Paul, during the intermediate period, the reception of the
670 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 103.

Kingdom at the time of ‘‘ regeneration’”’ or ‘“‘ restitution,’’ etc., was

decisive.
This most conclusively rebuts the amazing declaration of Archb. Whately (Corrup-
tions of Christianity, p. 131), when he actually makes, after the ascension of Jesus, the
apostles to “‘ establish the Kingdom of God, over which He had placed them, saying : ‘I
appoint unto you a Kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me,’ ” and this in
fulfilment of ‘‘ the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Surprising that he did not notice
the period of fulfilment at the restitution of all things, the disclaimer that Paul made of
now reigning, the period of crowning, inheriting, etc., at the Sec. Advent.
Prop. 104.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 671

Proposition 104. The Christian Church is not denoted by the

predicted Kingdom of the Prophets.
Having already shown what the Kingdom is according to the
covenants, it may be well to briefly direct attention to the prophets.
In the nature of the case, both (i. e. covenanted and prophetic)
announcements coming from the same source, they must cor-
respond, or else wnity, and with it credibility, is destroyed. The
Proposition is amply sustained, as the observations following
indicate, and also the various corroborating proofs taken from the
Prophets under a large number of Propositions (comp. e. g. Props.
121, 132, 133, and 159).
Obs. 1. Taking the establishment of the Kingdom for granted, and over-
looking the postponement, has led to a wholesale appropriation by the
church of predictions relating exclusively to the Kingdom still future. We
select of those thus applied, Dan. 2 : 31-45 ; Dan. 7:1-28; Isa. 25: 6-9 ;
Isa. 2: 1-5 ; comp. with Micah 4: 1-8, and then oneor two that, while also
partially arrogated, our opponents would rather not quote very liberally,
viz.: Zech. 14 :1-21; Isa. 63 : 1-6.
We remind the reader o€ one fact as fully presented in past Propositions, and demon-
strated both historically and scripturally, viz. : That the view we take of the prophecies
pertaining to the Kingdom accords in every respect with those entertained by the
Church in the first centuries. It is passing strange, to say the least, that the early
believers, east and west, north and south, should, under the leadership of men who
organized and perpetuated the Church, place, as we do, the fulfilment of those predic-
tions ai the Sec. Advent of Jesus, and not, as many now do, at the founding of the Ch.
Church. These prophecies, too, are so prominent, so magnificent in proportions, such
landmarks in the Divine Redemptive plan, that they must have largely occupied the
attention of the apostolic and succeeding age.

Obs. 2. Taking Dan. 2 :31-45 and 7:1-28 as descriptive of the same

Kingdom (so admitted by all our opposers, as e.g. Barnes, Brown, Stuart,
etc.), we save space by considering them together, seeing that the one is
an amplification of the other. For the same reason we avoid a description
of the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman Empires, denoted by
the image and the beasts, for this has been done by many able writers, as
e.g. Mede, Bh. Newton, Sir Isaac Newton, Faber, etc., and recently by
Auberlen, Delitzsch, etc.; and the same is fully accepted by leading writers
opposed to our doctrine, as e.g. Barnes Com., Pres. Edwards His. Ke-
dempt., Brown Ch. Sec. Coming, etc. The student will find by a fair com-
parison of these Scriptures with each other, and then with history, that no
other position in reference to them can be maintained. Hence the almost
general agreement existing between Millenarians and Anti-Millenarians
thus far concerning them. But as soon as we come to the Kingdom set
 672 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 104.

up by God and given to the Son of Man, the Church-Kingdom theory ap-
plies the same to the Christian Church, affirming, as e.g. Barnes, that it
was set up at the First Advent or day of Pentecost, or as e.g. Bush, at a
supposed Second Coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem, or, as
others, at some intermediate period, at the birth, baptism, death, resurrec-
tion, or ascension of Christ. At least, whether the establishment be as
notable for its conspicuity as the prophecy intimates or not, the Kingdom
is represented to be equivalent to the Christian Church. Now in opposi-
tion to this view, the following reasons, drawn from the predictions, ap-
pear conclusive.’
1. The Kingdom is set up ‘‘in the days of these kings.’’ ’ It is supposed
that this means in the days or time when one of these empires exists, and
the inference is drawn that the church, being established under the fourth
Kingdom, it is certainly the undivided Empire that is meant. But against
such an inference we allege (a) the simple fact that the phrase ‘“ these
kings,’’ following the description of the divided form of the Roman Em-
pire, most naturally refers to the kings or kingdoms existing in such a
divided state, and which fact is corroborated by other prophecies; that
this Kingdom is set up after the ten horns (Dan. 7; Rev. 18 : 12-17, comp.
with Rev. 19: 11-21, etc.), or ten kingdoms are in existence. The ex-
pression in Dan. 2 thus accurately corresponds with other predictions, and
forbids our receiving the Christian Church as denoted, because it was es-
tablished long before the Roman Empire was thus divided. (6) One King- ©
dom follows the next chronologically, and we are not at liberty to make a
change to the contrary unless expressly specified. Accepting of this,
‘* these kings’’ refer to the later ones, those in the divided form, or else
we have the fourth and fifth Kingdoms contemporaneous.?
2. The smiting, whatever it may mean, does not occur in the undivided
‘form of the Roman Empire, and yet the smiting is contemporaneous with
the establishment of the Kingdom. In Dan. 2:34 it is explicitly stated
that ‘‘ the stone’ *‘ smote the image upon the feet.’’ Therefore not only the
legs (Eastern and Western divisions), but the feet and toes appear before
the smiting process. This is significant of the period, and the reference
cannot be made to the church, because that appeared long before the division
into legs and feet. The church came during the consolidated period of the
Empire, and therefore it is not intended, seeing that the entire image is
presented defore the stone enters upon its work of demolition.®
3, ‘Taking for granted their own theory respecting Dan. 7, they have the
Son of man receiving this Kingdom, as the prophecy plainly contradicts,
before the ten horns have arisen. The church was for several centuries in
existence, according to their own interpretation, before they arose. Hence,
the church cannot be meant by the Kingdom, for the prophecy locates the
appearance of the Ancient of Days and the bestowment of the Kingdom
after the horns have appeared.‘ q
4, Not only this, but the location of the Kingdom is placed not only
after the appearance of the ten horns, but after three have fallen, and after
the rise and extended progress of another horn called the “little horn.”
which is in correspondence with what precedes the Advent in Rev. 19. The
church, therefore, cannot possibly be this Kingdom, as the time of its es-
tablishment so widely differs from that of the prophecy.®
5. The smiting of the stone, the overthrow of the image and beast, the
entire action of setting up the Kingdom, is in such accord with what John
Prop. 104.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 673

states in the Apocalypse, that the outlines are conceded by nearly all of our
opponents to be the same. If so, the whole matter still appertains to the
future, and again is indicative that the church is not meant. This argu-
ment is only available with those who concede, as e.g. Barnes Com loci,
that the Beasts of Dan. and John are identical, etc.°
6. The stone comes, the Son of man comes, at the time when the King-
doms are to be destroyed, and the prophecy proclaims this to be one of the
objects contemplated by the Coming. The fact that the church, instead
of destroying earthly Kingdoms, has herself been in danger, been persecuted
and terribly smitten by such Kingdoms, again shows that the church is noé
intended.’
?. The testimony of Jesus Himself, when at His First Advent He refers
to or quotes these prophecies, is in favor of locating them still in the
future, at least so Barnes and others. Thus, e.g. Matt. 21:44 has refer-
ence, according to Barnes, to the judgment-day, and Matt. 26:64 relates
also to éhe future Advent and not to the First. The latter passage is fully
appropriated by Jesus.as Messianic, just as the Jews understood it, from
whence the charge of blasphemy. This Kingdom is only given to the Son
of man at this Coming, referred by Jesus not to the first but a future one,
and therefore it is 20¢ the church. (Comp. Prop. 121).°
8. The horns and the little horn are represented as existing down to this
Coming, and during their presence and exertion of power, the saints, just
as has occurred in the church but will not in the Kingdom, have been op-
pressed and persecuted. Such a condition of the saints is not im accord
with their condition in the Kingdom, and hence the church and the
Kingdom are not the same.’
9. At the Coming of the Son of Man, etc., as here predicted, there can
be 2o reference to His First Advent, because that was a Coming im humili-
ation to suffer and die, whilst this is a Coming im triumph to rescue saints
after they have endured a period of trial, etc. Hence this is not the Com-
ing which preceded the Ch. Church, but must be the same alluded to in
Rey. as preceding the Mill. age. From this Paul evidently obtains ‘‘ His
appearing and Kingdom,’’ admitted by all to be future.”
10. The declaration of the prophecy is, that the church was in a strug-
gling condition ‘‘ wntil’’ *‘ the time came that the saints possessed the King-
dom.’’ ‘This language clearly implies that during the period when this op-
pressing hostile power existed, the saints did not possess the Kingdom.”
11. The setting up (as Tregelles, Fairbairn, etc.) of thrones (not cast-
ing down), “‘ the judgment set and the books opened,’’ etc., locates the com-.
ing of the Ancient of Days and that of the Son of man, just where John
locates the judgment wader the last trumpet—Rev. 11: 15-19 ; Rev, 15 : 15
-19; Rev. 20: 4~still inthe future. Therefore, these are not descriptions
of events preceding the establishment of the Christian Church. (Comp.
Props. 121, 132, 133, 134, etc.) Ez eae
12. The giving of the Kingdom, dominion, etc., implies at once a ruler-
ship, power, exaltation, etc., a fulfilment of which is thus far contradicted
by the history of the church. It embraces actwal dominion over nations,
their subjection, etc., which has never been realized.”
13. When the power of this Kingdom is once exerted, it includes a con-
tinued, unremitted exertion and mantfestation of the same, which does not
correspond with the wavering, often weakened condition, relapses, losses,
etc., of the church. (Comp. Prop. 159.)
674 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRrop. 104.

14. This judgment, bestowmentof a Kingdom, possessing a Kingdom,

all imply in the saints actual personal rulership, something which is prom-
ised in inheriting a Kingdom still future, and in a reign of the saints also
still future. Seeing such a correspondence, and knowing that instead of
reigning the saints have been suffering more or less, we cannot apply this
to the Christian Church past or present. (Comp. Prop. 154.)
15. The time when this Kingdom is set up is a time of dire vengeance, as
the slaying of the beast, giving his body to the burning flame indicates ;
this agrees with the vengeance to be inflicted at a future coming recorded
in Rev. 19, etc. Hence, a Kingdom before this period of retribution is
not described. (Comp. Props. 115, 123, 147, 161, etc.)'*
16. The smiting of the stone is also a representation of vengeance. It
demolishes, breaks into pieces, makes like chaff or dust, and utterly roots
out. This teaches violence, not conversion, etc., as some contend to sup-
porta theory, but the wtter removal of hostile powers, as our argument
demands, and as illustrated in the closing portions of the Apocalypse.
Kingdoms antagonistic to the truth, wars resultant from them, etc., exist
down to the Second Advent ; but that period, as Paul tells the Thessaloni-
ans, is a time of terrible smiting or vengeance. ‘The church has exhibited
no such power, and therefore is not denoted.
17. ‘The entire narration of the prophecy makes the natural impres-
sion that this Kingdom is not set up Jeside the image or beasts to be con-
temporaneous with them, and to be engaged in a continued series of smit-
ing processes, but that at a certain period (as Rey. 11 : 15) it will be mani-
fested, and that in connection with their removal.
18. That the operation of the church is not meant is evident from the
predictions relating to the same, which do not correspond with the proph-
ecy. Thus, e.g. instead of these Kingdoms being spiritually consumed or
absorbed, as men confidently tell us, we find (Rey. 19, etc.) them arrayed
against Christ and making war. The condition of the world at the Sec.
Advent does not coincide with the proposed conquest of the world attributed
by interpreters to the church.”*
19. The Coming of the Son of man is personal, seeing that symbolical
representation is laid aside, and it is characterized as a Coming of the Son
of man. Leaving the discussion of the personal Advent to another Prop.
(131), we now adhere to the view of the Jews of such an Advent (i.e. per-
sonal) here delineated, and which Neander and others concede the in-
spired Apostles and early church held to, in looking for the Advent itself
as not very remote. All that we now suggest is, that the very structure of
the prophecy is calculated to make such an dmpression, viz.: that the Mes-
siah would personally come, and a Kingdom, etc., would be given to Him.
Inspired men and their immediate successors could not see a fulfilment of
the prophecy in the First Advent, and have located its realization at the
Second. We are content to accept of their opinion, if itis ‘‘ Jewish,’’ etc.,
in its cast.’
20. The Kingdom, dominion, etc., is to be in the territorial limits, the
very place occupied by the image and beasts, but if the church is meant,
how comes it, unless we indorse the assumptions of the Romish and Greek
Churches, which do not meet the conditions of the prophecy, that the
church after so long a trial has never exercised such dominion within those
limits? In place of it, those Kingdoms have existed often to the detriment
and persecution of the church, and instead of being subdued or absorbed
Prop. 104.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 675

are either independent of, or exercise a lordship over, the church. If it

be said, that this will yet occur, the reply is, that according to the predic-
tion (if the church is meant), something of the kind ought to have already
taken place and to have manifested its continuance. For, as our oppo-
nents admit (Barnes, loci Com., p. 155), the language affirms that power,
etc., once obtained shall never diminish or decrease.**
21. A real, visible, outward Kingdom is to be witnessed. This is the
clear announcement of the prophecy, if it has any meaning whatever, seeing
that itis to occupy the very position, place, territory, etc., previously
taken by the image and beasts. It is a mere quibble to pronounce against
this on account of the prophecy being symbolical. Let it be such, yet the
image and the beasts symbolize real, literal, visible Kingdoms, and the last
Kingdom, being portrayed with symbol and then without, must, in the very
nature of the case, be the same, unless we violate the propriety of language.
Hence, the language cannot be spiritualized away into an invisible or
spiritual Kingdom. So decided. is the language, that many who oppose
us concede that at some time still future, the church will assume this very
characteristic.”
22. The prophecy implies forcibly that when this Kingdom .3 set up it
will be done so conspicuously that all will know definitely the period of its
setting up. The action of the stone and of the Ancient of Days, the judg-
ment set, the vengeance inflicted, etc., all indicate such stupendous events,
that, taken in connection with the description of the Kingdom itself. it
forbids that hesitancy, vacillation, etc., characteristic of the theories or
the Church-Kingdom already examined. The latter cannot even precisely
define its commencement, sometimes having several.
23. When this Kingdom is established, it is not only continuously, with
triumphant power, perpetuated, but is in itself, just as established, pro-
nounced a perpetual or everlasting Kingdom. It is not susceptible of
change in form. This is clearly taught. But the Church-Kingdom
theory, according to its idea of 1 Cor. 15:24 (see Prop. 159) merges this
Kingdom into quite another one, changes it into one that materially
differs, some even removing it, transformed, from earth to heaven, mak-
ing this dispensation, called the Kingdom, to end, ete.
From these considerations, and especially from that arising in a preser-
vation of covenanted promise, of Divine Unity of Purpose, of consistency
between earlier and later prediction, we are forced to the conclusion that
the church by no means meets the conditions imposed by the prophecy.
Keeping constantly before us the covenanted Kingdom, we fail to see any
of the distinctive marks of the same in the church, and we dare not sudsti-
tute another in its place. Prophecy does not contradict covenant promise.
Therefore the assumptions of Popish doctors, who make the Papal domin-
ion the Fifth Monarchy down to the more recent ones of Swedenborg and
the Mormons, who specially claim (as Anabaptists, Fifth Monarchy men,
Shakers, etc.), in their respective cases a fulfilment of Dan. 2 and 7, etc.,
are to be rejected as not only extravagant but arrogant, because in direct
conflict with covenant, prediction, and fact. At the same time it may be
proper to notice, in the briefest manner, the objections that are presented
against our view. They are given by a writer (Kingd. of Grace) as follows :
(1) ‘* The stone cut out of a mountain’? indicates that the Kingdom ‘‘ has
a small beginning,’’ ete., equivalent to the church’s. Much depends on
what is meant by the Stone. Writers differ regarding its meaning. Our
676 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 104.

opponents generally explain it to mean the church, and some have ingeni-
ously raised up a Kingdom of the Stone (Regnum lapidis), and a King-
dom of the mountain (Regnum montis), as if two Kingdoms or stages were
predicted.” Amidst the diversity of meaning attached, we must keep in
view the parallel passages which aid to explain it ; and thus we find, that
by the Stone is svmbolized Christ Himself. ‘The reasons for this opinion
are these : (a) Christ is predicted as the Stone, Gen. 49:24; Ps. 118 : 22,
23, etc.; (6) Christ applies the image of the Stone to Himself, Matt.
21:44; (c) the term referred to Christ by the Apostles, Rom. 9:33; 1
Pet. 2 : 6-8, etc.; (d) the action performed by Christ at His Second Advent,
as delineated in various prophecies, fully corresponds with that of the
Stone ; (e) the Stone, Son of Manand King of Kings, are identical in their
relationship to the Kingdom; (/) the primitive Fathers, who had the
advantage of nearness to the apostolic age, apply the Stone to Christ.
Taking this for its meaning, we find that this Son of man, David’s Son,
the Stone, did come in humility, and that its smiting, grinding power
(Matt. 21:44; Rev. 11 and 19, etc.) is held 7m abeyance until the end of
the times of the Gentiles. The prophecy says nothing of growth while in
action ; the representation is that of demolition, and the result, i.e. the
Kingdom, is stated as following, not as accompanying the same.”' (2) The
expression ‘‘ without hands’’ signifies ‘‘ nothing else than that it was to be
a spiritual and not a temporal Kingdom.’’ But to this we reply : (a) The
reference to the church is presumed not proven, whilst this supernatural
characteristic is confirmatory of Christ being the Stone. According to the
prevailing view, ‘‘ cut out of a mountain’’ is not even symbolic ; it is only
added as an expressive figure. On the other hand, we find that ‘‘ moun-
tain’’ is a symbolical equivalent for ‘‘ Kingdom ;’’ we find Christ directly
sprung from the royal line of David, and recognized, not merely from the
past but the certainty of the future, as “‘ cut out of a mountain,’’ i.e.
descended from the Kingdom or mountain belonging to God, and this too
‘* without hands,’’ i.e. by Divine agency, supernaturally, as the miraculous
conception of Jesus in the royal line of David through God’s Spirit con-
firms. (6) “‘ Without hands,’’ denoting such agency of God’s is also to be
exerted at the Second Advent, as e.g. Rev. 11, etc. Divine, supernatural
power is to be manifested at Christ’s ‘‘ appearing and Kingdom.’ (c)
Making this Kingdom only spiritual, and therefore invisible, violates the
plain statement of the prophecy. (3) Becoming a ‘‘ great mountain’’
means that, insignificant at first, it will spread until co-extensive with the
whole earth, which can only be predicted of the church. To this we an-
swer: The Stone appears, but we are taught is rejected by the very nation to
whom the Kingdom appertains ; but this same Stone thus rejected is the
chosen one, held in abeyance wntil the period of its manifestation. The
imagery of figurative language is preserved under what is related of the
Stone, i.e. its becoming a great mountain ; and the time when this is to
be done must be obtained from other predictions. Christ being the
representative of the Kingdom, the figure is appropriate, seeing that in
the image the first kingdom is represented by Nebuchadnezzar person-
ally, ‘*'Tbou art this head of gold,’’ in view of the sovereign power in-
vested in him}; so also with Christ, now indeed the rejected one, He is
the Stone which at the period of its future manifestation will break in
pieces and convert into chaff the Kingdoms opposed to Him. (4) But
‘this Kingdom was to be set up in the days of the four preceding kings,
Prop. 104.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. | 677
or in the days of the Roman Monarchy,’’ and “‘ this can only be said of the
church.’? Leaving the fact that this proves too much—for the same
author has the church or this Kingdom existing long before the head of
the image arose—and passing also the fact that we have already shown that
the Kingdom is set up in the divided form of the Roman Empire, we con-
cede that at some time during the divided existence of the beast or toes
of the image, it must be set up. This implies, then, their present and fut-
ure existence, Now the weakened and divided condition of the once united
and formidable Empire is evident. Faber and others have conclusively
proven from historical documents that there has been a continuous Roman
power existing down to Francis II., reinstated by Napoleon I., claimed
by others, and efforts made for its revival in Italy and elsewhere. The
non-existence and revival are clearly taught in Revelation, and the identity
of the beasts of Daniel and of John are fully admitted by many writers.
(Comp. Prop. 160). We say nothing now of the admissions even of many,
that the Roman power was perpetuated in the Papal power, which exists
down to the present. But whatever opinion may be formed concerning
these explanations, one thing is certain, that the Hireaaes of Christ is to
be erected after the Roman Empire has been disrupted, and from the de-
scription of the disruption itself, a long time after it has occurred. The
time we are living in still proclaims that such is its condition, for the
limits once occupied by the Empire are now the territory of a number of
Kingdoms. Such, and such only, is the predicted posture of affairs when
this Stone, this Son of man, shall come. Daniel, therefore, confirms our
doctrinal position, which will be more decisive when we come to speak of
the promise made to him personally under the Prop. of the resurrection.”
1 The student will observe that we enter upon the consideration of these prophecies
prepared by the powerful scriptural evidence afforded by the past history of the Theocracy,
its fall and promised restoration, the Davidic covenant attested to by oath, the post-
ponement of the Kingdom, etc., and that no interpretation which destroys the unity
between these can be received as correct. Prophecy only predicts one Kingdom of God,
in the Theocratic form, to exist here on earth, and we may rest assured that, if the Word
is truly inspired, there will be no conflict between one and another portion of Holy
Writ. In addition : several opinions, entertained by a few, respecting a portion of
Daniel, are so utterly untenable and have been so ably answered by other writers and
commentators, that they require no special attention. Such e.g. is the view of Amner
and Grotius, that by the Fifth Kingdom is to be understood the Roman Empire having
become Christian, which is to endure many ages, and the Son of man (which Jesus
appropriates to Himself personally) symbolizes the Roman Republic contrasted with the
monarchies, ete. (Lord’s Lit. Journal, Jan., 1857, p. 499, note).Or, Prof. Stuart’s (Com.
on Dan.) idea, that the Fourth Kingdom refers to the dynasties of Syria and Egypt
immediately succeeding the reign of Alexander the Great (comp. the reply of Barnes,
Com., and others). Black, in Messiahs and Anti-Messiahs, departing entirely from the
ancient and continued interpretation, regards the four parts of the image as descriptive
rather of races than of nations i.e. to the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, under
the sway of Satan as Antichrist. The ‘‘ Antiochus Epiphanes theory’’ is (Auberlen on
Dan.) a favorite one with modern Rationalistic interpretation. Destructive criticism
endeavors to revive and enforce the objections of Celsus and Porphyry, and, not satisfied
with this, endeavors to break the continuity and force of the predictions by making the
Medes and Persians two of the four Kingdoms, and urging that Alexander and his
successors form two (comp. Birks’s Mod. Thought, p. 192, etc.). Extravagances are
fastened on these predictions on all sides. Thus e.g. a Pope can approvingly quote
them (Littell’s Liv. Age, Aug. 10th, 1872) as a threat against the German Empire, “ that by
and by there will fall from the Mountain a little stone which shall break the head of the
Colossus ;’ the Jesuit Vieiri (Von Déllinger’s Essay on Proph. Spiril) can interpret:
‘¢ God will again raise up your King, and elevate his Portugal to be the heart and the
centre of a new universal empire, the Fifth according to the prophet Daniel, since the
678 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Pror. 104.

Fourth, the Roman-German, is already falling in pieces, and will be dissolved at the
coming of Sebastian. Inthe time of this Fifth Empire all Jews and heathen will be con-
verted ; and thus the prophecy about one Shepherd and one fold will be fulfilled.”
Dr. Berg makes America the Fifth Empire, reproducing the opinion of Sir. Th. Browne
(Works, Tr. 12), and which, as stated by Dr. Johnson, is in accordance with the inter-
pretation and expectation of Dr. Berkeley, viz. : ‘‘ that America will be the seat of the
Fifth Empire’ (comp. Prop. 168) ; Davis (Seven Thunders) insists that the stone is the
American Republic, which is destined to demolish European despotism, and overthrow
thrones, etc., commingling Christ and the Republic, and applying the army (Rev. 19)
to the Republic ; others confidently and exclusively refer the Fifth Kingdom to their
peculiar and distinctive church or sect. Such vagaries can be dismissed ; for as Fair-
bairn (On Proph.) says: the efforts to make the succession of Kingdoms ‘different from
that anciently, ordinarily, and generally entertained, have ‘‘ palpably failed. They
have been thoroughly refuted by Hofmann, Hengstenberg, and latterly by Auberlen’’ (to
which may be added, Lord, Birks, Barnes, Newton, Mede, Elliott, Cumming, Frere,
Bonar, Bickersteth, Brooks, and many others). The natural legitimate interpretation,
according as it does with the plain language and the facts of history, cannot be set aside
by those mentioned. Bh. Newton (On Proph., vol. 1, p. 217) well remarks: ‘‘ All
ancient writers, both Jewish and Christian, agree with Jerome in explaining the Fourth
Kingdom to be the Roman.’’ The learned Mede (Works, quoted by Newton, p. 217)
says: ‘‘ The Roman Empire to be the Fourth Kingdom of Daniel, was believed by
the Church of Israel, both before and in our Saviour’s time ; received by the disciples
of the apostles and the whole Christian Church for the first three hundred years without
any known contradiction. And I confess, having so good ground in Scripture, it is,
with me lantum non articulus jfidei, little less than an article of faith.” The interpretation
therefore, really worthy of consideration, is that which consecutively leads down to the
Roman as the Fourth Kingdom, and this we thus notice preparatory to the contempla-
tion of the Fifth. The only point in the adverse criticisms and speculations deserving
the least attention, is that of making it a question whether the divided portion of
Alexander’s Empire after his death is to be considered as part of the Third Kingdom, or
whether they (for it was divided into four parts) are to be regarded as separate and
distinct Kingdoms (so Davidson, etc.). That they are the former is evident : (1) thata
portion of the body or a beast symbolizes as well a succession as an individual; (2)
that the same symbolizes a succession, even when divided or undergoing changes ; (3)
that such a change is indicated in ch. 7, by the horns springing out of the same beast ; (4)
that the successors were Macedonians or Grecians ; (5) that all ancient authors speak of
Alexander’s Kingdom and that of his successors as being the same ; (6) the Empire was
simply divided among successors, and each one acknowledged his portion to be a
part of the same ; (7) the Jews always spoke of these several portions as pertaining to
one characteristic rule, calling them by one name, the Kingdom of the Grecians; (8)
the next Empire was stronger than the brazen, which is not true of the divided Grecian
Kingdom ; (9) the Fourth reaches down to the end (comp. Prop. 160), whereas the
divided form of the Grecian has long since disappeared ; (10) that to make such a
radical change destroys the unity of the prophecy and prevents a proper incorporation
of the subject-matter that follows in its natural order.
2 It is noticeable what influence a preconceived opinion will have in guiding writers
in their interpretation of this passage. A recent one (Fairbairn, On Proph., p. 295), who
comes to Daniel with the determination to find the Christian Church, as now existing,
delineated by the Fifth Kingdom, gravely tells us: ‘‘ It (the vision) does not indicate at
what particular time, or even under which worldly dominion the Kingdom represented
by the Stone should begin to develop itself on the theatre of the world,” although he
admits that it must be referred to the period of the last power as “ the natural inference
obviously.’ So others evince a lack of candor, seeing that the action of the Stone (aside
érom its being the last in the order of time and place) is represented as taking place on
the feet of the image, whereas Fairbairn and others, in plain contradiction of the language,
will have the smiting process, or action of the Stone, to begin, not on the feet, but on the
body, even before the legs and feet are in existence. They also forget that in ch. 7, the
bestowal of the Kingdom (corresponding with ch. 2) is after the Fourth Kingdom has.
run its career, and is to be brought to its end. Where is the consistency of a criticism,
so forced that it does violence to the express delineation given by the Spirit? It will
not avail to say, as some do, that the Stone was in existence and “‘ taking form,” etc.,
before smiting the feet, for that is begging the point at issue by adding to the vision
mere assumption. The latter proves too much, for if, as Fairbairn states, it took some
time for the Stone to be organized and to put on “ a form in which it could act extrane-
Prop. 104.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 679
ously upon the affairs and destinies of the world,” we are therefore to understand that
for several centuries previous to the formation of the feet, it did not ‘‘ act extraneously
upon the affairs and destinies of the world” (for the distinctive stated work of the Stone
begins when the feet are planted, and not before), which notion, pressed out by a
Church-Kingdom theory, by no means agrees with his own presented idea of a King-
dom. Im addition, a number of particulars that will be enumerated, as well as the
general analogy of prediction on the subject, compels us to this location of ‘‘ these
kings.’”” Tregelles (On Dan., p. 19) justly says : ‘‘ ‘ These kings, cannot mean the four
successional monarchies, because in that case the plural form could not be used, seeing
that they do not co-exist as the holders of power,” and therefore he refers the phrase to
the divided form of the Roman Empire, when (as we shall show, Prop. 160) a number
of kings exist contemporaneously, according with the fuller details of Rev. This is
ecrzoborated by the lime of smiting. Hence Fausset (Com. Dan. loci) gives this note:
“* Rather ‘in the days of these kings’ answers to ‘ upon his feet’ (v. 34) i.e. the ten toes
(v. 42) or ten kings, the final state of the Roman Empire. For‘ these kings’ cannot
mean the four successional monarchies, as they do not co-exist as the holders of power :
if the fourth had been meant, the singular and not the plural would be used.” Many
other writers of ability take the same view, locating ‘‘ these kings’’ in the future,
because Gentile domination continues and the action of the Stone, as predicted, has not
been witnessed. They are made to relate (as Dan. 7, Rev. 13 and 17, etc.) to the
divided form of the Fourth Empire.
3 Arguments might be derived from the admissions of our opponents, who, when
commenting on the ten horns, Kingdom, etc., in Revelation, forgetting their own inter-
pretations of Daniel as relating to the Churcn, make the divided form the period of smit-
ing, etc. (Comp. e.g. Barnes Dan. and Rev,) The toes are by many supposed to designate
exactiy ten divisions or ten Kingdoms, and accordingly many Protestant and Roman
Catholic writers have designated exactly ten Kingdoms, but they differ among them-
selves in producing the same Kingdoms. It seems more correct to suppose that the
toes simply represent such divisions without being pressed to the exact number of ten.
Division is intended, but whether the number is more or less than ten is of no material
consequence. If it can be shown that such divisions took place, that is sufficient,
otherwise, to be very exact, it must be shown (1) that one leg of the image is longer than
the other, seeing that one portion of the Empire lasted longer than the other ; and (2)
that five divisions occurred in the eastern and five in the western portion, as five toes
are on one foot, and five on the other; the legs, according to commentators, etc.,
represented the divided form of the Empire. This, like making a parable to have a
definite meaning in the particulars required for filling up to complete the representation,
would be pressing a symbol so closely as to endanger its unity. If it is, however,
expressive of the ten horns of Dan. 7 (which may be the case), then we are not to seek
for these divisions in the past, but in the future (comp. Prop. 160). In Dan. 2, a general
chronological epitome of history is given without entering into details ; in Dan. 7 more
of the latter are given, and in view of the “ little horn,” the ten horns are specifically
given as existing, but (just as in Revelation) existing previous to and at the Sec. Advent.
But our line of argument does not require us to enter into particulars, or to discuss the
divisions, the proof necessary for our purpose being independent of the same.
4This is so plain, and the chronological order of the prophecy so regular and con-
sistent, that even Augustine, the great leader of the modern Church-Kingdom theory,
dare not apply this Kingdom of Daniel to the Church, but to a period after the Second
Advent. Thus (City of God, B. 20, c. 23) he locates this Kingdom after the still future
Antichrist, ufter the Sec. Advent, and places it in the third heaven (comp. for reply to
last, Prop. 103). But this reference to the third heaven is a palpable violation of the
prophecy, which speaks of a Kingdom here on the earth, “ under the whole heaven,’’
where these previous Kingdoms existed. He enforces one feature thus : ‘‘ He who reads
this passage, even half asleep, cannot fail to see that the Kingdom of Antichrist shall
fiercely, though for a short time, assail the Church before the last judgment of God
shall introduce the eternal reign of the saints.” He makes the number “ten” an
indefinite number, and the times, three and a half years.
6 This is even felt by the spiritualizing Jerome so forcibly that he, with Augustine,
locates the fulfilment in the future. Thus (On Daniel 7) he remarks : ‘‘ Therefore let
us say what all the ecclesiastical writers have delivered, that at the end of the world, when
the Kingdom of the Romans is to be destroyed, there will be ten kings, who will divide
the Roman world among themselves, and an eleventh will arise, a little king, who will
overcome three kings of the ten kings,” etc. He makes Dan. 7 : 18 refer to the personal
coming of Christ, and applies the whole, not to the present existing Church, but to the
680 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 104.

future. The words ‘‘ king” and “kingdom” he regards as convertible, as seen by com-
paring verse 17 with verse 23 in Dan. 7 (comp. Storrs’s Diss. on the Kingdom of Heaven,
who says: ‘“‘The Hebrew term which commonly signifies king properly means king-
dom,’’ and refers to Dan. 8 : 21 and 7:17). The student will see at once that persons
who lived before the division and breaking up of Roman unity could not possibly
apply such prophecies—as now done—to an existing Church, because they were linked
with events that had not transpired.
6 Without indorsing the opinions or position of every writer, attention is directed to
the following, who give much illustrative of our meaning: Auberlen’s Prophecies of
Daniel and the Rev. of St. John, Frere’s Combined View of the Prophecies of Daniel, Esdras,
and St. John, Roos’s Exposition of Daniel, and Comparison of them with the Rev. of St. John,
Faber's Diss. on the Prophecies and Sacred Calendar of Prophecy, besides various works
either on Daniel or on the Apocalypse which illustrate and enforce the one by reference
to the other, such us Elliott’s, Lord’s, Schmucker’s, Daubuz, Ebrard, Brightman,
Bengel, and others.
7 Writers who endeavor to soften the prophetic language and make it representative
of moral and spiritual influences, still are forced to admit (as e.g. Barnes, Com. loci):
** The language here would seem to imply some violent action, some positive crushing
force, something like that which occurs in conquests when nations are subdued.”
Comp. the concessions of Fairbairn (On Proph., pp. 449, 447, 465, etc., where he admits
that the language embraces more than mere conversion, ete. Our position is corroborated
(1) by the fact that the Primitive Church, instead of smiting, was so smitten that many
churches were finally exterminated ; (2) that the prophecy (Dan. 7 : 21) indicates the
persecution of the saints; (3) that, as will be shown, at the Sec. Advent the powers
arrayed against God’s people will be terribly smitten, with which this prophecy accords.
8 This indicates how erroneous is the view of Mede, Cotton Mather, and others, that
Daniel describes a ‘‘ twofold state of the Kingdom, viz. : a Kingdom of the Stone and a
Kingdom of the Mountain—the Kingdom of the Stone from the resurrection of Jesus to-
His Sec. Advent, and the Kingdom of the Mountain from the revelation of Jesus when
He comes to destroy His enemies. Dan, 2 and 7 describe the same order, and as Jesus
referred the same to Himself at the Sec. Advent, as the action of the Stone is identical
with what takes place at His Sec. Coming, and as the time of the display of the Stone’s
power, etc., is still in the future (cannot be attributed to the undivided form of the
Roman Empire, etc.), it is impossible to receive the theory. To do so vitiates the
regular order, and introduces an antagonism. The same is true of Lange’s (and others)
engrafting upon Matt. 26 : 64 a reference to the present as well as to future Advent.
The express order enumerated of fulfilment forbids it, and it would not be attempted if
there were no Church-Kingdom to be supported.
9 Such considerations, besides those derived from the non-fulfilment of the covenant,
largely influenced the early Church. In their oppressed, persecuted state under the
Fourth Empire, it was simply impossible for believers to imagine themselves in that
Kingdom of God which all the prophets predicted would afford an immediate and
enduring release from Gentile domination and oppression. They never supposed them-
selves to be in a Kingdom which was to overcome those around, and then boasted as
e.g. Romanists afterward. (Thus e.g. in the beginning of the twelfth century—Ranke’s
His. of the Popes, vol. 1, p. 22—the Provost Gerohus said : ‘‘It will at last come to this,
that the golden image of the Empire shall be shaken to dust, every great monarchy shall
be divided into tetrarchates, and then only will the Church stand free and untrammelled
beneath the protection of her crowned high priest.”) Their hope Of the fultilment of
Daniel related to the future—to the personal Coming of the Messiah. They never
could advocate (with their view of the overthrow of the Theocracy, the postponement of
restoration to Sec. Advent, and the preparatory nature of the Church) the notions enter-
tained e.g. by Jewel (Apol. for Church of England), or Hooker (Eccl. Polity) that a The-
ocracy was thus restored and must be exercised, or even by the Scottish Kirk Sessions
(Buckle’s His. Civ., vol. 2, p. 271), or the Genevan Church Council (D’Aubigne’s His.
Ref.), enforcing government on the plea of a revived Theocratic order, giving the power
into the hands of the saints. Ten thousand arrogant and unscriptural claims, offensively
and one-sidely paraded by Buckle (His. Civ.), Lecky (His. Morals), and others, are set °
aside by retaining the simple, rational, logical interpretation of Daniel in reference to
the Kingdom.
10 Justin Martyr (Dial. with Trypho) quotes Dan. 7, and refers its fulfilment to the
future. Inch. 32 the Jew Trypho is represented as objecting to its applicability to Jesus
Christ because His coming was in humiliation, and that He was crucified. If Daniel’s
prediction were to be confined to the First Advent and to the Church, then the exception
Prop. 104.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 681
stated would be well taken, seeing that nothing commensurate with Daniel's prediction
took place. Justin correctly meets the objection by showing that the prophecy will be
fulfilled at the Sec. Advent. Now, this alone, aside from numerous other considerations,
effectually disposes of Reuss’s (His. Chris. Theol., p. 349) theory, that ‘‘ the fact of the veri-
table appearance of Christ implies the immediate setting up of His Kingdom,’’ or
Oosterzee’s (Ch. Dog., vol. 2, p. 528), that ‘‘ the effect of His appearing plainly shows that
He has in reality founded that Kingdom of God which was looked for by kings and
prophets.” We confess our utter inability, with the early Church, to see such a
“reality” (comp. Props. 42-68), finding it opposed by covenant, prophecy, postpone-
ment, and history. So Ueberweg (His. Philos., vol. 1, ¢. 266) wrongfully applies Dan.
7 : 13, 14, to the First Advent, and against the order of prediction and the plain tacts
of history, says that Jesus then “‘ had the courage to found a Kingdom of God.”
Thompson (Theol. of Christ) quotes e.g. Dan. 7 : 27 as now fulfilled, because a believer
with prayer becomes “a spiritual power,’’ or ‘‘ a co-worker with God in the realm of
spiritual agencies,’’ thus placing him among the ‘“‘ providential forces that rule the
world.” This only shows how hard pressed our opponents are to find a support for
their theory.
1 Several objects are evidently designed by the prophecies (1) to indicate the ambition
of these four Kingdoms, to obtain, if possible, a universal lordship or dominion over the
earth ; (2) the fearful threatenings of God, given by Moses, etc., were to be realized
under this Gentile domination ; (3) the prosperous and triumphant career of these
Kingdoms in contrast with the depressed condition of God’s people ; (4) the ample
deliverance that would yet be brought through the Messiah after the predetermined
course of these Kingdoms ; (5) the full bestowal of the dominion that these sought but
failed to realize but only in the covenanted line and manner; (6) and, hence, are
designed to sustain the faith of believers under such trials, assuring them that such
powers would come to a final end (comp. Prop. 164), and that God’s promises would be
verified. Lord (Lit. and Theol. Journal, 1860, p. 305) well suggests that in this Gentile
ordering God allows an exemplification to take place, on a decisive scale, ‘‘of what
fallen man is as a ruler of his fellow-men,”’ as essential] to show what is in man, what he
will do when in power, and to demonstrate the necessity—in order to have a perfect
government—of Christ’s assuming the Theocratic rule.
2 The sway of the Romish Church is no fulfilment of the prediction, lacking the
extent, unity, continuance, etc., given by the prophecy. ,It is only a caricature of the
promised Messianic Kingdom, a self-appropriation of the work of Jesus.
_ 13 The reader will observe that this vengeance is poured out upon these because (Dan.
7:9-11, Rev. 17 : 12-14, and 19:19, etc.) they are directly hostile to and make war
against Christ. Prophecy corresponds as to the time of and reason for infliction. To
see the difference between prophecy and some writers : Schlegel (Phil. of His., Lect. 10)
makes the Jewish Covenant and the old Revelation of the Hebrews the first corner stone,
the Greek language the second foundation stone, and the Roman Empire the third
foundation stone of the Christian religion or Church. The Church is pot tounded on
that that perishes.
14 Fairbairn (On Proph., p. 297, see preceding § 7, note 1), although admitting that
such monarchies are ‘‘ doomed to perpetual destruction,” strives hard to make this
smiting and destroying the work of the Church, as now existing, by means of moral and
spiritual influences (so Barnes, Edwards, Brown, etc.). But where is the historical
proof (aside from the tenor of the prophecy and the analogy of the Word), when all
history asserts that the Church has been the best ally that earthly kingdoms have pos-
sessed in supporting their claims, pretensions, divine right of kings, etc. Take the
Roman Kingdom, and is it not abundantly confirmed that when divided and weakened,
it was upheld by the Church through its nominal conversion and ecclesiastical connec-
tion with the same? Gibbon and others plainly teach us how the Church, in many an
emergency, supported and revived the sinking civil power. Even Grotius, with his
singular view of the Fifth Kingdom, must acknowledge that the sublime sense is that
Christ Himself, according to 1 Cor. 15 : 24, will put an end to all earthly empires. The
question to be answered is, When? ‘Tregelles (On Dan., p. 20) properly discards, as
untenable, the action of the Stone as representing the results of grace or the gospel, and
indorses the view ‘‘ that destroying judgment on Gentile power is here spoken of ;’’ which
power Jesus ascribes to himself personally, Matt. 21 : 42, 44. Fausset (Com. Dan. 2: 4)
says: ‘‘ The falling of the Stone on the image must mean destroying judgment on the
fourth Gentile power, not gradual evangelization of it by grace; and the destroying
judgment cannot be dealt by Christians, for they are taught to submit to the powers
that be, so that it must be dealt by Christ Himself at His coming again.’’ The contrast
682 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 104.

in the utter removal of these Kingdoms, and the substitution of this fifth dominion,
fully sustains such a view. ‘The fact that this Stoneis not presented as a foundation stone
(i.e. preservative), but as a. judgment stone (i.e. destructive), confirms the same. So
also the image is not presented as something transformed or changed by the action of
the Stone, but a complete demolition of it is expressed. The regular succession of
downfalls, and the Stone appearing (not when the Church wag established and the
Roman Empire was in its strength, but) when the image is completed (i.e. in the days of
the feet) corroborates our position, And this is confirmed by the following: The
‘* breaking to pieces’’ in Dan.2 :40 (comp. Dan. 7:7, 19, 23) is. admitted by all to
indicate violence, but the same phraseology is applied to the action of the Stone, and
consistency demands a like interpretation. Theretore we need not be surprised at Fair-
bairn’s concessions (On Proph., pp. 449, 447, 465, etc.) that the language denotes more
than simple conversion. ~
18 This was the uniform opinion of the ancients, and is remarkably exhibited in the
delicacy of Josephus (i.e. not to offend the Roman power, as noticed by Bh. Newton,
On Proph., p. 195—taken from Bh. Chandler’s Defence) in refusing to explain the King-
dom of the Stoné (Antig., B. 10, ch. 10, s. 4), the apology of Jerome (as presented by
Newton, p. 192), the dread expressed by Tertullian and others. Sulpicius Severus
(Sacred His., B. 2) gives the general view previously held (but in his day beginning to
be questioned), when he makes the Fourth Kingdom the Roman, and insists upon
Christ’s coming to reduce the same and “‘ establish another everlasting Kingdom.” If
the reader desires to know how generally this was entertained, he need only notice how
the previously prevailing Millenarian views (comp. Props. 73-78) necessarily embraced
it as a distinguishing feature. This old interpretation was not flattering to Roman
power nor to Papal pretensions, and it was coldly treated, as evidenced e.g. by Calmet
(see Newton On Proph., p. 206).
16 For decisive proof the reader is referred to Props. 123, 147, 175, 160, 161, 162, 163,
164, 171. While God’s purpose in reference to the establishment of the Church is fully
carried out (viz. . to gather out the elect), it is also true that down to the very Advent
organizations hostile to the truth shall exist and yet fearfully oppress the Church.
Instead of being absorbed, conciliated, they shall persecute the saints. The culminated
Antichrist must yet arise in his dreaded career of supposed triumph over the Church.
What Irenzus (B. 5, c. 25, 26), Cyril (Hier. Cat. 15, c. 6), even Jerome (Lier. Com. loci)
and Augustine (City of God, B. 10, c. 23—see these and others given by Newton, in Diss.
13 and 14) said respecting the then future Antichrist and the oppression of the Church
can still be repeated, for these predictions relating to the great final catastrophe are
far, very far from being exhausted. In the nature of the case, then, it is misleading
and dangerous to attach to the Church a work which she is utterly unable to perform,
and which will only be done in her behalf when overwhelmed in the depths of an awful
persecution. The delineation given of the future of the Church by Paul, John, and
others is directly opposed to the prosperous and triumphant state of this Kingdom, when
established by Jesus.
” Compare Luther’s opinion (D’Aubigne’s His, Ref., v. 2, p. 166, and Elliott’s Hora
Apoc.; v. 2, p. 133, etc.) on th2 personal coming of ‘‘ the Son of man,’’ as well as that of
many others given by Taylor (Voice of the Church), Brooks (Hl. Proph. Interp.), A Con-
gregationalist (Time of the End), etc. D’Aubigne (vol. 4, p. 123) also says: ‘* The Re-
former, dreading lest the end of the world should arrive before he had translated all the
Bible, published the prophecies of Daniel separately—“ a work,” said he, ‘‘ for these
latter times,” ‘‘ Historians relate,’? added he, ‘‘ that Alexander the Great always
placed Homer under his pillow : the prophet Daniel is worthy not only that kings and
princes should wear him under their heads, but in their hearts ; for he will teach them
that the government of nations proceeds from the power of God,” etc. This indicates
Luther’s esteem (and what a rebuke to modern neglect !) for Daniel.
18 Take the territorial limits, and see the fearful inroads that Gentile domination hag
made upon the Church. Thus e.g. take a map of the Roman Empire as it existed for
some time after the Church was established, and to-day we find immense portions of
the territory without a Christian Church, and large portions of it, which once boasted
of such a Church in a flourishing condition, have fallen back into a state of unbelief .
and degradation. The facts of history are thus antagonistic to the prophetic por-
traiture.
19 Out of a multitude of testimony on this point, we select Dr. J. G. Schmucker’s (Exp.
of Rev., notes on ch. 20 : 6): ‘* We are assured by Daniel that after the four universal
Empires, the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedonian, and the Roman, which
are there symbolized by the parts of a human image and by four beasts (ch. 2 and 7);
Prop. 104.] TIE TILEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 683

the God of heaven shall set up a Kingdom, the dominion whereof shall be given to the
Son of man, and all people, nations, and languages shall serve and obey Him. Now, as
the preceding four are temporal monarchies, homogeneity compels us to consider the
Fifth Empire one of the same nature ; or otherwise these prophecies would appear an
impenetrable riddle, and the words without .a certain signification, of no use to the
Church.’’ He therefore advocates the visibility of the Kingdom, in the establishment
of ‘‘ a Theocracy among His people,’’ etc., calling it “‘ such a government as the per-
sonal Kingdom of Christ” will introduce,
20 Reference has been made (Obs. 2; 7, note) to this twofold theory. Fausset even
(Com, Dan. 2), hampered by the Church-Kingdom theory, makes ‘‘ a Stone-Kingdom’’
now existing in this dispensation as preliminary to ‘‘ the Mountain-Kingdom ;’’ the one
he designates ‘‘ the Kingdom of the cross,’’ and the other ‘‘ the Kingdom of glory.”
But this is utterly opposed to the prophetic time given in the prediction when the Stone
enters upon its mission, as evidenced e.g. in the simple announcement : ‘‘ Thou sawest”’
(i.e. as the context shows, until the complete formation of the image down to his feet)
** till that a Stone was cul out without hands.’’ This locates the period of manifestation
precisely with that of ‘* the Son of man” in ch. 7, long after the Church has been estab-
lished, as already shown. So Brown (Christ’s Sec. Coming, p. 2, ch. 3) labors to make the
Stone the Church developing itself ultimately into the mountain stage. (The proof
derived from the mustard seed and leaven will be examined under Prop. 108.) Our
reasoning fully meets his view. We only add: the action of the Stone, instead of
indicating a feebleness in beginning, etc., presents us with the exact reverse,.viz. : that
of a mighty power, which successfully overthrows earthly Kingdoms, it being the
exerted power of Him who is the head of this “ mountain” (‘‘ mountain’’ symbolizing
the Kingdom and the ‘‘stone” the destructive agency). The action of the Stone and
the work of Jesus at His Sec. Coming are identical, as the prophets describe, and we
cannot be mistaken in the application. It is absurd to assert in behalf of the Church-
Kingdom theory (as Brown, p. 344), that ‘‘ this heavenly Kingdom appears in the first
instance, simply as ‘ the saints of the Most High,’ worn out and given into the hands of
the little horn of the fourth beast,” etc., for this is to locate the Kingdom, against the
prediction, before and not after the tribulation of the saints.
21 Lord (Lit. and Theol. Journal, Jan., 1854, and Oct., 1860) makes the Stone the symbol
of risen and glorified saints—the kings who reign in the Fifth Empire and extend it
over the earth—who obtain the government of the world, etc. Now, while this would
correspond with the promises (Prop. 154), while believers are designated ‘* stones’’
(1 Pet. 2:5, Eph. 2 : 21, etc.), yet as this work is specifically applied to Christ Himself
(the co-operation of the saints being implied or taught in other passages), and the
singular is employed, expressive by way of pre-eminence of “ the Stone,” we vastly
preter the early Church interpretation, which is expressed by Severus (Sac. His., B. 2,
p. 67), ‘‘ But in the Stone, cut out without hands, which broke in pieces the gold, the
silver, the brass, the iron, and the clay, we have a figure of Christ. For He shall reduce
this world, in which are the Kingdoms of the earth, to nothing, and shall establish
another everlasting Kingdom.’’ Thus many others, some referring to 1 Cor. 15 : 24, Ps.
2.12, Isa. 63 : 1-6, ete. The only objection of force made against this view is the
following : that the change from a Stone to a Mountain is unsuitable to Christ. But
there is a beautiful application in this very change to David’s Son, as the Son of man.
For when He comes, He comes, according to covenant promise, to claim His right and
heirship to the Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom, which, when restored, is necessarily—as
infidels have ridiculed it in contrast with these four Empires —a small Kingdom (and
mark—in the prophecy, as king and Kingdom are convertible, the figure of the Stone
is dropped, v. 44, and that of a Kingdom substituted, as Christ is the Head, which
performs this work and extends and perpetuates itself), but which under His auspices
immediately advances to a world-wide dominion, overcoming all opposition. ‘There is
propriety in directing attention to the central figure, the great Agent and King, who,
from His covenanted position on the weak (compared with earthly powers) Davidic
throne, waxes great and mighty over all the earth. The work that He accomplishes
requires time, and prophecy indicates this feature. The figure of the Stone (and not of
another metal) may have reference to the weighing (judgment) of nations in God’s scale
of justice, a Stone being used as the medium (as e.g. Deut. 25 : 13 marg., Prov. 16 : 11
marg.). Gill (Com. loci) mentions Rab. Simeon Ben Jochai, Saadiah Gaon, Rab.
Abraham Seba, and one of the ancient Midrashes or Expositions, as applying this Stone
to the Messiah. This was a Jewish opinion, so that our opponent, Dr. Brown ((h. See.
Oom., p. 352), remarks : ‘‘ Prebendary Lowth says, ‘The Jews agree that by this Stona
is here (Dan. 2) meant the Messiah.’’’ And (p. 352) he adds, to show how it was per-
684 THE THEOORATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 104.

petuated : ‘‘ The fathers were fond of illustrating the miraculous generation of Christ
. by the Stone’s being ‘ cut out of the mountain without hands,’ and thus the application
of the word to Christ seemed to have gained a footing.’’ The early Church view is well
illustrated by a brief sentence from Hippolytus (real. on Christ and Antichrist) : ‘* After
a little space, the Stone will come from heaven, which smites the image,’’ etc. While
able to incorporate much that Wilson (Proph. Times, N. S., 1876, p. 166) says in
relation to the Kingdom (it being inseparably associated with the Stone, which is its
Head), yet we cannot make the Stone itself to be ‘‘ the Kingdom of God,”’ because of its
being expressly appropriated, pre-eminently, to the Christ personally. It is true,
however, that the Kingdom cannot be dissociated from Him, for the one embraces the
other ; still in the prediction special attention is directed to the Head as the powerful
source of these judgments. Hence some, as Fausset (Dan. loci), unite the two together.
Berg’s theory (The Stone and the Image) that the Stone is the American Republic, destined
to overthrow despotism, or that of some Spiritualists, of its being spiritualism extending
itself, may be dismissed without comment. So also Wild’s notion of England and
America’s supremacy: The Luth. Obs., Oct. 26th, 1877, reports that a missionary of the
American Sunday-School Union states that a zealous sectarian preacher ‘‘ asserted his
belief that David’s Stone cut out of the mountain is the Methodist Episcopal Church.”’
Indeed, those who hold that this Kingdom is the Church, and who are at the same
time exclusive, may in their self-complacency think that their own exclusive Church is
thus favored. But sober-minded men of all churches despise such a sectarian exclusive
appropriation.
” The idea of forming a Fifth universal] Empire, to be nominally Christian, was a
favorite idea of Constantine, Charlemagne, Charles V., Napoleon I., and others, but
according to Scripture it can never be realized under human auspices. It will only be
fulfilled under the supernatural agency of ‘‘ the Christ” at His Sec. Advent. This same
dream of conquest and a universal Kingdom excited the imagination and fired the
ambition of various Popes. It also is a favorite with a class of Protestants, as e.g. The
Sermonizer (vol. 1, No. 2, p. 22) on ‘‘ The Messiah’s Kingdom,”’ says, ‘‘ This will only be
brought about by human co-operation’’—thus entirely overlooking the predicted con-
dition of the Church, under Gentile domination, at the Sec. Advent.

Obs. 3. If we turn to Isa, 25 : 6-10, the reasons are convincing why this
noble prophecy should not be applied to the church im this dispensation.
(1) If we take the prediction to describe one period of time here on earth ;
if we are not at liberty to separate the prophecy, and apply part of a sen-
tence to the church here and another to the church in heaven, part of it to
the church now and part of it to the church in the distant future, etc.,
then the condition of the church has never been that described by the
prophet ; for instead of the grand deliverance and glorious blessings prom-
ised, the church’s condition has been the reverse, and shall continue thus
down to the Sec. Advent, (2) The church, v. 9, is represented as waiting
for this period. (3) The context shows that this ‘‘ mountain” or King-
dom is preceded by terrible judgments upon the nations of the earth, cor-
responding with the concluding portions of the Apoc. and the portrayals
of the Sec. Advent. (4) The context shows that it is connected with the
dehiverance of the Jewish nation and with ‘‘ the land of Judah.”? (5) The
time agrees with the gathering of the nations (ch. 24:22; ch. 25: 10-12;
ch. 26 : 5-8 and 20, 21), and vengeance inflicted, Rev. 19, 15, and 11, etc.
(6) The figurative language of context (Rev. and Matt. 24, comp. e.g.
with verse 23, ch. 24); the reigning after the judgments in Jerusalem ac-
cording to covenant promise ; the destruction of a city (chs. 25 and 26),
corresponding with that of Babylon in the Apoc.; the sparing of some
people, after these judgments, who shall glorify God ; the appearance of
God in a critical, distressful period of time ; the triumphant song sung at
that day ‘‘in the land of Judah ;”’ the obtaining at that time of a stron
city ; the removal of the wicked ; the non-resurrection of the wicked dead
Prop. 104.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 685

(ch. 26 :14, comp. with Rev. 20 :5)—these things so accurately correspond

with what is to occur, still in the future at the Sec. Advent, that we cannot
appropriate these to the church. (7) This Kingdom is established on the
earth (not in heaven), and embraces the removal of the curse, of events that
are only linked with the Sec. Coming. Thus the resurrection of the saints,
which Paul in 1 Cor. 15 : 54 expressly quotes and applies to such a resur-
rection, and which must occur before the Kingdom comes, and the removal
of tears, of rebuke, etc., which exactly agrees with what John and others
apply to the future Kingdom. Indeed, if we leave the text and context
speak, and be contrasted with the facts of history and with what is pre-
dicted in the future, it is ¢mpossible to.find a fulfilment of them in the
church or world. This feast undoubtedly corresponds with the predicted
future one in the Apoc.

Obs. 4. The favorite prediction seems to be Isa. 2: 1-5 and Micah 4 :1,
which, as all admit, describe the same Kingdom. But that these do not
reter to the church as now constituted is evident from the context. The im-
mediate connection, as in Micah, chs. 3 and 4 and in Isa. 2, demands a res-
toration of the zdentical Zion that was ploughed, the same Jerusalem that
was made heaps, and the same mountain of the house that was overthrown.
The downfall was literally accomplished, and the Prophet not only, with-
out a change, necessarily advocates a complete and triumphant restoration
(just as ¢he covenant demands), butto avoid any mistake in the matter,
conjoins the one with the other, specifies a supremacy (Mic. 2:8) to Jeru-
salem, and (11, 12, 13) points out the gathering of nations and their com-
plete overthrow. Besides this, the blessings of this Kingdom, as in the
cessation of war and the perfect safety of the citizen, has never been real-
ized, and we are assured will not (for express passages teach war down to
the Advent itself) wnat Christ comes again. The terrible overthrow of
Isa. 2 : 10-22, etc. is in such agreement with the closing chapters of the
Apocalypse, that we must locate them both at the same period.
So plain and decisive are these predictions that it is a matter of amazement that the
Church has ever departed from the early Church belief, sustained as it is by the fair
grammatical sense and analogy of the Word. Justin Martyr (Dial. with Trypho), refer-
ring to Micah 4 : 1, etc., declares those as “‘ destitute of just reason who did not under-
stand that which is clear from all the Scriptures, that two comings of Christ are
announced—one in which a suffering, inglorious, dishonored, and crucified Saviour
is preached ; but another in which He shall come with glory from the heavens,”’ etc.
To show the contrast and evidence how the prophecies are appropriated in behalf of
the Church, without any regard to their connection, etc., we quote from the father of the
modern prevailing theory and mode of application. Origen (Ag. Celsus) thus interprets
Isa. 2: ‘‘ Each one of us, then, is come‘ in the last days’ where one Jesus has invited us,
to the ‘ visible mountain of the Lord,’ the Word that is above every Word, and to the
‘house of God,’ which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of the
truth. And we notice how it is built upon ‘ the tops of the mountains’ i.e. the pre-
dictions of all the prophets, which are its foundations. And this house is exalted above
the hills, i.e. those individuals among men who make a profession of superior attainments
in wisdom and truth,” etc. Alas! that such a method of interpretation should even yet
obscure most precious portions of Holy Writ! For some ruthlessly divide what God
has joined together, applying part to the earth and part to heaven, part to the present
and part to the future, ete.

Obs. 5. If we turn to Zech. 14, we have, as predicted in other places,

the Jewish nation in a fearful position (not the one at the destruction of
Jerusulem in the first century, but a still future one), by a gathering of
686 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 104.

nations against it, a Divine interposition in its behalf, the Advent of Christ
and of His saints, the triumph of the Jews, the Kingship of the Lord
then over the earth manifested, the safety and peace of Jerusalem, the
plague poured out on the enemies, the sparing of some people, the worship
tendered to God, the service and holiness—all these things are entirely
consistent with our argument concerning the Kingdom as covenanted and
identified with the Jewish nation, as exhibiting a theocratic manifestation
in the appointed manner hereafter, while they cannot be applied to the
past history of the Jews or of the Church without gross violation of text.
This chapter of Zech. gives such a remarkable order of the events, and in-
sists so pointedly on the exaltation of the Jews, that our opponents find it
the most difficult ot all passages to spiritualize.

Obs. 6. In order to apply ‘‘ the year of my redeemed ’”’ (the Jubilee),

and the ‘‘ salvation’’ (forgetting that Christ also comes the second time
unto salvation) of Isa. 63 : 1-6 to the Church, the exact reverse of the
prophecy is advocated. The coming of the King in vengeance, treading
the people in anger and fury, is.transposed into a gracious coming and
converting power; and the blood of the enemies staining His raiment is
changed into Christ’s own blood on the cross! Surely when such liberties
are required by a theory to preserve its consistency, is it not time to con-
sider its validity?
It is a matter of surprise that so clear a thinker as Dr. Schaff (Lange’s Com. Matt.
p. 489) should apply this to the passion of Christ (comp. Props. 162 and 166). Numer-
ous sermons by eminent men pervert this Scripture, and as Dr. Moore (Lange’s Com.
Isa., p. 673, after such a given specimen) well says: ‘‘ It is strange that an eminent
modern preacher (Ziethe) should so misrepresent the teaching of this passage. If we
wish to lead men to contemplate Christ as the Man of Sorrows, by whose blood we are
redeemed, we should choose a passage of Scripture that exhibits Him in this character.
But it is either culpable ignorance or something worse to affirm that the Scripture
before us contains the lessons set forth in the above-mentioned heads of a sermon.”’
This rebuke is merited by many who utterly pervert and misapply its meaning. Calvin
justly calls this ‘‘ a perversion of Scripture.’ No one, however, follows the extreme of
Jerome, to make the bloodshed to be that of demons. Comp. the judicious remarks of
Weber, quoted Lange’s Vom. Isa., p. 673, who correctly locates its fulfilment to ‘‘ the
judgment that will befall the antichristian persecuting world in the last days.”

Obs. 7. Thus we might present one prediction after the other, and in
each case show, either by the context, text, or parallel passages, that the
Kingdom described by them is still future. For, notwithstanding the as-
surances given and the eulogies passed on the Church, it is a plain fact
that no such predictions, having a direct reference to the condition of this
Kingdom, have ever been realized in the history of the Church. And if it
were not for this Church-Kingdom theory, no one would make the attempt
to wrest and pervert them in this direction. Take, e.g. Isa. 65 : 17-25
(comp. with v. 9), and the ablest of writers, as Pres. Edwards, Alexander,
etc., apply this to. the Church even to the extent that ‘‘ the new heavens
and new earth” have appeared (although some admit also that it has a
future reference). But if we leave inspired men give their testimony, we
find that the location of this ‘‘ new heavens and new earth’’ is indeed still
future, 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1. Moreover, if we concede that they have
been already created, then surely the results of such a new creation should
be fully exhibited in the Church. Is it true, however, that the voice of
weeping has ceased in her, that the longevity has been realized, that the
Prop. 104.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 687
safety, peace, and happiness predicted has been attained? No! the sad
experience of individual believers and of the Church forbids such an appro-
priation.
But many of our opponents (even Alexander, e.g. Com. Isa., vol. 1, p. 226), as we shall
show under Props. 148-151, make numerous concessions which are antagonistic to their
own Church-Kingdom theory. Many predictions are appropriated by setting aside the
grammatical connection, or by making that which might interfere with the Church
theory emblematic and figurative. Thus, to illustrate : few commentators do justice to
Acts 15 : 13-17. They have much to say about the call of the Gentiles enforced by the
passage, but make the restoration of the fallen tabernacle “ an emblem (so Barnes, etc.)
of the favor of God,” etc., violating the order laid down, and substituting a sense not
found in the text. To understand the connection of James’s reasoning, it is absolutely
requisite to notice the covenanted aspect of this Davidic tabernacle (with which the
apostles were familiar), the context and text of Amos, and the facts stated by Peter, Paul,
and Barnabas, suggesting James’s reference. If this is done, then we have: (1) the
rejection and overthrow of the Davidic Kingdom; (2) the preservation of some of the
nation (in order to make a future restoration possible) ; (3) a fearful slaughter of the
Jews ; (4) a call extended to and accepted by the Gentiles to become also God’s people ;
(5) this work of grace, including Jews and Gentiles, then going on; (6) this to be fol-
lowed by a rebuilding or restoration of the Kingdom, now fallen and in ruins ; (7) the
result following.

Obs. 8. Many of the predictions are so exalted in their nature, and prom-
ise such a continued and ever-abiding blessedness, that it is absurd to
predicate them of the Church in this age. Besides this, the identical lan-
guage, ideas, and blessings are incorporated by John with the crowning
period of restitution here on earth, so that it is a violation of all propriety
to extend them to any other time of manifestation. The reader will per-
ceive this by comparing, e.g. Isa. 60, with Rev. 21 and 22. Again, a fair
interpretation must, as the connection requires, always link such predic-
tions with a future restoration of the elect nation in its favored Theocratic
position under the sublime reign of the predicted David’s Son. These are
inseparable, as the covenant teaches, and these the Prophets always wnite.
The student can readily see, by a reference e.g. to Art. ‘‘ Kingdom of God,” in M’Clin-
tock & Strong’s Cyclop., how the Church is transmuted into a Kingdom. The process
is plainly stated, as drawn from Knobel, ‘‘ On the Prophets.’’ Thus, when the prophets
describe a deliverance from ‘‘ political calamities,’’ we must attribute ‘‘ a higher sense,”’
viz. : deliverance from ‘‘ error and sin ;” when they describe a restored people, God
again dwelling among them in a restored and perpetuated Theocracy, we must again
apply this ‘‘ higher sense,” viz. : it means reconciliation to God, access to Him, union
of His people in faith, etc. ; when they portray special provision for temporal wants,
the blessings of life, civil duties, health, offspring, harvests, etc., the “higher sense’’ is
again applied, viz. : it denotes spiritual good, the graces of the spirit enjoyed, ete. ;
when they delineate God’s people, ‘‘ supremely blessed in the enjoyment of all earthly
pleasures,”’ this ‘‘ higher sense’’ elevates the meaning into spiritual pleasures, “‘ eternal
life,” ete. ; when they predict “the re-establishment of their people into a mighty
state, which should endure upon the earth in imperishable splendor as an outward
community,’’ then the ‘‘ higher sense’’ duly applied makes this ‘‘a religious invisible
community.” The student will observe (1) the admissions made that the prophets
really predict these things in the plain grammatical sense, but (2) that this must be
changed by ‘‘a higher and spiritual sense.’’ Alas! what absurdities are engrafted on
God’s Word by the assumed superior reason of man. According to this principle,
the interpretation, the meaning of the Scriptures, is left at the mercy of this assumed
‘‘higher sense,’’ which in one is this, and in another that, as fancy, or imagination, or
alleged influence of the spirit, or some favorite opinion suggests. In the Art. “ Bap-
tists’? (Ency. Relig. Knowl.), in the Introd., it is asserted that the visible organized
Church is ‘‘the Kingdom of God foretold by the prophet Daniel, and announced by
John the Baptist as at hand, Dan. 2 : 44, Matt. 3:2.” (What a departure from John
Bunyan’s position.) Dr. Mason (Essays on the Uhurch, No. 1) correctly defines the
688 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 104.

Church, and then designates it the Kingdom of God, and for the support of such an
affirmation quotes such passages as Isa. 66: 12, Isa. 49 : 23, Isa. 6 : 3, 5, and especially
‘* He that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles.” Schmucker (Bvang. Luth. Cat., p. 66)
gives, in order to transform the Church into a Kingdom, Acts5:31. These and other
writers do not consider that their representations are utterly opposed by the general
analogy of Scripture, as shown ; by the epitomes of history, as given in Matt., chs, 24
and 25 (comp. Mark and Luke), and 2 Thess., ch. 2; by such statements as Matt. 9 : 15,
Matt. 23 : 39, Luke 17: 22, Luke 21:31, etc. ; by the numerous reasons logically
united as already given. The disposition is general to take the whole matter for
granted, and then to quote Scripture without the least regard to its connection or order
of fulfilment. It is even a sad fact that Apologists (e.g. Row, ‘* Ch. Evidences,” Bampton
Lectures, 1877, p. 211, ete.), taking for granted as a fact that the Church is the cove-
nanted and predicted Kingdom, present it as evidence why the Scriptures should be
received as a Divine Revelation, viz. : through the fulfilment of prophecy exhibited in
a matter of fact. Alas! the fact does not exist ; it is wholly imaginary, as the least
comparison between covenant and the Church abundantly proves. Such statements are
misleading and injurious to the truth. A strong and reliable argument can be built
upon the existence and mission of the Church, without introducing material that
weakens the whole structure. A simple statement of the design of the Church and this
dispensation has far more weight with infidelity than all the high-flown and exaggerated
eulogies so lavishly employed ; for the former is seen to be actually in progress and
realized, while the latter exists only in the imagination of the eulogizers, being opposed
both by Scriptures and history.
Prop. 105.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 689

Proposition 105. The Lord’s Prayer is indicative of the fact

that the Church is not the covenanted Messianic Kingdom.
Jesus, in teaching His disciples to pray for a future, coming
Kingdom, undoubtedly taught them to pray for the same Kingdom
covenanted, predicted, and which they preached. He certainly
desired them to pray understandingly, and, therefore, the views
entertained by them respecting the Kingdom remaining uncontra-
dicted to the end (Acts 1: 6), and which must have inspired the
use of the petition, are certainly correct (comp. Props. 37-45, and
54-68).
We call the student’s attention to the fact that we have already quoted numerous
able opponents, who frankly admit that down at least to the ascension the disciples of
Jesus fully entertained the idea of the Kingdom expressed by us. A multitude more
might be thus quoted, as evidenced by their enforced and fatal concessions when
commenting e.g. on Acts1:6. We refer to this in order to say: Is it reasonable to
suppose that Jesus would give His disciples a prayer in behalf of the Kingdom, knowing
as He must what construction they would place upon it, unless, if mistaken in their
apprehension of it, He would also enlighten them as to its meaning, so that they could
offer it up intelligently and with a proper hope? The fact that we do know with what
sentiments these preachers of the same Kingdom prayed this prayer—specially in-
structed, too, as we are told, in private—goes far to sustain our position. If candid,
those who oppose us will find this prayer, as understood and used by the disciples, a
blow to their excessive spiritualizing of the promises.

Obs. 1. The petition ‘‘ Thy Kingdom come”’ (Matt 6 : 10, Luke 11 : 2)

cannot appropriately be prayed by one who is already in the Kingdom, for
the sentiment expressed looks to futurity. The disciples to whom it was
given, and evidently used it, had no idea whatever of the modern notions
engrafted on the prayer. They prayed it looking, as we have in detail
proven (as many of our opponents frankly admit), for a Kingdom to come
visibly in the future, and this Kingdom was the Theocratic-Davidic re-
stored under the Messiah. We may well ask, How could the Divine Master
give them a prayer with such a clause in, which, as all the facts show, they
—1if the modern view is correct—grossly misunderstood, without some ex-
planation? Our line of argument conclusively proves that such an expla-
nation was unnecessary (and hence was not given) because they had the true
adea of the Kingdom, when they prayed for the Theocratic Kingdom to
come. Jesus, knowing the view of the Kingdom held, by giving this
petition in its present form, indorses the disciples’ opinion as a correct
one. The integrity of the Divine Teacher, and His express assurance that
He gave them the mysteries of the Kingdom (Prop. 11), forbid any other
position.
There is an exquisite delicacy (which man could not have conceived) in the prayer,‘ Thy
(i.e. the Father’s) Kingdom come.’’ The delicacy and propriety arises from Christ’s
position in the performance of an allotted mission, and in thus avoiding the word ‘“‘ My’”’
690 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 105.

(which, as He and the Father are one, He might truthfully have employed), and in
expressing the Theocratic relationship that the Kingdom sustains to the Father, and
implying that the Kingdom is given (Prop. 83) by the Father, because of the obedience
of Jesus (Prop. 84). Again, foreknowing His ultimate rejection by the nation and the
consequent postponement of the Kingdom, the petition is purposely couched in language
indefinite as tu the time when it should come. Again, the clause annexed to this
petition, ‘‘ Thy will be done on earth,’’ ete., is indicative of the result of this Kingdom
coming, as stated by the prophets. But we add: The simple fact is evident that God’s
willis not verified in the Church, as her checkered history attests, and so Jong as she
remains in her mixed condition, cannot be. The ‘‘ will” of God respecting the earth
is easily read if we but direct the eye of faith either to the past or to the future, as given
in the Word ; in the past it is retlected before the fall, and in the future, it shines forth
in the renewed earth. It is, therefore, readily perceived, and any view that fails to
grasp these two marks of the ‘‘ will” falls immeasurably below the reality. To make
it manifested now is to cover it over with the weakness, frailties, passions, etc., of poor
humanity, and is to ignore the plainest statements in the predictions (e.g. 2 Thess. 2)
relating to the Church.

Obs. 2. The petition ‘‘ Thy Kingdom come,’’ is a prayer that one distinc-
tive Kingdom should come, not two or more; not that one should be
within the other, not that one should be a prelude to the other. The dis-
ciples only recognized in the petition one Kingdom; the early Church
adopted the same belief, and we see no reason for a change of faith, seeing
that the covenanted and predicted Messianic Kingdom, as expressed in the
plain grammatical sense, is the one evidently denoted.
It is a matter of surprise that able and eminent men pervert this prayer by making
out a variety of Kingdoms prayed for, as e.g. one writer (Bernard) has three Kingdoms
petitioned for, viz. : ‘*‘ The Kingdom of Providence, the Kingdom of Grace, the Kingdom
of Glory.”” (Comp. Prop. 3, and observe that all the meanings there noticed are, more
or less, incorporated with this prayer.) Others have a visible and an invisible, a
present and a future Kingdom in it. Some make it “ piety,”’ or ‘‘ religion,” or ‘‘ God’s
reign in the heart,’’ or ‘‘ the spread of Christianity,’’ or “the victorious development of
the Christian Church,” or ‘‘ grace,” or ‘‘ power,’’ or ‘‘ the gospel,’’ ete. Even Pre-
Millenarians, forgetful of the logical covenanted meaning that the phrase undoubtedly
possesses, while carefully insisting that it necessarily includes the still future Kingdom
here on earth after the Sec. Advent, tell us (as e.g. Alford) that it embraces “‘ the fulness
of the accomplishment of the Kingdom of God so often spoken of in prophetic Scriptures,
and by implication all that progess of events which lead to that accomplishment,’’ and
so another (Lange) says it means, “‘ the Kingdom of heaven in its spiritual reality,
including both time and eternity.’’ Hampered by a Church-Kingdom theory, the inter-
pretation and application must be such that the prayer includes a petition for the
Church, bringing out a prayer for Lange’s ‘‘ threefold Kingdom of grace, of power, and
of glory.’’ The absurdity of many of these interpretations appears if we but substitute
them in the petition for the word “ Kingdom,” especially when contemplating the
disciples as uttering them with their Jewish views. Meyer (Com. loci) is logically and
scripturally correct when he asserts that the ‘‘ Kingdom”’ simply denotes ‘‘ the Messianic
Kingdom.” Dr. Schaff (Lange’s Com. loci, Amer. ed.) objects to Meyer’s rejecting all
ecclesiastical and spiritual meanings attached to the petition, saying that he “ forgets
that the one for which he contends exclusively, the Messianic Kingdom, does in fact
include or imply them all.’’: But this reply to Meyer is suggested by the idea that the
Church in some way must be included or implied, which view was certainly not enter-
tained by the disciples and the early Church. Meyer’s position is the correct one,
historically and scripturally, and this opinion is steadily gaining ground with students.
Nast (Com. loci) says that the view that this Kingdom ‘is not to be applied to the
Church of God before the second visible Coming of Christ,’’ ‘‘ is held by many Evan-
gelical divines of Germany at the present time, and has gained of late also the assent of
some of the most learned theologians of England and America.’’ (He adds: “ Yet the
Pre-Mill. theory has not yet been fully met, and is certainly entitled to far more atten-
tion and examination than it generally receives.”) Yet Dr. Schaff is correct in go far,
that when we pray for the Kingdom to come; the petition includes the preparative work of
the Church that it may be hastened, but this preparatory stage is not the Kingdom itself,
Prop. 105.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 691

Obs.3. Attention is directed to the fact that critics (like Lightfoot,

Schoetgen, Gregory, etc.), indorsed by various commentators, assert that
Jesus collected this prayer out of Jewish Eschatologies, and prove the as-
sertion by giving every sentiment expressed in full as drawn from them.
af this be allowed, and Jesus did this purposely, it is only another proof of
the correctness of our interpretation and application, seeing that Jesus
thus, in the highest possible manner, indorses the Jewish views (comp.
Props. 40, 44, 47, 20, 21, etc.) of the Kingdom by taking their own ex-
pressions, and framing them into a petition to heaven. Every Jew who
employed it would, of course, use it in the sense indicated, and itis a
mere begging of the question to declare that Jesus placed one sense on it
and the Jews quite another; for if this were true, which it is not, it
would invalidate the integrity of the Teacher, making Him to conceal the
truth and leave His hearers under a wrong impression and in error.
We refer, as illustrative of the Observation, to what Barnes, Com. Matt., p. 83, foot-
note, says of the usage or language of the Jews, and which ‘‘ were doubtless familiar in
the time of Christ.” Thus, he says, that the Rabbins declared, ‘‘ That prayer in which
there is no mention made of the Kingdom of heaven is not a prayer.”’

Obs. 4. 'The quite early Church entertained our view of this petition, as
is apparent from the Eschatology affirmed by them, seeing that they looked
for the speedy Advent, etc. The modern engrafted views were foreign to
their simple faith. The extracts that we have already given from them, ex-
hibiting their belief in the covenanted Kingdom, forbids any other
view, and so imbedded was this in the Church that even Augustine (Cum-
ming, Lects. on Romanism, p. 207) could not transmute this Kingdom into
‘the Kingdom of Grace’’ (as was done by Ambrose and others), but held
that it meant ‘‘ the Kingdom of glory.”’
Tertullian (De Oratione) makes this prayer to be one for the coming of the Kingdom
at the Advent still future, and thus urges this petition to be used : ‘‘ Wherefore, if the
appearing of God’s Kingdom belongs to the will of God and to our earnest expectation,
how can some pray for a lengthening out of the age, when the Kingdom of God, for
which we pray that it may come, tends to the consummation of the age? We wish to
reign earlier, and not to serve longer, Even if it were not prescribed in the prayer, about
praying for the coming of the Kingdom, we should, of our-own accord, offer that peti-
tion, hastening to the fruition of ourhope. . . . Yes, Lord, let Thy Kingdom come
with the utmost speed! 'The wish of Christians, the confusion of the heathen, the joy of
angals, for which we struggle ;yea, more, for which we pray.’’ Cyprian and others
refer the petition to the Kingdom still future, Cyprian e.g. saying : “ That we who first
are His subjects in the world may hereafter reign with Christ, when He reigns.’’ The
early Church linking, as Paul does, ‘‘ the appearing and Kingdom” together, virtually
made this petition a prayer for the Sec. Advent of Jesus, and the petition of Rev.
22 : 20 one including the Kingdom. In unity with this early view of the petition the
student will find many utterances since the Reformation, e.g. Luther's (Meurer’s ‘‘ Life
of,” p. 33), Bish. Latimer (Investigator, vol. 1, p. 170), Archb, Cranmer (Brooks's Essays,
p. 12), Bish. Newton (Diss. on Proph., p. 587), Baxter ( Worlcs, vol. 2, p. 555), Increase
Mather (Discourse on Faith), Spaulding (Lectures, p. 123), and hundreds of others for
every Pre-Millenarian writer strenously holds that, if it does embrace more in its
meaning, its main, great reference is to this Kingdom on earth after the Sec. Advent.”’

Obs. 5. The petition ‘‘ Thy Kingdom come’’ assumes, by its allusion to

futurity, that the Kingdom did not then exist. This forms corroborative
proof of the position taken by us in previous Propositions, over against the
utterances that it was present when Christ gave the prayer.
692 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 105.

We have already presented numerous testimonies respecting the assertion that the
Kingdom was already actually in existence. Others, as illustrative, may be added.
Prof. Lummis (The Kingdom and the Church) quotes Dr. Warren, Pres. of Boston Uni-
versity, as saying : “ The Christian Church is the Kingdom of God on earth viewed in
its objective or institutional form. God’s Kingdom among men is as old as human
history.’’ Beecher (Christian Union, Dec. 29th, 1875) defines the Kingdom to be “‘ a state
of mind,”’ or “ a Kingdom of character, and not a Kingdom of place or of organization,”’
or “ the development of human nature into spiritual manhood,”’ and being thus allied
to piety or religious growth, it is something that has always existed. Hence, when we
pray ‘“‘ Thy Kingdom come,” we only pray for spiritual things, spiritual growth, etc. If
Jesus really intended such a meaning to be foisted on the idea of the Kingdom, He cer-
tainly used the most extraordinary language by which to convey it, owing to the pre-
cise, definite meaning attributed to it by the Jews and disciples.

Obs. 6. The expression ‘“‘ Thy Kingdom come’’ expresses faith in the
realization of the covenant, and the predictions based upon it. What
Kingdom is the proper subject of prayer, if not the Theocratic-Davidic?
Faith, in its usage, is manifested that God’s oath to David will be re-
spected, that it is His determinate purpose to have it restored, and that
God will institute the means and arrangements for its recovery. The
Theocracy is, as we have proven, God’s own Kingdom ; He being the Ruler
in it, gives force to the ‘‘ Thy.”’
John Ruskin, in The Lord's Prayer and The Church (Contemp. Review, repub. in The
Library Mag., Jan., 1880), observes : ‘‘I believe very few, even of the most earnest,
using that petition (viz. : Thy Kingdom come), realize that it is the Father’s—not the Son’ s—
Kingdom, that they pray may come, although the whole prayer is fundamental on that
tact : ‘ For Thine is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory.’ And I fancy that the mind
of the most faithful Christians is quite led astray from its proper hope, by dwelling on
the reign—or the Coming again—of Christ ; which, indeed, they are to look for and watch
for, but not to pray for. Their prayer is to be for the greater Kingdom to which He,
risen and having all His enemies under His feet, is to surrender His, ‘ that God may be
Allin All.’” Here are quite a number of mistakes, resulting from a total misapprehen-
sion of the covenanted Kingdom. 1. The Divine Sovereignty is not the Kingdom,
Props. 79 and 80. 2. The Kingdom is both the Father’s and the Son’s; being The-
ocratic, Jesus is the representative of God, e.g. Prop. 200. 3. Admitting the doxology
(comp. Lange’s Com. loci, New Version of New Test, Variorum of New. Test.), the
“Thine” refers to this Kingdom being given to David’s Son (Prop. 81), and that the
fulness of the Godhead sustains it. 4. The oneness of the Father and Son cannot be
thus ignored. 5. The perpetuity of Messiah’s Kingdom is thus flatly denied (comp.
Prop. 159). 6. The ignoring and denial of prayer for the coming and reign of Jesus, in
the light, e.g. of Rev. 22 : 20, Tit. 2 : 13, 1 Pet. 4: 7, etc., is surprising.

Obs. 7. ‘‘ Thy Kingdom come’’ embraces the idea of a conspicuous, visi-

ble, external coming, so that every one would e cognizant of its coming.
The adoption of the Jewish language itself, which included this, is evi-
dence sufficient to inculcate it. But aside from the reasons already as-
signed, and others that will appear under appropriate headings, it amply
subserves our present purpose to say, that the Jewish view (which is emi-
nently Scriptural), that an extraordinary exhibition of the Supernatural
would be manifested (as e.g. in the resurrection of the righteous) with the
re-establishment of the Kingdom, alone enforces this idea.
The establishment of the Church did not introduce the supernatural results ¢on-
fidently anticipated in the resurrection of the saints, the removal of evil, etc., but,
while preparatory in its nature and imparting inestimable blessings, it left the righteous
still under the curse, oppressed, burdened, chastened, etc. The visible consequences, as
delineated by the prophets to be the immediate issue of the restored Theocracy, were all
lacking. Hence no coming of a Kingdom was witnessed as covenanted and predicted,
Prop. 105.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 693
for instead of a visible organized Theocracy, uniting Church and state, all-powerful and
all-conquering, the Church exhibited an organization persecuted by the state, sustained
by the blood of martyrdom, struggling and fighting to maintain an existence against
encroachments from within and without. If we are to follow the teaching of the Word,
we must conclude that the Jewish view, held by the disciples, is the correct one, viz. :
that so marked are the distinguishing characteristics of the reintroduction of this
coming Kingdom under the Messiah that no one can possibly mistake its time of com-
mencement, Now, over against this, observe, as we have largely quoted, the conflicting
views of our opponents, who select various beginnings, several of them united, etc. We
give another illustration : ‘‘ An Inquirer,” in the Ch. Union, Jan. 16th, 1878, makes the
Christian Church to be organized at the time of the Translation. The Editor (evi-
dently recalling how eminent men fixed the same at the birth of Jesus, His baptism, the
confession of Peter, His public entry, His death, His resurrection, His ascension, the
day of Pentecost, and the destruction of Jerusalem), in reply, says : ‘‘ It seems to us to
be impossible to fix the date of its beginning as it is to fix the hour when the oak tree
first begins.”’

Obs. 8. Prophecy, if the Church is the Kingdom prayed for, should, by

way of encouragement, and in answer to faith, show that the prayer is
realized in its delineation of events. But the reverse of this is true, as
e.g. seen in Dan. 2 and 7% Auberien (The Proph. Daniel) remarked the
absence of any portraiture of the Church (and its sham imitation of a
Theocracy when Church and State were united under Constantine) when
God unfolds the history of the Fourth Monarchy, the Roman world-power
excepting only as it suffers under the persecution of earthly Kingdoms.
(The same absence is noticeable in the epitomes of Matt. 24, Mark 13,
Lhke 21, 2 Thess. 2.) Now if our opponents are correct with their
theory, it seems reasonable that when an Empire is leavened and trans-
formed into a nominal Christian power by the Church, such a change
ought to be recognized, if it is a legitimate answer to such a petition. On
the contrary, down to the end “‘ the beast’’ remains ‘‘ a beast.”
Auberlen, thoroughly Chiliastic as he is, and able in his prophetical studies, em-
barrassed by an existing, invisible Church-Kingdom, explains the omission by saying,
that as the prophet only describes ‘‘ the course of the world-powers, hence the King-
dom of God enters the horizon at that point where it begins to be a real and external
power of the world—that is, at the Second Advent of Christ.” This explanation, while
unsatisfactory to those who hold the visible Church to be a Kingdom, is equally so on
any hypothesis that it is a Kingdom, seeing that the distinctive characteristics belong-
ing to a Kingdom are only manifested at the coming of the Son of man, when the fourth
beast and his brood are to be destroyed. The existence of such a Kingdom must first
be proven, before its omission is thus accounted for in a prophecy. The omission
itself, as conceded, decidedly favors our view. We insist that (as Prop. 35) the prophets
and covenants describe only one Kingdom ; they know absolutely nothing of those
additional assigned by human reason, prejudice, and ambition.

Obs. 9. This petition must be, if Scripture is to give in its whole testi-
mony, viewed in the light of the postponement of the Kingdom (comp.
Props. 58, 66, 67, etc.). The simple fact that the Kingdom believed in by
the disciples, and for which they prayed when using this phrase (and for
which Jesus gave it to them), was postponed to the Second Advent, for-
bids our incorporating with or substituting for it any other Kingdom,
alleged to be visible or invisible. If we do this, we take an unwarranted
liberty with the same.
In addition to our reasons previously assigned in detail for the postponement of the
Kingdom, the attention of the advanced student is directed to an exceedingly interesting
Scripture, which, if we are to take the general analogy, teaches the postponement, and
shows us how to understand this petition. We refer to Dan. 9 : 26, to the clause “ shall
694 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [Prop. 105.
Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself.’’ It is admitted by able commentators that the
rendering ‘‘ but not for Himself ’’ was adopted (so Barnes, etc.) ‘‘ from the common view
of the atonement—that the Messiah did not die for Himself, but that His life was given
as a ransom for others.” Barnes, however, asserts that the marginal reading is the
correct rendering : ‘‘ And shall have nothing.’’ So Hengstenberg insists upon translat-
ing, ‘‘and is not to him,’’ ie. ‘‘ there was nothing to him,’’ that is, the authority,
dominion over the covenanted people would cease. Tregelles’ rendering is, ‘‘ and
there shall be nothing to Him,’’i.e. no Kingdom. He says (Un Dan., p. 102) that the
common application to Christ’s sacrifice must be rejected as “‘ placing a most true and
important doctrine upon an insufficient basis,” and adds: ‘‘ I believe that the words
simply imply ‘ and there shall be nothing for Him ;’ He will be rejected, and His earthly
Kingdom will be a thing on which He will not enter.” Now this position is amply
sustained by the facts in the history and the declarations of Jesus, viz. : that when thus
cut off, rejected and crucified, He did not establish a Kingdom, but it was postponed to
the Second Advent, when, according to promise, He will come again and erect it. This
reference to not having, as Messiah, a Kingdom by tbe expressive “‘ nothing’’ (comp.
Barnes, Lange, etc.), should certainly prevent us from attributing to Him, in this
direction, something of a Messianic Kingdom. The unity of the Word forbids it, for as
e.g. in the parable of the nobleman, the Kingdom is distant and the position of the
servants in this dispensation is assigned. Even the admissions of our opponents
strengthen our position, as e.g. Dr. Brown (Christ’s Sec. Coming, ch. 3), quoting Dr.
Urwick, and conceding that Luke 19 : 11-27, Matt. 25 :19, shows that the Kingdom to
be set up was to be long delayed.

Obs. 10. Eminent divines take this petition, and in dedication and mis-
sionary sermons, employ it to denote the present existing Church, and
vigorously and eloquently exhort their hearers or readers to help, by spe-
cial Jabor and efforts, to make the Kingdom come. That which is the
special work of the Lord Jesus (Prop. 129, etc.), under the Divine bestow-
ment of the Father (Prop. 83), men, by a perversion and misapprehension,
undertake to perform themselves (Prop. 175).
This widespread notion is found in thousands of published works and appeals. Simply
to illustrate : The official oath required of ministers in Prussia, established in 1815 and
renewed in 1835, was one in which they swear that they will ‘‘ extend in my congrega-
tion the Kingdom of God and of my Lord and Master Jesus Christ.”” They may have
succeeded, by God’s grace, in urging piety, spiritual growth, etc., upon some, but as to
a Kingdom, judging from the history of the Church in Prussia and the bitter struggles
since then, no trace of one can be found. Waldegrave (New Test. Millenarianism, Sec. 2)
assumes the Church to be the veritable Kingdom of Christ, and referring to the usual
passages adduced in its behalf (which we shall notice), declares very emphatically, that,
whatever this Kingdom is, our Lord taught that it was gradually and widely to extend
its bounds by the preaching of the gospel (but fails to give one passage which asserts this
idea, he transforming “‘ the gospel of the Kingdom” into the Kingdom itself), and then
triumphantly adds: ‘‘Is it possible that, after all, Christ did not intend His people to
recognize in that Kingdom, when it should be set up, the very Kingdom of the Messiah ?
Is it possible that, after all, that Kingdom was not to come for eighteen centuries, at
least ?’’ The only reply that need now be given is this: Can Waldegrave point out
the time when the Church first recognized herself to be the Messianic Kingdom? If so
easily recognizable, why do he, and others who believe with him, make so many different
Kingdoms, and differ so materially as to the beginnings? Why did the early Church
employ this petition in the Lord’s Prayer, without the least idea of the Messianic King-
dom having come, and why do they locate it at the Sec. Coming of Jesus? What are
we to do with the Scriptures that expressly teach a postponement? Such questions can
be multiplied, all of which he, however, completely ignores, complacently satisfied with
the merest inferences drawn from Christ’s present exaltation, the Divine Sovereignty, etc.
Such affirmations like these are abundantly supported by assertions, but direct Scriptural
proof is lacking in every one of them.

Obs. 11. ‘Thy Kingdom come’’ is the prayer of those who are
“‘hetrs,”’ for they have an interest in it. It is the prayer of those who are
Prop. 105.] THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. 695

called,’’ and the usage of this petition indicates an appreciation of their

“high calling.”’ It is a prayer designed to stimulate faith and hope, to
wean from the world, to qualify us for a future ‘‘ abundant entrance.’’
It is a prayer which honors the Father who bestows it, honors the Christ
who receives its glory, and honors the Holy Spirit, whose wonder-working
power will be exerted in its behalf. It is a prayer that fell from the lips
and heart of David’s Son, expressive of His own desire, and it has encour-
aged, consoled, and strengthened the hearts and lives of multitudes of be-
levers. ‘To appreciate it properly, we must study its distinctive meaning,
denoting as it does a well-defined (‘‘ Thy’’) Kingdom, which the Father
has promised most solemnly under oath, and which David’s Son receives
from the Ancient of Days at the allotted period—a Kingdom bringing
completed Redemption and the most precious blessings.
We only add: The Kingdom that we pray for is not one that shall fall terribly
oppressed under the Antichrist ; it is not one whose members shed their blood in
behalf of the truth, reaping the vengeance of earthly powers, but it is a Kingdom which
the Word, truthful and consistent, always represents as exalting its rulers in honor and
glory, and in extending peace and happiness to its subjects. To this divine portraiture
we cling ; for it we long and pray. In reference to the ardent praying and longing for
this Kingdom, compare e.g. Olshausen, Com. loci., Nast, Com. loci., Alford, etc. Nast
remarks : ‘* According to Olshausen the one leading idea is the ardent longing after the
Kingdom of God, which constitutes the burden of all the prayers of God’s children.’
But, it may be added, we should pray intelligently as the disciples—to whom the prayer
was given and who preached this Kingdom—prayed. Much prayer 1n this direction is
confused, and mingled with human opinions. In sadness, too, we must say that
multitudes, if they really apprehended that the coming of this Kingdom is inseparably
linked with the Sec. Advent, and that to pray for the one is really to pray for the other,
would feel no interest in the prayer—yea, would dread its use—although identified
with ‘‘the blessed hope” and perfected redemption. So long as they can apply it to
the Church, or to the third heaven, or to a very distant future, they can employ it, but
to give it the ancient Chiliastic interpretation and application, although amply sup-
ported by the analogy of the Word, is beyond their personal desires, for the speedy
coming of the Messiah, although it be ‘‘ unto salvation,” is unwelcome or visionary to
them.

Obs. ‘12. Pre-Millenarians are a unit in the application of this petition to

a future Messianic Kingdom at the Sec. Advent. Some, indeed, as we have
pointed out, being under the influence, more or less, of the prevailing views
respecting the Church-Kingdom theory, think that the Church is also em-
braced in the petition (which we deem illogical and inferential), but such
an application is expressly affirmed to be secondary or a lower sense. And
it must, moreover, be borne in mind that even then, not one of these con-
tends that the Church is, in any sense, the covenanted and predicted Mes-
sianic Kingdom. They unite in regarding it as simply preparatory to the
Kingdom of covenant and of Dan. 2, 7%, ete., which is to be manifested
at the Second Coming of Jesus. Therefore all Pre-Millenarians unite in
regarding the petition as embracing that still future Kingdom.
We thus again call attention to this uniformity of belief, as some of our opponents
have called it into question, as if we prayed, longed, and hoped for different Kingdoms
at different times. Thus e.g. Dr. Brown (Christ’s Sec. Coming, ch. 7) professes himself
to have gotten ‘* entangled and nearly despairing,” at the variance and confusion of Pre-
Millenarians respecting “ the period and the nature” of Christ’s Kingdom. Thisis hardly
complimentary to himself, seeing that they are easily classified: (1) Those who make
the Church simply preparatory, and have the Theocratic Kingdom restored at the See.
Advent. (2) Those who make the Church an initiatory Kingdom, but locate the proper
covenanted, outward Kingdom at the Sec. Advent. (3) Both of these locate the cove-
696 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 105.
nanted and predicted Messianic Kingdom at the Sec. Coming of Jesus—some correctly
extending it beyond the one thousand years, others limiting it to the Mill, period.
(4) As to details, a diversity exists, as is natural on such a subject (mainly arising from
interpreters being still influenced by some of Dr. Brown’s principles), but the points of
union are clear and distinctive: (a) the covenanted Kingdom is at the Sec. Advent ; (6)
this Kingdom is Theocratic in its nature ; (c) this Kingdom is visibly under the rulership
of Jesus and the saints (some making the visibility of the rulers constant, others occa-
sional) ; (d) the Church is only provisional ; (e) this Kingdom introduces the promised
blessings, restitution, etc. Dr. Brown increases the supposed diversity by quoting
persons who are strictly Pre-Millenarian, agreeing with us only in a few points. Now
one should suppose that Dr. Brown’s side must have perfect unanimity, seeing that he
employs such a course of reasoning against us, which, if it proves anything, oniy shows
that men, on important subjects, make mistakes. Instead of going to the numerous
meanings, beginnings, etc., given to the Kingdom by others of our opponents (with
whom Dr. Brown agrees), we will but briefly refer to Dr. Brown’s own statements re-
specting the Kingdom to exhibit the wonderful unity of doctrine that his system presents,
and this is the more satisfactory since it comes from the alleged champion against us,
and forms, from his own writings, a strong answer to his charge of variance and con-
fusion. On p. 106 of ‘‘ Christ’s Sec. Coming” he quotes the commission (Matt. 28 :
18-20) which is designed ‘‘to establish His (Christ’s) Kingdom upon earth ;” on p. 130
he maintains that Christ’s Kingdom was ‘‘ in being before His ascension,’ but, on p.
136, was ‘‘ formally recognized” and newly commenced at His ascension (for p. 138, etc.,
he asserts that Jesus is on David’s throne in the third heaven, and p. 136, this is ‘‘a
Kingdom of salvation or grace,” preached by the apostles, and denoted by ‘‘ Repent ye,
for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand”). In his Com. on Matt. 4:17, he informs us,
‘Our Lord sometimes speaks of the new Kingdom as already come—in His person and
ministry ;but the economy of it was only ‘ at hand,’ until the blood of the cross was
shed and the spirit on the day of Pentecost opened the fountain for sin and for un-
cleanness to the world at large.” Com. Matt. on the petition, ‘‘ Thy Kingdom come,’’
he remarks, that this Kingdom is ‘‘a moral and spiritual Kingdom, which the God of
grace is setting up in this fallen world, whose subjects consist of as many as have been
brought into hearty subjection to His gracious sceptre, and of which His Son Jesus is
the glorious Head. In its inward reality of it, this Kingdom has existed ever since there
were men who ‘ walked with God,’ ” etc. ‘‘When Messiah Himself appeared, it was, asa
visible Kingdom, ‘ at hand.’” ‘‘ Onthe day of Pentecost was a ‘ glorious coming’ of this
Kingdom,”’ i.e. of this visible. Com. Matt. 21 : 43, ‘‘ the Kingdom of God—God’s
visible Kingdom, or Church upon earth.’’ Com. Rom. 14: 17, the Kingdom of God is
‘ Religion.” This is a fair specimen of that system which he adopts as so clear and self-
evident, built, as the student can see, upon a total perversion of covenant language and
prediction. While guarding himself from many of the absurd meanings engrafted by
Barnes and others, on the Kingdom, a sufficiency remains to show that the plain gram-
matical sense of covenant and prophecy must be completely set aside before such a
belief can be entertained. Alas! how such men of ability lead the Church into blind-
ness and unbelief.
We turn from such an interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer to those given by
Pre-Millenarians with thankfulness, as evidence that the early faith is expressed in
hope. Bh. Newton (Diss. on Proph., p. 587) observes: ‘‘In the general, that there
shall be such a happy period as the Millennium ; that ‘the Kingdom and dominion, and
the greatness of the Kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people
of the saints of the Most High’ (Dan. 7: 27); that Christ shall have ‘the heathen for
His inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession (Ps. 2: 8);
that ‘the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the
sea’ (Isa, 11:9); ‘ that the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in, and all Israel shall be
saved’ (Rom. 11: 25 26); in a word, that the Kingdom of heaven shall be established
upon earth, is the plain and express doctrine of Daniel and all the prophets, as well as
of St. John ; and we daily pray for the accomplishment of it, in praying ‘Thy Kingdom
Come.’” Hon. Gerard T. Noel (Prospects of the Church of Christ, p. 10) says: ‘It may
confirm the view here given of the future (Pre-Millennial), to inquire into the nature of
that felicity which our Lord Himself has taught us in our prayers to expect. It would be
natural to suppose, that in the selection of blessings which He condescended to make
the subject of our prayers to God, the consummation of His own work of mercy would
find a marked place. The supposition is consistent with fact. He has concentrated a
prayer for the completion of His own work, in the two remarkable expressions : ‘ Th
Kingdom come,’ ‘thy will be done on earth as in heaven.’ Can-we refuse to admit that
Prop. 105.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 697
our Lord here bounds our view to this scene on earth? In heaven, that is, in the other
regions of the universe of God, His will is already done ;but here we are surrounded
with a scene of rebellion, anarchy, and sorrow. Does He then teach us to pray for a
translation from this unquiel land to another and distant orb? He puts no such request
within our lips ; He directs us to pray for the establishment of His Kingdom, and this
Kingdom appears to belong exclusively to this material earth. ‘Thy will be done in
earth, as in heaven.’ Is not the inference twofold : first, that the earth is the theatre of
His Kingdom; and secondly, that conformity to His will is the absolute enjoyment of
heaven? and that no loftier supplication can be associated with our thoughts than
that the hallowed sceptre should be replaced in human hands, even in the hands of the
mighty Antitype, ‘the second Adam, the Lord from heaven.’” Such testimonies could be
reproduced from many able and eminent Chiliasts, and eloquently expressed (as e.g. by
Bonar, Seiss, Bickersteth, Brooks, etc.). In addition to ‘this, we might readily bring
forth a mass of evidence to show that many writers of ability, cannot, and do not,
limit this petition to the church as now constituted, but refer it to the future, after the
Second Advent. Thus e.g. Baxter (Saint’s Everlasting Rest, p. 438), in the peroration of
his work, after expressing his most fervid desires for the speedy coming of Jesus and
the resurrection of believers bursts forth: ‘Return, O Lord, how long? O let Thy
Kingdom come.’ Thy desolate ‘bride saith, Come!’ for Thy Spirit within her saith,
Come ; and teacheth her thus to ‘pray with groanings, which cannot be uttered ; yea,
‘the whole creation saith, Come, waiting to be delivered from the bondage of corruption
into the glorious liberty of the children of God.’” We conclude with the utterance of
one of the Reformers. Archb. Cranmer wrote (so Burnet’s His. vol. 3, B. 4), the Cate-
chism drawn up by the English Prelates, and authorized by Edward VI. in 1553, and
the following question and answer will be of interest, as indicative of the views then
entertained, ‘‘Q. How is that petition, Thy Kingdom come, to be understood ?”’
“Ans. We ask that His Kingdom may come, for that as yet we see not all things subject
to Christ : we see not yet how the Stone is cut out of the mountain without human
help, which breaks into pieces and reduceth to nothing the image described by Daniel ;
or, how the only rock, which is Christ, doth possess and obtain the empire of the whole
world given Him of the Father. As yet Antichrist is not slain ; whence it is that we
desire and pray that at length it may come to pass and be fulfilled ; and that Christ
alone may reign with His saints, according to the divine promises ; and that He may
live and have dominion in the world, according to the decrees of the holy Gospel, and
not according to the traditions and laws of men, and the wills of the tyrants of the
world,”’
698 THE THEOCRATIO KINGDOM. [Prop. 106.

Proposition 106, Our doctrine of the Kingdom sustained by

the temptation of Christ.
The Church-Kingdom view endeavors to sustain itself by re-
ferring to the temptation of Jesus, informing us that He was
tempted by Satan ‘‘to adopt the worldly idea of Messiah’s King-
dom,’’ i.e. to receive just such a literal Kingdom as covenant and
prophecy describe, but which we are to discard, as it is alleged
Jesus did, as ‘‘ sinful,’”’ and substitute a ‘‘ spiritual Kingdom.”’
Obs. 1. This, however, is far from being sober, sound exegesis, being
wrongfully inferred. The Kingdom offered to Jesus, as our opponents ad-
mit when they explain Rev. 11 : 15 or Dan. 7 : 14, 27, etc., is, taking their
own explanations (as we have already seen), the very Kingdom and world-
dominion tendered by Satan. And in this consists the force of the tempta-
tion : the first temptation is based on the actual existence of hunger and
of real power lodged in the Christ ; the second on the protection promised
to servants of God and God’s ability to protect ; and so the third is also
based on facts, viz. : the promised Kingship of the Messiah on David’s
throne and Kingdom, and the consequent attainment of Supreme Rulership
over the world. Hach temptation depends upon the reality of the thing
proposed, and hence none of the things around which it entwines for sup-
port are to be removed, but only the manner of presentation and the design
intended by the tempter are to be controverted. (For temptation, see
Matt. 4: 1-11; Luke 4:1-13; Mark 1 : 12, 13.)

Obs. 2. Hence, it is inconsistent to withdraw that from the temptation,

which these same writers in their comments on Rev. 11 : 15 admit will
ultimately be realized, viz. : ‘‘a real world-dominion.’’ The far-fetched
and one-sided comments of some who find in the third temptation ‘‘ a nega-
tion of all the Chiliastic schemes of the synagogue”’ are refuted (1) by the
third temptation, having no point or force if it had not, like the others,
been based on the promises of God in that direction, and (2) by Jesus not
denying that this honor would indeed be His, but, as in other cases, em-
phatically objecting to the manner in which it was to be obtained.
Uhlman (The Sinlessness of Jesus) has well observed that Jesus was tempted both as
man and as the Messiah. Two of the temptations appeal to Jesus ‘‘ if He be the Son of
God,”’ but one significantly omits this phrase, thus tacitly assuming the covenanted Mes-
siahship to David’s Son—‘‘ the Son of man.’’ A friend, Rev. Rowe, suggests that as
there is a declaration of ‘‘ being forty days tempted of the devil,” we may have, in the
narrative, only the more salient or significant temptations selected and reproduced.

Obs. 3. So unguardedly do able men express themselves on this subject

that we find Neander (Life of Christ, ch. 2 8s. 27) declaring, ‘‘ He re-
garded the establishment of a worldly Kingdom as inseparable from the
 ean senior ye A ee
UPA V Hs NR RA ee

LAVERNE, CALIFORNI
» Prop. 106.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 699

worship of the devil ;”? and argues from this that Christ’s yielding to the
establishment of such a Kingdom would have been “ sinful.’’ It is ad-
mitted that the manner suggested by the devil would have been sinful, and
to this Christ properly objected, but Neander travels beyond the record and
confounds things that are different when he asserts that the possession of
‘all the Kingdoms of this world’ would have been in itself sinful. If
this is necessarily sinful, thew the promises which bespeak this very thing
are sinful ; ¢hen the Kingdom under the Theocracy uniting State and
Church, then the literal language of the prophecies which describe it, then
the visible outward world dominion embracing in its rule all earthly King-
doms, as Neander advocates in his Ch. His., etc.—all these too are sinful.
It is true, that under the Messiah’s reign such earthly Kingdoms would
undergo a change ¢o fit them for that delightful union of Theocratic union
of Church and State, but the very tender of the devil is such that nothing
is reserved of them, but given for any purpose or transformation that might,
suit the Saviour. ‘Therefore we firmly and consistently abide by the record
which teaches that Chuist rejected the worship of Satan by which the tender
was bound, and not that He refused because He would not have ‘‘ a world-
dominion’? here on the earth. Besides this, as we have seen, Prop. 83-9,
the Kingdom is given to the Son by the Father, and the acceptance of the
offer of Satan would have been a direct insult to the Father.
Out of a multitude of assertions that Satan presented the Jewish and cove-
nanted idea of the Messiahship, which tempted Jesus, and which He rejected owing to
its ‘‘falseness and carnality,” we give the following illustrations : Shenkel (Hurst’s Life
and Lit., p. 122) says: ‘‘ He was tempted to believe that the Messianic Kingdom was
merely to take the prophecies of the Old Test. in their literal signification. The Jews
were full of the Old Test. Messianic idea, and Christ was inwardly tempted to accord
with it. His whole triumph over these inward stirrings was His great preparatory
work for the accomplishment of His design.’’ Alas! what a Saviour this presents!
Woolsey (The Relig. of the Present and of the Future, p. 35, remarks of the temptation : ‘* It
was an endeavor to divert Jesus. from the aim of setting up a spiritual Kingdom, and to
induce Him to establish such an one as His countrymen were wishing for and expect-
ing.” (Why, then, e.g. leave the preachers of the Kingdom—if thus spiritual — in
igncrance down to His ascension, Acts 1:6?) Woolsey (p. 29, etc.) correctly lays stress
on the point that the temptation was specially intended ‘“‘ for Jesus in His official
station as the Messiah,” but he utterly misapprehends the meaning of Messiahship
when he says that it was designed to test Him ‘‘ whether He would remain true to the
spiritual idea of the Messiah.’’ The temptation is accounted for from Woolsey’s stand-
point, viz. : that the official title and office is wholly spiritual, a position which cannot
be proven from covenant, prophecy, or promise. Much is written on this point ir-
relevant, imaginary, and derogatory of covenant and prophecy.

Obs. 4. The temptation would have failed in cogency and adherence, if

such power had not, in some way, been the object or design of Christ’s
mission. It was derived from the covenant itself, and its allied predic-
tions, and promises of supreme authority and acknowledged Rulership
over the earth. It pertained fo the humanity of Christ, and not merely to
His divine nature: to the former was the rulership ecovenanted, the
former was tempted and tried, and the former came forth out of the
temptation pure and sinless, just such a King as the predicted Theo-
cratic Kingdom restored needs in order to secure the solidity, stabil-
ity, etc. connected with it. Even such writers as the author of Hcce
Homo, who endeavor to make the temptation of Jesus a mental oper-
ation, still insist that the Saviour must have had in view the Messianic
predictions which represented the Messiah enthroned in Jerusalem on
700 THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. [PRop. 106.

David’s throne, swaying the world in triumph and eye If the founda-
tion of the temptation be sought in the promises of the Word of God, then
we find it firmly laid. Satan did not mistake in the Messiah’s power of
making bread, of His being under the special providence of the Almighty,
and thus he made no blunder concerning the authority to be vested in Him.
Satan’s mistake was in not fully apprehending that this Kingdom, owing
to the unrepentant state of Jews and for gracious purposes of mercy, was
to be postponed for a definite period, and that when the time arrived it was
to be given to David’s Son by God Himself, and cozwld not, in the nature of
the case, be obtained by an act of worship to himself. The temptation
does not vitiate the power of creating, the Divine oversight and protection
of God, and the final subjection of ‘‘ all the Kingdoms of the world ”’ to
Christ.
As this temptation is unjustly urged against us, men forgetting that Jesus, while
rejecting the manner of Satan’s proposals, did not deny either the miraculous power, the
tender of Divine protection, or the ultimate world-dominion belonging to Himself—it
may be well to add a few words. Kurtz (Sac. His., s. 130) remarks: “ ‘The three forms
ot his temptation were governed by one design—to induce Him to adopt the carnal
Messianic expectations of the Jews ; these converted the Kingdom of God into a King-
dom of the world.” Neander (Life of Christ, ch. 1, 8. 45), on the third temptation, says :
*‘ We consider it as involving the two following points, which must be taken together,
viz. : (1) the establishment of Messiah's dominion as an outward Kingdom, with worldly
splendors ; and (2) the worship of Satan in connection with it, which, though not fully
expressed, is implied in the act which he demands, and which Christ treats as equivalent
to worshipping him.”” Such interpretations abound, all admitting that a visible King-
dom with the Messiah as King was embraced in it, but all, with few exceptions, declare
that the temptation was based on a mistaken notion. They—overlooking their own
concessions of a future visible Kingdom—gravely tell us that the Jews were mistaken
in their interpretation of the covenant and prophets, and that Satan also likewise
misapprehended the Scriptures, for no such outward Kingdom was designed for the
Messiah. But this is a wrong inference, founded on the supposition that Satan pro-
posed something which could not be realized, and which did not appertain to the
Messiah, In the first temptation Jesus does not deny that He is hungry and able to make
bread ; in the second, He does not deny that He is the Son of God, and under special
protection ; and in the third, He does not deny the Kingdom or dominion which is to be
given to Him, but only rejects the mode by which it is to be obtained. As observed, if
such a Kingdom is not covenanted, predicted, and intended, the temptation would not
have any force. Therefore, it is mere assumption to say, that the temptation is intended
to teach that the Kingdom of Christ would not be visibly established here on the earth,
and that the invisible Church is to be substituted for such a Kingdom. The exact
reverse is the truth. Satan’s temptation embraced a condition that was derogatory to
God’s honor ; it embraced a right in bestowal which only belongs to God ; and it over-
looked the time and manner when the predicted Theocracy should be restored.

Obs. 5. In this connection, the conjecture of Hcece Homo is very deroga-

tory to the character of Jesus. The supposition that Christ was tempted
to employ force in the establishment of the Kingdom, and that this is the
key to the whole matter, is wtterly unfounded, and, notwithstanding the
faint praise and professed laudation of Christ, stabs vitally. Is it true that
the Messiah was so influenced by the prophecies that He was Himself
tempted to grasp the Kingdom by violence, but milder thoughts prevailed ;
what, then, becomes of the character attributed to Him, and which He justly
claimed? The theory is wnworthy of Christ, and borders on the blas-
phemous ; it destroys the clear conception of His mission and removes His
oneness with the Father. The theory is broached under the idea that, mis-
taken in one Kingdom, an outward dominion, as the prophets predict,
another, inner and spiritual, is substituted. Proposition after Proposition,
 eae 01 eee ee ee ee

LAVERNE, CALIFORNIA
Prop. 106.] THE THEOCRATIC KINGDOM. 701
in reference to preaching, covenant, postponement of Kingdom, etc., re-
futes such a notion so unworthy of Jesus.
The conjectures, that it is mythical, added afterward to exalt the character of Jesus :
that He was tempted perhaps by one of the Sanhedrim to entrap him; that it was
merely suggested to Him, or a dream, are not worthy of a reply, because we see ample
reason for this temptation as a test or trial of One who was to occupy the covenanted
Davidic Sonship and the Second Adamic position. It vindicated His complete fitness for
the Theocratic glory—being One who was in perfect union with the Father,

Obs. 6. The reality of the world’s possession by Satan is claimed by

him : “ All this power will I give Thee, and the glory of them ; for that
is delivered unto me: and to whomsoever I will, I give it’? (Luke 4 : 6).
This reality is abundantly sustained by the titles given to him, ‘‘ the
Prince of this world,’’ ‘‘ the god of this age.’’ He endeavors to assume
the lordship and dominion forfeited by Adam, and how he succeeds is viv-
idly portrayed in the Apocalypse, etc., especially exhibited just before the
open revelation of Jesus, in the person and confederation of the Antichrist.
Therefore it is that Revelation represents Satan as bound, so that the
Sovereignty of this world is securely in the hands of the once tempted
Jesus.
Jesus, to whom “‘all power is given,’’ now leaves Satan, ‘‘ Prince of this world,’’ but
will, as promised, eventually ‘‘ take to Himself His great power and reign.” The reason
for this delay is involved in the merciful provision made to gather out a people who,
like the Master, shall be made perfect under temptation and trial. We refer to this
under several Propositions.

Obs. %. Ebrard on the temptation of Jesus ee His., p. 207) re-

marks: ‘‘ But when Satan offers the whole world to Jesus, he reminds
Him of the power which he exercises over this world of sinners. The prom-
ise which he makes, if He will but worship him, involves, therefore, the
tacit threat, that he will let loose the whole terrible force of sin to resist
His progress, if this proskunesis is refused. This threat on the one hand,
and on the other the possibility of ruling over the whole of this glorious
earth in carnal security and ease, were calculated to render the choice so
difficult, that only one in whom the fulness of absolute holiness put forth
fresh energy from moment to moment, could have been in a condition to
resist the temptation.’’ Howsoon, terribly, and extendedly the powers of
sin were let loose, history, in the person of Jesus and the progress of the
Church, painfully attests. But this threat, tacitly implied, culminates in
the final great struggle, when all the forces of Satan are marshalled
against Jesus and His army, to prevent Him, if possible, from securing
this world-wide dominion (comp. Props. 161, 162, 163).
Krummacher, in a sermon (quoted by Nast, Com. Matt. 4 : 1-11), remarks that Satan
“makes with his offer the covert insinuation that, by virtue of his dominion in heathen-
dom, he has the power to turn the whole world against Jesus if He rejects the pro-
posal.” Many writers declare that this was a falsehood of Satan’s—an assumption of
power beyond his ability. Fully admitting and joyfully receiving the fact that Jesus
eventually, because of His resistance of temptation and obedience, becomes the victor,
yet Satan is truthful also in this claim of power as frequently partially manifested in the
past, and ultimately completely exhibited in the culminated Antichrist with the kings
of the earth and their armies, prostrating the Church in dire persecution, and arraying
themselves against Jesus (comp. Props, enumerated, and likewise 164, 165, 115).
 ¢

.* aintney tehewes | aes ieee

ae 5 ae rar: ee
se mel
pee
% ns
a
es="
gos ;
il gies |
te eprant's es ane |

Rhee. ae 2a eee
ak Ss ‘ieee
Shee
1" Hee vir ve

ge ANY
obi,

id te. ee
rey
s AS. ee it~ yates oP
 112827

Peters
theocratic ... Vel

THEOLOGY LIBRARY
SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY AT CLAREMONT
CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA

(bay PRINTED IN '.S.A,