A 12 - Jesus a King
CHAPTER 12. JESUS A KING
IT is evident from the Old Testament Scriptures, that the Messiah was to be a sovereign. “The scepter,” says Jacob, “shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet until Shiloh come: and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” Genesis 49:10. In the second Psalm, Jehovah is represented as saying of the Messiah, “Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion.” Verse 6. Jeremiah also employs the following language: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely; and this is the name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness.”
These are but a few of the many passages which predict the royalty of the great Deliverer. Indeed, the Jews themselves have never doubted but that their Messiah was to be a Prince. It was, too, chiefly for the unprincely appearance of Jesus, that they were led to reject and crucify him.
If, then, it be affirmed that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah, his pretensions to royalty must be defended. It is not enough that he be a great teacher; it is not enough that he possess the most worthy character; it is not enough that he have power to work miracles; or that he be lineally descended from David; that he appear at the right epoch, and be born in the predicted place. It must also be demonstrated that Jesus of Nazareth is a King.
It is evident that if we understand the word “king,” in its ordinary acceptation, the past history of Jesus cannot maintain his claims to that office. His appearance was more that of a beggar than of a king, and his end was more that of a criminal, than of one possessed of supreme authority.
Yet, Jesus of Nazareth was a King.
He was so recognized by many during his earthly life. Say the wise men from the east, “Where is he that is born King of the Jews?” Matthew 2:2.
Says Zacharias, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath raised up an horn (that is, king) of salvation for us in the house of David.” Luke 1:69.
Nathanael also said to him, “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.” John 1:49. The multitude, too, who attended Jesus to Jerusalem, just before his crucifixion, sang as he entered the city, “Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord, peace in heaven and glory in the highest.” Luke 19:38. The thief on the cross speaks of his kingdom; and when Jesus himself was interrogated by the Roman governor. “Art thou a king then;” his reply was, “Thou sayest, that I am a king.” John 18:37. The superscription, too, written on his very cross was, “Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews.” John 19:19. From the manger, then, to his cross, Jesus of Nazareth was considered by many as a King. They respected him as such; they sang his praises as such. This truth, too, was his dying confession; and was even written over his head when suffering the agonies of crucifixion. The kingly character of Jesus may also be defended upon another principle, often asserted and invariably recognized in the New Testament. This principle is, that in Jesus of Nazareth there was the actual indwell-ing of the great Theocrat of the previous dispensation. This truth is taught in such passages as the following: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” John 1:1-51. “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” 1 Timothy 3:16. “God, who, at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds, who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Hebrews 1:1-14. The sublime vision, too, which Isaiah had of the glory of Jehovah, is in the New Testament ascribed to Jesus. “These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory and spake of him.” John 12:41.
Now, if it be admitted, that in Jesus of Nazareth there was an indwelling Divinity — yea, that the very same illustrious Being, who appeared to Abraham, who spake to Moses, who delivered the law from Sinai, who dwelt in the Shechinah, was actually manifested in the person of Jesus; if, we say this be admitted, then is the royalty of Jesus established beyond all doubt. For if the Jehovah of the Old Testament was in reality the King of Israel, the Jehovah of the New, must also be in like manner Israel’s King. The difference in the form under which he appeared at these two different periods, cannot change either his character or his rights, Hence the complaint alleged by John against the Jews for not receiving Jesus — “He came unto his own, but his own received him not.” John 1:11. The New Testament, however, expressly declares that Jesus is not only a King, but the greatest of all Kings. He is said to be — “Head over all things.” (Ephesians 1:22) “Lord of all; (Acts 10:36) “the Head of the corner;”(Acts 4:11) “both Lord and Christ;”(Acts 2:36) a prince and a Savior;” (Acts 5:31) “King of kings and Lord of Lords.” (Revelation 19:16) The kingly character and office of Jesus, however, not only differ from those of all earthly monarchs, but far excel them. His character as sovereign is far superior. Most earthly kings have been not only of inferior, but even of base character. Many of them have been ambitious, many tyrannical, many weak, and many addicted to the foulest vices. On the contrary, the royalty of Jesus is tarnished by no misdeed, but adorned with every virtue. He is possessed of infinite wisdom, absolute purity, unerring justice, and boundless benevolence and sympathy towards his subjects. What renders his kingly character, too, infinitely attractive, is, that it is blended with that of Savior. He has redeemed with his own blood the subjects he rules, and with a mighty arm is leading them from under the bondage of the great oppressor, to a place of absolute security and peace. His right to rule is also differently established from that of mere earthly sovereigns. Many earthly kings are usurpers; or are the exponents of faction; or at most, hold their thrones by established usage or the popular will. Not so with Jesus. He is the anointed of God. Jehovah has placed him upon his holy hill; has “constituted him the heir of all things;” and “given him a name that is above every name.” The throne, too, which Jesus occupies is far more glorious, than that of the kings of the earth. He is seated “on the right hand of the Majesty on high;” “he has sat down with his Father in his throne.” Earthly monarchs dwell in earthly palaces, they occupy thrones of ivory, of cedar, or of some costly materials. Jesus, however, has passed into heaven itself, and occupies the throne of the Eternal. The extent, too, of his dominion is far greater than theirs. They rule earthly kingdoms, composed sometimes of one country, and sometimes of several countries put together. The greatest of them have not ruled even one entire continent. On the contrary, the dominion of Jesus is literally over “all things.” “God,” says an Apostle, “has set Jesus at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, and hath put all things under his feet.”
Ephesians 1:1-23. The kingdom of Jesus, too, is far more permanent than that of earthly kings. Earthly kings are mortal, and even though they build great pyramids, as the receptacles of their royal persons after death, still those very pyramids but proclaim with a louder tongue the truth of their unabiding mortality. The pyramid remains, the rock of which it is composed withstands the ravages of time, but the body of the king, where is it? The traveller looks, and finds where once it was; but where it is, he cannot augur.
How different is the reign of Jesus! “Christ,” says an Apostle,” being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.” Romans 6:9.
He is emphatically, “The King Immortal.” Earthly thrones may crumble, earthly kings may die, human generations may waste away; yea, the solid earth, and the firm heavens may depart; still, however, will it be true of Jesus, that “his throne is for ever and ever.” Hebrews 1:8. But we must speak more particularly of the nature of the kingdom of Jesus. This kingdom is a spiritual one. This feature of it is very much insisted on both by Jesus and his Apostles. “My kingdom,” said Jesus to Pilate,” is not of this world.” John 18:36. Again, he affirms, “The kingdom of God is within you.” Luke 17:21. The Apostle Paul also asserts, that, “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.” Romans 14:17. The Apostle Peter, too, calls Jesus a “living stone,” and represents all believers as “lively stones, built up into a spiritual house, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God.” 1 Peter 2:8. By the spirituality, however, of the kingdom of Jesus, is not meant a sort of mystical kingdom, which consists principally in contemplation, which sets aside the ordinary duties of life, and which seeks a sort of mysterious absorption into the divine nature. The doctrines of Jesus are eminently practical, and they are designed to penetrate and control every part of human life. They regulate business, they direct friendship, they diffuse themselves through society, pervading all its springs, and doings, and history. Nor is the spirituality of the kingdom of Jesus inconsistent with the external organization of his church. “God,” says an Apostle, “is not the allthor of confusion, but of peace.” When we look into the kingdom of nature, we see universal arrangement. Place, office, destiny, is assigned to every thing. When we contemplate the polity set up under Moses, there is an exact system almost universally observed. So, in the Christian church; its spiritual character does not exclude its visible organization. By the spirituality of the kingdom of Jesus, we mean that it is created by a spiritual agency, that it consists of spiritual subjects, that it is governed by spiritual laws, and that it awaits a spiritual destiny. This kingdom is created by a spiritual agency. “Verily, verily,” says Jesus, “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5.
John also describes the subjects of this kingdom as “born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will’ of man, but of God.” John 1:13. And the Apostle Paul says of all true saints, that they are God’s “workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” Ephesians 2:10.
Men then are, or are not, the subjects of the kingdom of Jesus, as they are, or are not created anew by the power of the Holy Ghost upon their hearts.
Neither birth nor baptism, priest nor church, self-exertion nor dependence upon others, can produce the spiritual character. It comes of God, if it comes at all; it is heaven-sent, if ever enjoyed on earth. The subjects of the kingdom of Jesus are also spiritual. Like begets like. And as all the subjects of the kingdom of Jesus are begotten anew by the Holy Ghost, so do they resemble in their character the Author of their regeneration. One point of such resemblance is vitality. Previously to this Divine operation, the subject of it was “dead in trespasses and sins.”
Upon its occurrence he becomes “quickened,” he is made to possess spiritual life. Other points of similarity refer to traits of moral character. “The fruit of the Spirit,” says the Apostle Paul, “is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.” Galatians 5:22; Galatians 5:23. Thus does the subject of “the renewing of the Holy Ghost” receive upon his own nature, in the very act of his renewal, the impress and moral image of the Spirit by which he is quickened. Hence such are said to “live in the Spirit,” to “walk in the Spirit,” and “to be spiritual.” The kingdom of Jesus is also governed by spiritual laws. Natural laws refer to physical bodies, civil laws to men in their relations to human governments. Spiritual laws are those which regulate the heart and conduct of men toward God. Owing to the natural depravity of men, such laws have but little influence over them, previously to their renovation by Divine power. But after that power has been exerted, the spiritual subject is then prepared to be put under this spiritual administration. The laws of God then have force and influence with him, and nothing delights him more than to obey them. This is what is meant by the Apostle, where he says, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free (or delivered me) from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Romans 8:1-39.
There is also an allusion to this spiritual subjection to the Divine law in the following passage, “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.” Hebrews 8:10. The kingdom of Jesus also awaits a spiritual destiny. “But we are come,” says the Apostle Paul, “unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.”
Again, the same Apostle says, in allusion to the resurrection of the bodies of the saints, “It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” Corinthians 15.
It is true, there may be much of materiality in the heaven that awaits the saints. This, however, will not prevent their ultimate and glorious spiritual destination. “The spirits of just men will then be made perfect.” Every citizen of the New Jerusalem will resemble Jesus in his glorified state.
None will possess “spot or wrinkle or any such thing;” but all will be perfectly holy, and eternally blessed.
Such is the nature of the kingdom of Jesus, as to its internal and essential part. It is pre-eminently a spiritual kingdom. Hence it is entirely diverse from all the kingdoms and organizations of men. It is truly “a stone cut out of the mountain without hands.” Hence, too, its real character and excellencies have never been perceived, and cannot be perceived by the men of the world. The Jews did not perceive it when first set up among them. Nor have the nations of the earth yet perceived it, though it has been set up in their midst for eighteen centuries past. It is this character of the kingdom of Jesus, too, which makes it so odious to those who can conceive of Christianity only in its external organization and forms. Hence, “he that is born after the flesh,” now as formerly, persecutes, and will ever persecute “him that is born after the Spirit.” It is upon this principle we are to account for the antipathy of the Jews against the Apostles; of the ancient Romans against the early Ghristians; and in later times, of Romanists against the Reformers. It all results from the general truth, that the carnal mind perceiveth not the things of the Spirit.
We have already said, that the spiritual character of the kingdom of Jesus is not incompatible with a visible and external organization. What is this organization, and how far did it displace the one previously existing? We proceed to answer the latter question first. The Christian organization, then, did not destroy the original covenant between God and Israel. This covenant was not Mosaic, but Abrahamic. It is also uniformly mentioned in Scripture as an “everlasting covenant.” The present dispersion of the Jews, too, does not prove the non-existence of this covenant; for under the circumstances, the covenant itself requires such dispersion in fulfilment of one of its conditions. Besides, the Jews are to be gathered in; they are to be brought again into their own land. “The wastes of Canaan are again to be builded, and that desolate land to be filled.” Exodus 36:1-38.
How can such a restoration take place, unless the provisions of “the everlasting covenant” secure it? Hence, the apostle Paul says: “Blindness in part (or for a limited time) is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; and so (or afterwards) all Israel shall be saved. As it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob; for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.”
Romans 11:1-36. Nor did the new organization abolish the rite of circumcision. This rite was the seal of the covenant made with Abraham. If then the covenant continue, so must also its seal. It is true, that the Apostles would not impose this rite upon believing Gentiles. Acts 15:1-41. The reason of this, however, is obvious. The covenant and circumcision were national; they referred to the Israelites as a people. Inasmuch, then, as Christianity was not destined to Judaize the nations, not designed to make Jews of them, it was proper that peculiarities belonging to the Jews as a people should not be imposed upon those who were not by nature the descendants of Abraham. Nor was the new system designed to interfere with the civil or national laws of the Jews. Being a spiritual system, Christianity did not directly oppose any existing forms of political government. It might modify all, but it could exist under any.
Much less did Christianity subvert the moral part of the previous dispensation. Its position on this point is, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tithe shall not fail from the law.” All the morality then of the Old Testament still abides, and receives additional sanctions from the New.
What changes then, were effected by the Messianic kingdom? These four — the temple, the priesthood, and the ceremonial law were abolished, and the blessings of salvation were extended to the rest of the world.
Said Jesus to the woman of Sychar — “The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.” John 4:21.
He also said of the temple itself, “There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” Matthew 24:2. When the body of Jesus, of which the temple was a type, was “destroyed,” the purposes of the temple were answered, and a new one was to be raised without hands. But not only was the temple abolished, the Jewish priesthood shared the same fate. This priesthood was typical of that of the Messiah. When, therefore, the latter began, the former ended. Hence, at the death of Jesus, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. This was significant, not only of the abolition of the types and shadows, but of the appointment of a new High Priest. Hence the Apostle Paul says, “But Christ being come, a High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Hebrews 9:11; Hebrews 9:12.
Again, the Apostle says expressly, that the Aaronic “priesthood was changed,” (12:12.,) from the sons of Levi to Christ.
If then, the temple be abolished and the priesthood, of course, the ceremonial law departs with them. This is the reasoning of the Apostle. “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change of the law;” that is, of the ceremonial law. Indeed, the entire Epistle to the Hebrews exhibits in the clearest manner, that the temple, priesthood and sacrifices of the ancient dispensation were all abolished by the new system. We there learn, that the Christian Jerusalem is a heavenly one; that his temple is above, that his High Priest is Christ, that the shedding of his blood is the only sacrifice for sin; and that the ancient Jewish ceremonies are now a mere nullity, except as they may be used to illustrate the “good things” of the new dispensation. The other change effected by Christianity, and which the Apostle Paul considers a “great mystery,” was, the extension of the blessings of salvation to the world at large. No language can better describe this than that of the Apostle himself — “For he is our peace, who hath made both one; and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments, contained in ordinances, for to make in himself, of twain, one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God, in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have an access by one Spirit unto the Father.” Ephesians 2:14-18.
Such were the effects of the new system upon that which pre-existed. It abolished its temple, priesthood, and ritual, as of no longer use; it also so extended the blessings of salvation, as to embrace the world in general, according to the promise given to Abraham, that “in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed.”
We now proceed to the other inquiry, What is the organization of the new system, as a distinct establishment from that which preceded it? This question, we are aware, is thickly set with difficulties, and is also associated in the minds of most men, with more or less of prejudice. It is not intended, however, to go into details, or to advocate any particular system. The organization of the Christian Church may be divided into three periods — that of Jesus himself, that of the Apostles, and that which has taken place since. The part accomplished by Jesus in person, consists of the four following particulars — the communication of its moral truths, the delineation of its moral character, the appointment of its teachers, and the institution of its ordinances. The doctrines, or moral truths of the new system, were placed by the Founder of Christianity, as the basis of the new establishment. These were the rock on which the Church was to be built, secure from all the devices of the gates of hell.
These truths were to be employed by the agency of the Spirit, both in the production and sustentation of the Church; eternal life was placed in the proper knowledge of God and of his Son, and the truth was ordained as the means of sanctification. The truth, being thus essential both to the existence and development of the new system — being its heart, or vital part, was made by Jesus the great idea in Christianity. His disciples were to illustrate this truth in their lives; it was the message which his ambassadors were to publish; the ordinances appointed by him were to cherish it; and, in its rejection, there collid be neither discipleship nor salvation.
Hence, Jesus spent his life, not in organizing a system, but in publishing the truth. “To this end,” says he, “was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.” John 18:37.
Again he exclaims, “I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.” John 12:46.
Upon the reception, or rejection of this truth, too, has he suspended the eternal destiny of al! to whom his gospel should be made known — “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:1-20. The fundamental idea then, in the organization of the Christian Church is, the moral truths of the gospel. The Church is where these are; it is not, where these are excluded. The second step in the organization of the Church was, the distinct delineation of the character of its members.
Jews were made by birth, or by circumcision; not so Christians. Men could become real subjects of the kingdom of Jesus, only by the cordial reception of its moral truths in their spiritual renovation. The preparation of the soil, and the implantation of the seed, were alike a divine work.
Hence the importance of describing those in who in this change was wrought, and by whom this truth had been received. These were not simply Israelites, or hearers, or professors, or preachers, or apostles; they were “the poor in spirit,” “the meek.” “those that hunger and thirst after righteousness.” “the merciful,” “the pure in heart,” “the peacemakers,” “the persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” Matthew 5:1-48. The cordial reception of the moral truths taught by Jesus, produced traits of character like these; the renewing of the Holy Ghost and his holy guidance, led to a life like this. Hence they and they only are the subjects of the new kingdom, who thus exemplify the gospel, and thus exhibit before men its great cardinal virtues. This is the second step of Jesus in organizing his Church. He first delivers its doctrines — he next describes its members. The third step was, the consecration and mission of men who should publish these great moral truths, and thus disciple others, to whom the teachings of Jesus himself did not extend.
Men were to be made converts after Jesus left the world, just as they had been previously. It was his preaching, accompanied by the Holy Ghost which had converted them during his life. It was by preaching, accompanied by the same power, that they were to be converted after his departure from the world. Hence the necessity for preachers, and for the continuance of preachers, as long as men were to be converted to God. This necessity led to the great commission given to the eleven, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” The last part of the work of Jesus in the organization of his Church, was the appointment of the ordinances of Baptism and the Supper. The former was designed to indicate publicly his disciples — the latter, to keep ever before the minds of these disciples, the one great truth of the new system, the vicarious sufferings of Jesus for his people. The one was to express, that the moral truths of the system had been embraced; the other was to strengthen and invigorate the faith of disciples in those truths. The one was to separate Christians from the world; the other was to bind all Christians together, by uniting them more closely to their common Head.
Such was the organization of the Christian Church, as left by Jesus himself. There was no general and systematic organization of the Church as a whole; nor was there the regular constitution of one individual congregation. Its great foundations were laid; the sort of materials to be placed on these foundations were described; the master-builders were appointed, and its simple, but significant ceremonies, were instituted.
Jesus left, then, but two classes of persons in his Church — teachers and disciples; baptizers and the baptized — administrators and communicants — or, in other words, the preachers and the receivers of the word. The preachers were all on a perfect official equality; the disciples were so likewise. The former had been called and commissioned by the same Master, and they were to accomplish the same work; the latter had been converted by the same grace, and baptized with the same baptism. The one class were ministerial, the other Christian brethren. Nor was the officer to exalt himself above the member; but he was to be greatest in the estimation of his Master, who had a spirit to be accounted least, and servant of all.
How far the Apostles modified these great essential principles of the Christian Church, it now remains to inquire. The Apostolic Church was first organized in the city of Jerusalem. It was not, however, done at once. For a considerable time, no officers but the Apostles were known. These and the membership composed the Church.
Hence, when a new Apostle was to be chosen, the election was made by the disciples,2 under the management of the eleven Apostles. Acts 1:1-26. Nor was there any ordination, but a simple enrollment, after the lot was cast: of the name of Matthias with the other Apostles. Even the temporalities of the new society were under the care of the Apostles. Acts 4:15; Acts 5:2; Acts 6:2. When, however, these temporalities became too burdensome, they were committed to a set of men chosen by the disciples for that purpose, and who, through prayer and imposition of hands, were ordained to the new office by the Apostles. Acts 6:1-15. The church now consisted of three classes of persons — apostles, deacons, and the membership. This membership, though very large, was still not as yet divided into separate societies; but constituted one united body now called the Church. Acts 2:47; Acts 5:11; Acts 8:1. About this time a great persecution arose. Stephen, one of the deacons, was stoned, and the members, with the exception of the Apostles, were driven into other countries and, cities. This persecution, however, served greatly to enlarge the Church — for “they that were scattered abroad, went every where preaching the word.” Not that they were all regular preachers; but they published the gospel in every practicable and prudent method.
About this time a new set of officers was introduced into the Christian society. These were Elders. The name implies ruling; especially among the Jews, where it was applied both to the general rulers of the nation, and to the particular rulers of each synagogue or religious assembly. We must suppose, therefore, that either the office in the synagogue was transferred to the new church; or, that an analogous office was instituted in the new society. The first mention of these new officers is made in Acts 11:30, where the Christians of Antioch are said to have transmitted to “the elders” in Jerusalem, certain funds to supply the necessities of the poor saints there, and who seem not to have left the city with their wealthier brethren during the persecution. The next allusion to this office, not only refers to it as an office well understood, but also casts light upon the manner of its creation — “And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed.” Acts 19:23. The word (ceirotonhsantev ) which is here translated “ordained,” is used but in one other instance in the New Testament. In 2 Corinthians 8:19, it is applied to Luke’s being “chosen of the churches” to travel with Paul and others. It means literally to lift up, or extend the hand; which was an ordinary mode of taking a vote. Hence the Genevan version, Tyndal and Cranmer, all render the passage thus: “And when they had ordained them elders by election.” 3 As, too, the deacons had been chosen by the members; and as these elders were put into this office from among the brethren over whom they presided, there can be no doubt, that they were elected by the popular vote. The conclusion then to which we come is, that these primitive elders were grave and judicious men, elected by each Christian congregation from among their own number, to superintend their spiritual interests, and to preside in their religious assemblies; and that they were solemnly consecrated to that office by prayer and fasting.
Whether these elders were really preachers, or simply rulers in particular congregations, has been much debated. The objections to their being strictly preachers are such as these. They were elected by their brethren, and from among themselves, as their spiritual guides. Now, it seelns incredible, that an election of the brethren should make a preacher. Nor can we conceive, how the new churches planted by the Apostles could have had men, fitted at so early a date, to be preachers of the word. The locality too of these officers is an objection. Regular preachers were to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” Their commission was general, their mission was to the world at large. These primitive elders, however, seem to have been entirely local. We find no instance of their exercising their gifts or office, beyond the churches over which they presided. The name too, is an objection. Why are they called elders? The term evangelist means a gospelizer, or one who preaches the gospel. The term prophet refers to speaking. The term elder, then, can awaken no other idea, than that of ruling, or of one, who manages the affairs of a Christian congregation. On the contrary, there are some things to favor the position, that these elders were preachers. Who were to instruct these new churches, if they were not? The Apostle Paul also exhorts those of Ephesus. “To feed the church of God,” Acts 20:28; which seems to refer to the preaching of the word. The same Apostle also says that Elders must be “apt to teach,” Timothy 3:2; and that they should be able “by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” Titus 1:9. The conclusion then, to which we come in relation to these officers is, that their original designation was that of exercising spiritual supervision, and authority in individual congregations; that to render them competent to such supervision, they needed themselves to be well instructed in the Christian doctrine, and that when no apostle, evangelist, prophet, or regular teacher, was present, it was their duty to instruct their several congregations. “Certainly,” says the learned Neander, “it is not capable of proof that the teachers always belonged to the presbyters. This much only is certain, it was a source of great satisfaction, when among the rulers of the church there were men qualified also for teachers;” Besides elders and deacons, whose offices confined them to individual Churches, there were many others associated with the Apostles in their labors. Barnabas, Silas, Luke, Philip, Mark, Timothy, Titus, Apollos, and many others were of this number. These all appear to have been regular preachers of the word. It is true, nothing is said of the ordination of any of them except Timothy, and of Barnabas when appointed missionary to the Gentiles. How they were inducted into office, or whether any regular mode was used, we know not. That there was no regular general government of the church instituted by the Apostles, is evident from the history of the facts left us. The only case which has the appearance of such a general government is, the reference of a particular question, by the church at Antioch, to the church at Jerusalem.
Acts 15:1-41. This reference however was altogether voluntary, on the part of the church at Antioch; and it was decided at Jerusalem, not by an Apostle, or by a council of Apostles; but by the Apostles, Elders and “whole church.” Acts 15:22.
Such was the Apostolic Church. The disciples, who had previously existed in common, were by them distributed into separate congregations; and two new sets of officers were appointed, deacons and elders. The bond which held all their separate churches together was not authority or system, but the truth and mutual love. Never were churches more closely united, and yet never were churches less forced into union.
If it be asked, what was the umpire in cases of doctrinal or other controversies, the answer is, the word of God. This word, otherwise that it was recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures, was at first delivered by inspired men. As these inspired men were mortal, their instructions were committed to writing, and in that form were always afterwards to control the churches.
If it be still asked, who was to decide in controversies which should arise as to the meaning of these apostolical writings, the answer is, every church for itself, every teacher for himself, every man for himself. To place uninspired authority over inspired, and to require one church, preacher, or disciple, to yield absolutely to the decision of some other church, preacher, or disciple, is at once to overthrow the authority of God by establishing that of man; and to subvert the decision of one man or set of men, by the decision of some other men or set of men. Nor is there the least shadow of proof that any such human umpire was either appointed by Jesus, or sanctioned by his Apostles. It is true, that in forming opinions about cantroverted points, some deference was due to those men who had the best opportunities for knowing what was true; or to those churches that had been most under apostolical teaching, or which had best preserved apostolic practices. All this, however, was but secondary and auxiliary; and in all matters of faith and practice, the apostolic writings, and these alone, were to govern. Not man, but God, was to be the only “Lord of conscience.”
We come now to the third and last part of the organization of the Church. This has occurred since the days of the apostles; is merely human, and therefore exceedingly imperfect. That the state of things left by the Apostles, continued for a considerable time, is evident from the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In that epistle there is not the least intimation given, that Rome had any authority over Corinth. It also distinctly states, that Presbyters or Elders were chosen by the people, and that the subjection of the people to them was voluntary, not forced. “Wherefore we cannot think that those may be justly thrown out of their ministry, who were either appointed by the Apostles, or afterwards chosen by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church.” Again, says Clement, “It is a shame, my beloved, yea, a very great shame, and unworthy your Christian profession, to hear that the most firm and ancient Church of the Corinthians should, by one or two persons, be led into a sedition against its Presbyters.” The changes which were afterwards introduced into the apostolic organization of the Church are principally these three: The presbyterial feature was overshadowed by the episcopal, the episcopal by the patriarchal, and the patriarchal by the papal. The spirit of domination began with the rulers of each particular church, and ceased only, when every church, yea, the whole world, was subject to one Man 1:6 Authority was thus substituted for truth, and the will of man for the will of God!
These changes, it is true, were effected only gradually, and through many centuries; still, however, they were effected, and became alike destructive to the purity and the freedom of the Church. And it is remarkable in this extraordinary drama, that one man, the Pope, has been made to hold a place of power, such as no one of the Apostles, nor all of them together ever held; indeed, such as Jesus himself never exercised while here on earth! The diversities which now exist among various Protestant sects, on the subject of church government, may be traced to the prominence which they respectively give to certain parts of the original organization. It is likely that no one of them, in all particulars, agrees with the apostolic model. Some of them by giving great prominence to the independence of the churches in the days of the Apostles, have gone into pure congregationalism. Others by magnifying the prerogatives of the church rulers and teachers have approached an ecclesiastical hierarchy. Others, again, in consideration of the plurality of elders in each church, and of their being elected by their brethren, have adopted the presbyterial system.
Doubtless, there are some things in which all these are right, and there are also some things in which they have all departed from apostolic practice.
These churches, however, may all sufficiently adhere to the original constitution, to render them brethren in the kingdom of one common Lord and Savior. Do they attach the chief importance to the moral truths of the new system? Do they place discipleship in the cordial reception, and the proper manifestation of those truths? Do they receive and maintain a set of preachers and teachers under the sanction and upon the authority of Jesus? Do they administer the Christian sacraments? Are the writings of the Apostles their only umpire in all matters of faith and practice? Do they allow to each other the rights of conscience and of personal judgment? If so, they all rest upon the foundation laid by Jesus for his Church. If so, they are all sufficiently apostolic, to live together in peace on earth, and to reign together in glory hereafter.
We have dwelt the longer upon the kingdom of Jesus, because it is a matter of deep interest to Christians. Let us then apply this argument to his Messiahship. According to ancient prophecy, the Messiah was to be a king, indeed he was to be the greatest of kings. But we have seen, that these predictions have all been fulfilled in Jesus. By all who receive his doctrines, he is considered as possessed of the very highest possible royalty. Though crucified, he yet lives, and though assigned to the greatest ignominy once, yet does he now sit upon a throne “high and lifted up.” The crown of power is on his head, the scepter of dominion in his hand, and his name is “King of kings, and Lord of lords.”