096-Prop. 93. The Covenanted Kingdom is not the Christian Church.

Prop. 93. The Covenanted Kingdom is 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. It is 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 religion are separated, hence involving no civil or State relationship, for members of all nations and States, without absolving their allegiance due as citizens to their respective civil powers, can become members of this exclusive religious organization. It is different from the Jewish Church, before and after the Theocratic rule, in that it embraces new ordinances, discarding the Mosaic, and is open to both Jew and Gentile by an expression and experience of faith in Jesus Christ. It was formed solely on account 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 gathered, the Kingdom might be reorganized in the most effective and triumphant 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 contemplated, because it was not in accordance with the design of its establishment, viz.: to call and gather out 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 concerned; and inward, so far as individual experience, adoption, union with Christ, etc., relates. It is a community of saints, who, while occupying various 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 conduct in all these relations regulated and controlled. Having no ecclesiastical 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 immediate 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 substantially that adopted by many of our opponents, who, however, are forced by their theories do 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 fellowship (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. His., 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 (Inst. 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 Rationalism, p. 360), only “a relative value to the Church of the Gentiles, the Church before the Millennium,” referring 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 entertain the idea that it is a Kingdom. The reader can find numerous illustrations in various Confessions, History of Doctrines, Systematic 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 existing, conquering Kingdom in a visible form (as e.g. Papacy), destined to a world-dominion. High-Churchism, Low-Churchism, Broad-Churchism, Spiritualism, Mysticism, 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 out 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 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 flattered. The second was the fact that religions everywhere, among the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Asiatics, etc., were firmly united with the State, thus paving the way for a similar union and the exhibition of the Christian religion in a sphere not inferior to Pagan. The student will be amply repaid in tracing these influences in confirming the Origenistic notion, and thus giving power into the hands of designing, and even of conscientious 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 engrafted by former Church relationship, and resulting from the growth of centuries. Their immediate successors, as all Church historians sadly acknowledge, instead of prosecuting the work of Reformation, engrossed themselves in disputes, and pressed each other on points of differences-many non-essential-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 extended 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 acknowledged 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 consistent 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. His., 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 believers, 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 (Horae, Apoc.), and others, which are difficult to reconcile with any other theory than that of the doctrinal position of the early Church, viz.: anticipating 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 services, yet the student feels that on some important points they are indecisive, indistinct, and somewhat contradictory. Hence their opinions, whatever they are, must be subjected, 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 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 Testament begins is opposed 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 predictions of the Prophets respecting the Kingdom, Prop. 21; (4) the Church does not correspond with the preaching of John, Jesus and the disciples, 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. 43; (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, etc.; (10) the preaching of the apostles after Christ’s death confirms our doctrine, Props. 70, 71, 72, 73, etc.; (11) the Church was not taken from the Jews but the Kingdom was, Proposition preceding, etc.; (12) the Church is not the Kingdom because it will not be given until 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 Propositions 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. The remaining Propositions that follow, nearly all, are additional proofs sustaining our doctrine.

Incidental proof corroborative of our position, can also 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 respects 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, because if 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 difficulty, etc., which, connected with things non-essential, was far from being inconsistent with a correct view of the church, its meaning and design. In the controversy between Paul and Peter, our opponents forget what they previously asserted respecting Peter’s knowledge of the Kingdom in Acts 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; (3) 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, attended 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 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, seeing 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 specified in the Davidic covenant is not changeable or temporary. It is promised 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 was a 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 less honor than the past Theocracy, in that it has not God for its earthly Ruler, and that, therefore, in this respect, there is a retrogression from the higher Kingdom to the lower; (5) it overrides with inconclusive 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, confirmed by the oath of the Almighty, that the Theocratic 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 Swedenborgians), 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 therefore select a work which has been specially written to perform this service. IN THE KINGDOM OF GRACE, CH. 2, THE AUTHOR GIVES US HIS SCRIPTURAL, AND OTHER AUTHORITY. 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 KINGDOM 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 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 MILLENARIANS; 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 HIS 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 SAVIOR’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 SAVIOR’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 (A) 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 PSALM 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 UNNECESSARY, 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 PSALM, HAS NOT “THE REMOTEST ALLUSION WHATEVER TO THE MAN CHRIST JESUS,”-THAT IT DENOTES ROAN ONLY, AND SARCASTICALLY INQUIRES WHETHER THE ANIMALS, ETC., ARE TO BE ALSO RESURRECTED OVER WHOM HE IS TO REIGN. (3) HE SAYS THAT HEBREWS 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 INHABITABLE EARTH TO COME,” ON THE GROUND THAT WE ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO ADD A WORD AS UNDERSTOOD;-THAT WE MAKE BY SUCH APPLICATION TO CHRIST, HEB 2:8-9 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) LASTLY HE REFERS TO EZE 36:23-28 (ADMITTING THE LITERAL RESTORATION OF THE JEWS), EZE 37:11-14, AND DANIEL 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 (Second Coming) are of a similar nature (only not so disrespectful in tone), and the Scriptures relied upon to sustain a present Messianic covenanted Kingdom are the following: Acts 2:29-36, Zechariah 6:12, Revelation 5:6; Revelation 3:7-8; Revelation 3:12, Isaiah 9:6-7, Acts 3:13-15; Acts 3:19-21; Acts 4:26; Acts 4:28, with Psalm 2, Acts 5:29; Acts 5:31. 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 foundation 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 Isaiah 66:12, Isaiah 49:23, Isaiah 6:3; Isaiah 6:5, 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 established, to mere inference. And more, we cannot believe, that if set up as many theologians 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 present, things relating to the Church which are spoken of as prospectively (the present used as the future, Prop. 65, Obs. 9), as e.g.Hebrews 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 confines 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 prominent theologian delivered a funeral discourse in which he made a distinguished minister, deceased, sitting down and already enjoying the marriage 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 ambition, but with a sincere desire to indicate the honor, stability, and perpetuity 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-intentioned 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 sinfulness, is to be restored to favor, and is thus meant. The curses pronounced, 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?

Obs. 7. This view of the Church, as we have already seen (Prop. 78), is not inconsistent with the earliest creeds. Those modern phrases and definitions 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, Isaiah 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 Isaiah 9, which predicts this to occur in union with the Jewish nation at a time of mighty national deliverance (see Isaiah 9:3-5, Barnes, Hengstenberg, Gesenius, etc., loci), they appropriate the passage isolated and torn from its connection. In one confession, more plain than others, it is asserted that “Jesus Christ hath here on earth a spiritual Kingdom which is His Church,” etc., and the proof texts given are Matthew 11:11; Matthew 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 Isaiah 9:6-7; Psalm 2, etc., which only assert that Christ shall be king; also Daniel 7:13-14, Psalm 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. Theologians of eminence take singular and contradictory views of the church as a 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 Kingdom 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, 43, 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 inthe 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 worshippers, as a monarch living among his subjects.” Such a Kingdom he says Jesus preached, meaning “the presence of God as a Saviour realized to the soul,” 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 Propositions 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 Proposition, 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, etc. Again, he declares 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 subsequently examined in Props. 108, 109, and 110), and every one of them mistakes the requisite 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 in the Kingdom, are represented as being in a state of probation, of trial and testing. The very nature of probation is 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 Peter 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-11, etc.

Obs. 10. The church, instead of being represented as a Kingdom, is held up to us as a struggling, suffering people, Colossians 1:24; 2 Timothy 1:8; 2 Corinthians 1:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Peter 4:12-13, etc. The founders, the apostles, themselves suffered, Acts 14:20; Acts 9:16; Ephesians 3:13, etc. Saints are to fill up the measure of Christ’s sufferings, Acts 14:20; 2 Thessalonians 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 (Romans 8:23), as given by Delitzsch (Ser. Ap. to Sys. Bib. 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. Isaiah 25, etc.? “Pilgrims and strangers” in the Kingdom as promised, is something incredible. Tertullian (Treat. on Prayer, ch. 5), teaching that the Kingdom in the Lord’s prayer is not 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 presentcondition 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 our servitude 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 deep and 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 if faithful 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 Testament 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 appointed 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 is a remnant derived from Popish sources, and reminds one of the Spiritual Exercises of Loyola (Littell’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 subjects to the strife.” The believer certainly carries on a warfare, constantly and unremittingly, if faithful, against temptation and evil, and in behalf of the truth and God’s appointments, 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, etc. 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 renewed 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 Second 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, endorsed 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. ZECHARIAH 14; DANIEL 7 AND 12; THIS THE LANGUAGE ALSO OF JESUS TO THE PHARISEES, LUKE 17, MATTHEW 24; (3) BUT INSTEAD OF WAR, ETC, AS PORTRAYED BY ZECHARIAH 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 SUBSTITUTED 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 establishment 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 INHERITING THE KINGDOM IS 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 (MAT 25:34; LUK 22:29-30; 2TH 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. This in 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 less 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 always 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 Kingdom when established is something recognizable by all men, something that all will 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 (Introd., 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. 40?) 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 reconcilable 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 extended and detailed accounts given of the Kingdom. Besides this, our doctrine is the only one which preserves a consistency in the Old Testament 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, expectations, 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 Messianic Kingdom. Covenant, prophecy, provisionary measures, fulfillment, 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. illustrated 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.