Sept. 1, 1868.

(Jude i.) "These"-the beast and his allies-" shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them; for he is the Lord of lords, and King of kings; and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful." (Rev. xvii. 14.) "Blessed are they who are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb." (Chap. xix. 9.)

Now it is impossible intelligently to compare these two clusters of Scripture regarding the believer without seeing that he is called to be separate from a wicked world, fast ripening for judgment; that in this separated capacity-in the world, but not of it-he is to bear testimony to the work, and character, and sovereign rights of his Lord; and that a peculiar glory awaits him at the period of Christ's appearing and kingdom. If the church and the world are one, or if during the present dispensation all nations are to be evangelised by the ministry of the Gospel, these Scriptures are unintelligible. Why this carefulness to call individuals out of the corrupt mass; to separate them; to give them light, life in Christ, adoption, and other high and holy privileges; to make them sons of God, partakers of the Divine nature; heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ; and partakers of the glory to be revealed at the second advent? Is it not all impressively eloquent in confirmation of the truth that the Lord is taking out of the nations a people for his name, by the operation of his Spirit, during his absence in heaven, and that when he returns to set up his kingdom they shall be manifested with him in his likeness and his glory? Here are a few direct revelations on the subject, and they ought to settle this question: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." (1 John iii. 2.) “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God." (Rom. viii. 16-19.) "As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." (1 Cor. xv. 49.) The reader will remember that the first and second man, Adam and Christ, are here referred to. "For our conversation is in heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." (Phil. iii. 20, 21.) "When Christ, our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." (Col. iii. 4.)

We beseech the reader, with all Christian love and earnestness, to weigh

well every word of the last quoted sentence. It is not more remarkable for the simplicity of its words, than for the depth, and breadth, and grandeur of its meaning. If this single verse were understood-and surely it is plain enough-it would flash the conviction on every unprejudiced mind that popular theology requires a thorough sifting and reformation. Christ is the believers " life;" Christ shall appear;" then shall those whose life He is, APPEAR with him IN GLORY."

66

I

THE KINGDOM OF GOD: AN ARGUMENT IN THREE PARTS.

I.

HAVE lately been reading an authorised exposition of the Romish doctrine concerning the kingdom of God. It is found in the "Clifton Tracts," published by the "Brotherhood of St. Vincent of Paul," and the undertaking consecrated by a special benediction from the Pope. This is not picking up documents from debatable ground, but going direct to the fountain-head of authority.

If we eliminate from the scheme propounded the primacy of Peter, it is substantially that which Protestants have likewise accepted and propounded for the last three hundred years. We easily perceive from what springhead the common tradition originated, and we can grant at once that it is both Papal and Protestant, though certainly neither apostolic nor patristic. But our author shall now speak for himself. After quoting from Daniel the account of the successive monarchies, or kingdoms, he thus delivers himself :

"No one has ever doubted but that the kingdom of God here spoken of is the Christian Church, which our blessed Lord had come upon earth to found. Let us consider, then, a little more closely, how the Christian church is described to us in this prophecy. It is described to us as a kingdom, and that surely not in a figurative but in a literal sense, unless those other four kingdoms spoken of were figurative too, which we know they were not. If the Babylonian, the Persian, the Macedonian, and the Roman were real empires, surely the empire which was to spring up in the reign of the last of these, and to take its place, must be real too. In some particulars it was to be unlike the others. It was to have a mysterious beginning-represented by the stone cut out without hands; whereas they, as the image of a statue implies, were the work of man. It was never to come to an end-whereas they were to be broken in pieces till they should become like chaff on the summer threshingfloors. In a word, they were the kingdom of men, but this is called the kingdom of the God of heaven.

"Now, from among the twelve, he chose one who was called Simon, and to him he committed the headship of the kingdom he was about to found. 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' He

Sept. 1, 1868.

gave him a new name also, the name of Peter, which signifies a rock or stone; and which seems, therefore, to have a direct reference to the prophecy of Daniel. I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' After our Lord ascended into heaven, and the apostles had received the gift of the Holy Ghost, we see St. Peter, the appointed chief, stepping forth with his golden key to open the door of the kingdom. Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and spake to them.

"And they that believed his word were baptised, and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. And what did these three thousand do? Did each of them go his separate way, carrying with him, perhaps, some new truth in his mind, and some new feeling in his heart, to work them out as might seem good unto himself? No, they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship; they formed a certain visible body, in obedience to certain visible rulers. The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved. But as yet the company of believers, though sufficient in number to be called a multitude, were only of the children of Israel. Presently the time came when the promise of the gathering in of the Gentiles was to be fulfilled; and again St. Peter unlocked the gates of the kingdom, and threw them open to all nations. (Act x. 21.) Thus did the stone begin to grow into a great mountain, inasmuch as the Church became catholic-that is, universal-the Church of all nations; and it went on growing and increasing in divers lands, and throughout succeeding ages, until the Roman empire was broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors, even as the prophet Daniel declared that it would; and this new kingdom arose in majestic grandeur out of its ruins.

"What became of the kingdom afterwards? At the death of the apostles did it fall to pieces? Was there no provision made for its continuance? Was the rock on which it was built to be broken in pieces, when he to whom Christ gave that name died for his Master's cause? Had St. Peter no successors to whom the Lord's commission extended? Surely the account given us in Holy Scripture of the founding of the Church would lead us to expect that it was to be a permanent institution, a living, growing kingdom, universal yet one, and to endure to the end of the world. Indeed it was part of the prophecy of Daniel that this kingdom should never be destroyed, but should stand for ever. If, then, it still endures, where shall we find it? What is it? Is it the Church of England? That is so far from being a universal kingdom that it is only part of a kingdom. It is a mere institution of the kingdom of England, like the army, or the navy, or the courts of law; its head is no successor of St. Peter, but the sovereign of the realm; its territory is not the whole world, but England; its teaching, so far from being one, is made up of contradictions which no skill can reconcile. It traces back its existence, not to apostles, but to the reformers of the sixteenth century. Is this the kingdom of Christ? Is it the sect which bears the name of an earthly founder, and which celebrated a short time back the hundredth year of its existence? The kingdom of Christ is more than a hundred years old.

"Is it any of the sects which swarm around us, springing up daily, dividing, sub-dividing, disputing, changing their laws and their doctrines, dying away and then appearing in new forms? Truly they are more like

a mob than a kingdom; they are more like the confused multitude at the foot of Babel, when the curse of dispersion had been spoken upon them, and they ceased to understand each other's language, than like a kingdom all one, even as the Father and the Son are one."

We can grant to our author at once: (1) that what he considers the Protestant view, i. e. a series of doctrinal truths and inward feelings cannot constitute the kingdom. There must be monarch, territory, ordinance, rule, outward and visible glory. (2) That the Anglican Church is not the kingdom. (3) That the sect unfortunately called after an earthly founder is not the kingdom. We differ in some great points, which may be stated in four propositions :

1. That the Romish Church is not the kingdom.

2. The Church was not predicted by Daniel.

3. The kingdom was not founded at Pentecost.

4. Peter was not, and is not, the foundation or primate of either Church or kingdom.

I. We agree that the Anglican Church is not the kingdom; for it is certainly not by act of parliament that the stone falls from heaven, or becomes a great mountain to fill the earth.

II. We agree that the sects (including the one which celebrated its one hundred years of existence) do not constitute the kingdom. We deplore their broken and divided condition, perhaps, more profoundly than our Romish author. How precious it would be if we had one sublime camp, the same azure banner everywhere unfurled, containing the same starry symbols of life, hope, salvation, and immortality; one majestic body, uttering clear, distinct accents; one in doctrine, discipline, and holiness. Such a body clothed with power, supernatural and moral, would stand up in the world brighter than any column of jasper or diamond. Works of conquest done for the Lord would not be done, as now, in feverish spasms of effort, followed by seasons of langour, unbelief, and profligacy. A time, however, will come, not as yet understood either by the Romish author or his antagonists, when the prayer of our Lord for unity will be thoroughly answered. In that day the jargon dialects of Ashdod and Babylon shall be all banished and a pure language restored, that all worshippers may call on the name of the Lord with one consent.

III. But while agreeing with our author that the kingdom is not found in the English Episcopacy, or in the sects, Lutheran or Puritanic, we say neither is the kingdom found in the Romish Church. If we could be surprised by anything, it would be by the dream that such a corporation, full of the depths of Satan, had any resemblance to the kingdom of God. The kingdom of the fisherman never was a reality; but the military high priest that followed him, after a considerable gap, bears no resemblance to the imaginary founder of the empire. Conceive of Peter robed in purple and gold at the Vatican, heading an immense host of cardinals, bishops, and priests, or mounted on horseback, with awe-struck kings at his bridle. But further, conceive of Peter authorising the Smithfield fires, or awarding medals to celebrate the horrible massacre of St. Bartholomew, or inciting and rewarding the crimson hunt among the Waldenses and Albigenses, or nourishing that Spanish Inquisition which has tortured and slaughtered some fifty millions of human beings. It is true, by the way, that he had a slight tendency to the use of the sword, and once cut off a man's ear;

[Sept. 1, 1868.

but that disposition to evil force was corrected in one solemn lesson, and we are not aware that it ever broke out again.

But aside from the question of moral leprosy, the blood and uncleanness by which the Church of Rome has always been defiled, even the boasted unity is not a reality. Uniformity is not unity. There are as many sects inside as outside the Romish communion. Jansenist and Jesuit, Dominican and Franciscan, Rationalist and Ritualist, Infidel and Dervish, are all included in the immense corporation. There may be one sea, but shark, pike, and devil-fish are all found in its deep, and destroying and devouring each other.

Protestant sects, though not to be defended in separation from each other, have still gales of truth and freedom blowing freely around them. They have entered into no conspiracy to wrap the human mind in sheets of lead. They lay no iron hand on the advancement of humanity in intelligence, liberty, science, or philosophy. They have made no efforts to cloister the word of the Lord, and meet enquirers with prison, confiscation, rack, and fire. They seek no corrupt alliance with the secular powers of the world for luxury or cruelty. They assume no dominion over faith or conscience, and claim no attributes which involve blasphemy against God. They provide no debasing pomps and theatric shows of carnalism to debauch the senses and the imagination, and stifle industrial life.

There is more regard to moral and spiritual proprieties; more resolute purifying discipline; more devotion to manliness and godliness in the "mob" than we find in that "Great City" which boasts so loudly its central government.

But we have been merely feeling the way in these preliminary remarks. It is time to examine with a little more carefulness the passage in Daniel; to gather up the lessons which are verily contained there.

The reader can turn to Daniel ii. 30-45.

I. There are two false assumptions in the scheme of our Romish author, likewise found in the Protestant theory. There is nothing in Daniel either about a gradual destruction of the fourth empire, or a gradual growth of the fifth. Both assumptions are outrage against the prophecy. There is no triturating process against the image-no slow pulverising maintained through centuries. There is a very different thing, viz., one dreadful, immediate, effectual collision-one sudden thunderstroke, which falls with the weight of destiny-one tremendous shattering blow which never needs to be repeated; for the entire material of the image, gold, silver, brass, iron, clay, are all ground into powder. The river of oblivion carries away the debris of the old world; the purifying wind blows away the dust and chaff of evil ages. The growing or gradual work is equally a romance, in regard to the advancement of the fifth empire-the kingdom of the God of heaven. The stone which was cut out without hands did not grow into, it became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. The expansive power from the stone to the mountain is seen in immediate manifestation, and the void from which the evil force was displaced is filled up by the power which is glorious, benificent, and imperishable.

II. The prophet beholds in the vision of the king, purely a succession of world-powers. The fifth one, which finally prevails over all and stands for ever, though differing from the former in origin, and nature, and duration, does not differ as a royalty or a universality. To bring in any