Prop116

   Covenant promises, prophecies, all produce the impression that as soon as it is set up, such will be the
result. To deny this, is to pass over the plainest feature of this Kingdom ; and, therefore, no one but admits
either that now it thus exists, or that at some time in the future the Church will assume this (thus making a
change), or else that it is fulfilled (against prophecy) in the third heaven. The admission is favorable to our
argument, for precisely such a visible Kingdom is demanded.

   Obs. 1. The Kingdom embraces not merely visibility but a divine political dominion (Prop. 117) superseding all other
Kingdoms, as e.g., Dan. 2 : 44 ; Rev. 11 : 15 ; Dan. 7 : 13, 14, 18—27 ; Zech. 14 : 9, etc. This, too, is, admitted by a
host of our opponents ; and we are assured by many of them that, by some additions or transpositions, this will in the
course of time be effected. But if this is a characteristic of the Kingdom and at its setting up, as prophecy indicates,
then, if the Church is such a Kingdom, the Church should have presented this very appearance. On the other hand, the
Kingdom of God at one time was visible, then it was overthrown, but its restoration under David's Son foretold. Now, if
ever restored, as covenant requires and as promise declares, then, as a matter of course, a divine political rule or
dominion must be restored. Hence, the prophecies run in the current of the Divine Purpose in making these portrayals
of the future Kingdom.

   While it is correct to affirm—in view (the highest ground) of the non-restoration of the Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom, and its postponement
until the times of the Gentiles are ended (Prop. 66, etc.)—that the Church and State are separate and distinct, yet it is pushing the matter to
an untenable extreme (as e.g. done by the Scottish Church, see p. 158, etc., D'Aubigne's Germany, England, and Scotland) to assert that
they never will be united (even as a church claiming to exert rights pertaining to the civil power). This assertion is based on the declaration,
" My Kingdom is not of this world" (see Prop. 109, where this passage, so fruitful of misconception, is examined). But oath-bound
Covenant, prophecy, the Theocratic ordering—all evidences that the position is a wrong one ; what is true now, is no barrier to future
fulfilment and realization. It is simply unreasonable and extravagant to believe in a world-wide dominion, to which all nations are subject,
etc., lacking such a union. The student is reminded that the Church nearest to the Apostles was far more logical and consistent in its faith.
That child-like belief based on the grammatical sense of the Word, now so scornfully rejected by many as childish, is pre-eminently the
scriptural faith. The denial, on the one hand, of its truth, or the perversion, on the other, of the same to exalt the authority of the Church,
does not cancel its ultimate fulfilment in the way God purposes.

   Obs. 2. The concession, that such a Kingdom is still in the future, is all that at present our argument needs. The
manner in which it is made may be referred to as a matter of curiosity and confirmation. Whatever mystical or
spiritualistic interpretations Neander, Fairbairn and others, give, yet they are forced, against their theory, to find in an
ultimate outward, visible manifestation in the Church, in a real political dominion, in a subjection of all Kingdoms under a
Theocratic government, the conditions of prophecy. Having already quoted Neander largely, who contends for this
feature, we pass to others. Pressense, who spiritualizes the prophecies in extenso, still unable to entirely rid himself of
what he calls " the materialistic" tendencies of them, says (The Redeemer, p. 101) : " Let us add that this spirituality of
interpretation prevents us in no respect from admitting that the Kingdom of God will be triumphantly established in the
outer world also ; the new heavens and the new earth are a reality to our minds." Fairbairn (Oil Proph., p. 297), gives to
the Church "the real universality and the absolute right of governing upon earth ;" alluding (p. 44,7) to the language of
Daniel respecting the Kingdom, he says, it is such as " to indicate an actual remodelling of the state of things among
men, and a fresh organization of the social fabric such as would formally commit the administration of affairs into the
hands of the Lord's people," etc.; and he admits (p. 465) that this includes " the formal elevation of the pious and God-
fearing portion of mankind to the place of influence and authority." Lange (Bremen Lee. No. 8) advocates a future
union of Church and State, asserting " that State and Church are to become one in the Kingdom of God," and in his
Coin. (Matt. 3, p. 73) he declares that " the Christian Church and the Christian State may be regarded as the twofold
manifestation of the Kingdom of God." Even those who are the most non-committal admit even on Isa. 2 : 1–5 (as e.g.
Alexander, Cont. loci), that the description denotes something of authority, etc., " permanently visible." Dr. Arnold held
that a development of the Church in its perfect form includes a blending or union of Church and State, thus constituting
a properly developed Kingdom of God, saying (Hurst's His. Rational.), " there can be no perfect Church or State without
their blending into one," etc.* Such references might be endlessly multiplied, but these are amply sufficient to show, (1)
that the Word of God demands such an outward dominion ; (2) that it will be supreme over the earth ; (3) that the want
is felt and acknowledged ; (4) the hope is expressed that it will finally, in some way, be realized.
* Arnold (Life of, by Stanley, vol. 2, p. 103), in a letter to Bunsen, says : " Connected with this is Rothe's book, which I
have read with great interest. His first position—that the State, and not the Church (in the common and corrupt sense of
the term) is the perfect form under which Christianity is to be developed—entirely agrees with my notions." Rothe (Life,
by Nippold, and Ethics) advocated the absorption of the Church by the State, the State and Church forming one, the
latter being incorporated with the former, the State being the controlling power. The essential idea of such a visible,
outward world Kingdom is strongly advocated by recent leading theologians, and the Chiliastic notion is doctrinally
incorporated to suit their systems. Thus e.g. Martensen (Ch. Dog., s. 281), proclaims his faith that Christianity will not
merely be a " struggling power in the world, but a world-conquering, a world-ruling power-likewise." " The states and
institutions of municipal life shall then be governed by Christian principle," etc. He only forgets to tell us how to reconcile
all this with e.g. sec. 279, when down to the Sec. Advent he gives no place for such a Millennial theory. The fact is,
many who refuse to be called Chiliasts entertain fully Chiliastic views—impelled to it by prophecy—but unfortunately do
not follow the order laid down in the Word for its realization. Rev. Hall, in Christianity Consistent with a Love of Freedom,
expresses his faith that in the predicted Mill. age, State and Church will be united, " for the professors of Christianity
must then become politicians," etc.

   Obs. 3. It is strange, however, that in such a delineation of prophetical language, fully admitting a divine political
world-dominion, they forget the objections alleged against our view. In their case the very passages presented to teach
an exclusively spiritual and invisible Kingdom as against us, are now no longer of force. But we may well pause, and ask
the consistency y of this ; for, if they forbid an outward universal Kingdom such as the early Church advocated, why
should they not also prevent them from entertaining a similar view ? Again, in such admissions they also overlook what
so many writers among themselves learnedly argue when writing in opposition to us, viz. that those predictions are
typical of something else. Thus, e.g. Fairbairn (On Proph., p. 270) frankly admits that the prophetic language describes
a literal Kingdom, but that this must be understood as typical, etc. Afterward he himself sets up a Kingdom
corresponding with this literal description, and neglects applying to the plain grammatical sense his Origenistic derived
typical one. If the predictions have been typical thus far in the history of the Church, and no change of nature. is noted
in the predictions themselves, how does it come that this typical application does not continue—that it suddenly
changes, more or less, into literalness? Does not this prove that the principles of interpretation underlying the Church-
Kingdom theory are not entirely satisfactory to their own advocates.

   Obs. 4. The very concession of a visible " world-dominion" by the Church-Kingdom theorists is hampered by other
difficulties, irreconcilable with the uniform tenor of prophecy. Thus, e.g. they concede that this Kingdom possesses an
outward authoritative dominion, but, (1) they must, if they take the descriptions of wickedness, war, etc., preceding the
Sec. Advent, have the saints or Church yield up such dominion against positive assertions by the prophets to the
contrary ; (2) with their theory of the ending of this dispensation, general judgment, winding up of the world, changes in
the Church, they allow no such permanency, everlasting duration (see Prop. 159) ascribed to it by the prophets. The
only effort made to obviate this difficulty is to say that the Church is everlasting, and hence will ever endure. This we
admit, but that is not the point at issue between us ; the point is, that a certain position or station is assigned to the
Church, viz., that of exerting power, authority, dominion here on the earth, and the question is whether that will be
retained as the prophets predict or not. Our doctrine gives this authority to the elect people—the seed of Abraham—
but at a designated time, and retains it as a permanent possession ; the prevailing view gives such dominion, but finally
brings it to a close to make way for an alleged " Kingdom of Glory," somewhere in God's universe.

   Obs. 5. If the popular definition of the Kingdom of God, viz., that it is " God's reign in the heart" (thus confounding
God's Sovereignty with a special Kingdom of promise) is correct, how comes it that the prophets assign it specified time
and place in the future ? How comes it that it is spoken of as established at a certain period, and as pertaining to the
humanity of Jesus Christ ? Surely something very different from the absolute eternal Sovereignty of God is denoted ; it
may be, and is indeed attached to, and grows out of, that Sovereignty, but linked as it is with the elect Jewish nation,
the Davidic throne and Kingdom, the human nature of Christ as David's Son, the outward visibility and dominion, the
ending of the times of the Gentiles, the restoration of the Jewish nation, etc., it cannot be referred to any other Kingdom
but the Theocratic-Davidic as believed in, and preached by the early churches. Admit this, and the significance and
unity of covenant and prophecy are apparent ; deny it, and diversity and antagonism follow.

   Strange that men under the influence of a favorite theory will make the temporal blessings formerly connected with
the Theocratic rule, and which are promised on its restoration to be greatly increased and enlarged, to be typical of
spiritual blessings in order to make them suit the Church, even when they relate to the natural life, health, offspring,
abundant harvests, increase of cattle, fruitfulness of land, etc., in brief, to the very things that are needed under a
visible Kingdom. Stranger still, that a suffering, struggling church, without civil laws as the Theocracy possessed,
without the distinctive features of the covenanted and predicted Kingdom, without the presence of its Theocratic (in the
strict sense, God ruling as an earthly Ruler) Head (so that believers are now to render civil obedience to earthly kings
and rulers), should be so persistently elevated to the position of that still future Kingdom, called (2 Pet. 1 : 11, etc.)
Christ's. And strange, with all this, men cannot wholly divest themselves of the idea of visibility, outward exercise of
power, etc. God has permitted men to work out their ideas of the Kingdom of God. The union of Church and State in the
days of Constantine ; the Papal Hierarchy with its presumptions ; the State assuming to control the Church by its "
divine right ;" the Church declaring, by virtue of its superiority, its power over the State ; the struggles century after
century in many countries arising from a Church-Kingdom notion—these are matters of history and are written in letters
of blood. Let the conflicts of Germany, France, England, Holland, etc., testify to the sad influence exerted by this theory.
Let us illustrate by a single example : the practical result of this Church-Kingdom theory is seen in Calvin's rule in
Geneva. Calvin, under the impression that the Kingdom of God was now to be realized in the lives of the people (so
Fisher, His. Ref., p. 217, comp. D'Aubigne's His., Mosheim, etc.), so framed the State that the Church, through the
Consistory, had the controlling influence, and the State was only co-operative in enforcing a code which was evidently
based on the opinion that God's Kingdom was already established, and that a sort of Mosaic legislation under an
existing (so-called) Theocratic organization was in place, by which all—even such as were not predestinated unto
salvation—were forced upon their good behavior and obedience. History records the conflict, and infidelity, overlooking
the conscientiousness (however mistaken) of " the Venerable Company," makes itself merry at the bloody stringency of
its laws, without considering that men who honestly entertained such views of the Kingdom could not act otherwise. This
mistaken doctrine affords an apology for a code which advocated coercion in matters of religion, and made the State—
as in the Papacy—the executioner. This applies, alas ! to a multitude of other cases.

   Obs. 6. The Herald of the Morning (June 15, 1878, August 1, 1877, etc.) makes the future Kingdom " spiritual," and
denounces us in our belief as " materialists." All that we need to say in reply is this : without discarding the spiritual
aspects of the Kingdom (comp. Prop. 197), we are satisfied to receive the visible and materialistic view in ,connection
with that which covenant and prophecy embraces. The reasons assigned for this purely spiritual Kingdom are too subtle
and far-fetched for us, seeing that it is taken for granted that a glorification must necessarily result in an invisible and
wholly spiritual state against the general analogy and specific teaching of the Scriptures. (Comp. next observation and
Prop.)

   Thus Patton (Aug. 1, 1877) says : "%Many suppose the Kingdom to come is the restored Jewish Kingdom, earthly,
visible ; forgetting or ignoring the facts that the Kingdom is to be a ` heavenly Kingdom ' ; that ` except a man be born
again he cannot see the Kingdom of God,' and neither shall they say, ` Lo here, or lo there,' all of which they could not
say, if it was visible." (He might have added, that " flesh and blood" do not inherit this Kingdom.) But certainly this is a
plain denial of Covenant and prophecy, which insists upon the same Kingdom removed being restored, with which all
these alleged objections can be easily reconciled and shown to be adjuncts. Thus e.g. this Theocracy is " heavenly," as
we have shown, for God rules in it ; that a birth (res.) is requisite to " seeing" it, every concordance showing that "
seeing" is used in the sense of participating in, or experiencing its blessings ; that " lo here," etc., is indicative of the
manner of its coming, as the context shows ; that inheriting the Kingdom is the obtaining of a ridership, a Kingship in
this Kingdom, which is only confined to the glorified saints ; that consistency in such applications would make
everything, including even the regenerated earth, invisible and purely spiritual. The old Gnostic prejudice against
matter is the basis of this objection, which is condemned in the most pointed manner by the plain grammatical sense of
Scripture and the early faith of the Churches established by the Apostles. The objection has a few passages of
Scripture which are pressed to an extreme, and this extreme is made the subject of numerous irrelevant matter,
contradictory to both Covenant and prophecy. Another writer in his hostility to all earthly governments (Davis's Seven
Thunders) asserts that in the Mill. Kingdom " there will be no family, no school, no ecclesiastical, no civil institution, but
only a divine government," which he attenuates so that it has no external, outward form. But this is utterly opposed by
direct prophecy and promise, which declare that the Kingdom is an organized government over the nations of the earth,
so that e.g. the Apostles rule over the twelve tribes, the restored Jewish nation is extraordinarily blessed in its civil,
social, and family relations (increase, etc.), there is a central place from whence issues the authority of government, the
nations send representatives to Jerusalem, the Jewish nation enjoys a certain supremacy, etc. God has had in the past,
as such admit, a " Kingdom of God" in a visible form, and He will not allow this visible Kingdom to prove a failure, but is
making his preparations to reproduce it, at the appointed time, in greater power and glory.

   Obs. 7. Barbour (Three Worlds) employs the same reasoning as given in the previous Observation, and insists that
this Kingdom of " the Christ" is spiritual and invisible, being something separate and distinct from " the Kingdoms" given
to Jesus in Rev. 11 : 15, laying special stress on the plural " Kingdoms." Now a reference to Rev. 11 : 15 shows, even in
our version by the italics that in the latter clause the plural is assumed. The mss. S. & A. (Tischendorf's N. T.) have
even " the Kingdom of this world is become the Kingdom of," etc., and hence many critics, making the correspondence
with Dan. 7 the more striking, translate, " The Sovereignty of this world is become the Sovereignty of," etc. Nosy that
this is the meaning, and that it is visible on the earth, including the nations, is abundantly evident from Dan. 2 and 7, as
comp. e.g. with Isa. 2, Micah 4 etc. The prophecy not only takes it for granted that it takes the place of preceding
Kingdoms, but expressly asserts that it is a Kingdom under heaven, here on earth, which embraces the rulership of the
saints and the subjection of the nations. It requires the grossest perversion of language to make a purely spiritual and
invisible Kingdom out of the one delineated, and thus corresponding with the covenanted one. The Kingdom promised
to David's Son by oath, and which is His inheritance is not an invisible one far from it. Barbour reaches his conclusions
by pressing a few sentences of 1 Cor. 15, relating to the future glorified condition of the saints —a condition which only
qualifies them for a visible and glorious reign—a condition, which, in Jesus and the saints, brings the Divine and Super-
natural in visible relationship to humanity. It is by spiritualizing some predictions, making others conditional, applying the
typical to some, and overlooking others, that this spiritual system, Gnostic in tendency, is produced.

   This view, too, is most unjustly and offensively presented by Barbour, showing either his lack of knowledge of our
system or a wilful design to lower our doctrine by engrafting upon it opinions that we do not hold. Thus (1) that we deny
spirituality to the Kingdom, which no one does, although we reject his purely spiritual theory ; (2) that we make the " first-
born," the heirs and inheritors, to dig, plant, etc., with the restored Jews (an " agricultural Kingdom"), which no one has
ever done, because they carefully distinguish between the glorified saints and the nations (this is a revival of the old
Popish falsehood, charged against Pre-Millenarians of the Primitive Church) ; (3) that we confine the Kingdom to
Palestine, which no Pre-Millenarian, to my knowledge, does ; (4) that we do not unite with the restored Theocracy a
higher development (leaving it to exist pretty much as formerly), even the union of the Divine with its resultant
marvellous power and works (This work with its quotations, etc., gives all the answer that is needed). A theory, however
plausible, that requires bolstering up by misrepresenting others, must have but feeble supports.
Russell (Our Lord's Return, p. 55), who was for a time in affiliation with Barbour, remarks in opposition to a visible
Kingdom and Christ sitting on David's throne in Palestine, that " fleshly Israel is not, and never again will be ` the
Kingdom of God.' They were once, but it will be taken from them, and given to another people, children of Abraham by
faith, the Church. Under the sounding of the seventh trumpet all the Kingdoms of the world (now under the control of
Satan) ` become the Kingdoms of our Lord.' They pass into the possession of Christ and under the rule of His
Kingdom—the devil being bound, Rev. 20 : 2. Israel, with their capital at Jerusalem, will doubtless be the chief of these
fleshly nations, but it will no more be the heavenly Kingdom than they." Hence it is spiritual, etc. The inconsistency of
making the Kingdom spiritual because " heavenly," and admitting that as " the Kingdom of God " and as " heavenly" it
once existed in a visible form, is certainly very striking, especially when in this future Kingdom God's will is to be done
on earth as in heaven. The simple fact is this : Russell overlooks the elect condition of the nation, the necessity of our
being engrafted into it, the express covenanted relationship of that Kingdom with the nation, the removal of God's wrath
which restores them to their ancient position, etc., as we have presented, in detail, in previous Propositions. All
prophecy makes the setting up of this Kingdom contingent with the restoration of that nation, for it is David's throne and
Kingdom (not a type or symbol, but the same Kingdom overthrown) that is the inheritance of David's Son, the Messiah.
As to taking the Kingdom from the nation and giving to others, the general tenor of the Scriptures, as we have shown at
length, teaches that to the Jewish nation at the First Advent was tendered, on the condition of repentance, the honor of
rulership, kingship, and priesthood in this Kingdom. This tender was refused, and now, lest the purpose of God fail,
these rulers are gathered out of other repentant and believing ones that are engrafted. The nation as such, however
high its position in the coming Kingdom, cannot, and does, not occupy the noble and exalted stations of honor and
glory that these gathered ones—gathered because of their unbelief and rejection—will sustain. But we must refer the
reader to our previous statements, given with the scriptural proof, and logically step by step. This we, however, add :
these engrafted ones to whom the honor of rulership (inheriting the Kingdom) is given are united with previous ones
selected from the nation previously, for they inherit the promises with the ancient worthies. These promises only include
the Kingdom advocated by us, and embraced in " the sure mercies of David." The purely spiritual Kingdom of Barbour,
Russell, and others has no existence either in Covenant or in prophecy, and was never heard of until mysticism and
spiritualizing exerted their influence upon scriptural interpretation and application.