ble,' (conjoined indeed with misunderstanding or forgetfulness as to the great predicted ecclesiastical apostacy, that was to run on even from St. Paul's time within the profess every case tares began almost immediately to mix with the wheat in the early Churches, as the Apostolic Epistles themselves show, agreeably with our Lord's prophetic parable. And so corruption becoming more and more prevalent, and tainting not only the individual character of the professing Church's members, but even its doctrinal teaching, profest faith, and public worship, the Apocalyptic symbol at length received its fulfilment of the true Church being driven into a state of invisibility and barrenness, like as of a wilderness. Nor even in that comparatively small portion of ancient Roman Christendom in which orthodox doctrine and pure forms of worship were restored at the Reformation, has the mass of any visible Church community answered in spirit and character to its profession. Compare Apoc. xiv. 3; a passage already before referred to. 1 I cannot better illustrate this than from Mr. Gresley's "True Churchman." He observes (p. 35, 6th Ed.); "It is the right or the wrong belief in one doctrine of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church, which makes all the difference, rendering men sound orthodox Churchmen, or wavering Schismatics. Some not very spiritual persons have adopted a mode of speaking of the Church as the body of true believers in all the world. It is manifestly a mere political manœuvre.' Let us turn to the Bible. The word Church occurs in a good many places in Scripture; in the large majority of which it is applied to a religious community existing visibly upon earth, which was liable to persecution, vexation, extension, could receive complaints, admit or reject members, deliberate, decide controversies, send messengers, be edified, take care of, salute, and be saluted, in short could exercise all the functions of a visible human society." Then he adds: "There are a few, very few, exceptions; as in the Epistle to the Ephesians, where it is said that Christ gave himself for it, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. Here evidently the Apostle alludes to some prospective condition of the Church; because not even one individual member of the Church on earth is on this side of the grave perfectly sinless. This perfect holiness therefore can be ascribed only to the Church triumphant: as in the Hebrews, where the heavenly Jerusalem is spoken of as the general assembly and Church of the first-born which are written in heaven, the spirits of just men made perfect." Let me ask, Is there not some confusion of ideas, or of language, in this passage? In the first part Mr. G. speaks of the Church (the one Catholic and Apostolic Church) as a religious community existing visibly on earth, including (as appears from the context, all its professing members, and governed by bishops of the official apostolic succession: then he quotes a certain few passages from Scripture, which allude, he says, to a prospective and triumphant condition of the Church. Now, in thus speaking, either Mr. G. means by the Church the same community that he before designated under that name, though in a different stage and state of existence; which is the natural and only proper meaning of his words in which case he makes all professing and unexcommunicated members of the earthly episcopal Churches to be members of the Church triumphant in heaven; an error surely as fearful as palpable 1-Or else he means by the Church in one sentence one thing; in the next quite another: viz. in the first, the Christian visible community, including both true and false, the tares and the wheat; in the other the wheat, or true Church only. On which latter hypothesis he virtually admits the distinction that he is so bent on denying, between the Church visible and Church invisible; while violating at the same time that distinctness, which is a primary rule of writing. What if, in Algebra, the equation A = a + à being proposed, (as the Church visible includes both the true and Was it so with Archbishop Leighton? Or with the founders of the Church to which Mr. G: belongs, whose views to this effect I have quoted above? ing Church, parallel with the constituency and doctrine of Christ's true Church, and at length all but to stifle the latter,' together with a mistaken Judaic view also of the Christian Church and priesthood,2) that most of those Oxford anti-Anglican errors have sprung, whose legitimate end and perfecting is in the Romish doctrine and Church ?3-At home and abroad let but its own proper and original evangelical spirit and acting characterize our beloved Anglican Church; and then surely we may the rather hope for the Divine blessing upon her. By the joint application of her Apocalyptic Augustinian doctrine respecting the Lord's true living Church, as one made up of his individual election of grace, chosen from out of visible professing Churches through grace unto salvation, and her Apocalyptic Lutheran doctrine of justification simply by faith in Christ our Righteousness, (doctrines alike prominently set forth in the Apocalypse, the false members of it) some one in the working out of the problem were quietly to use a, after a step or two, as the equivalent of A? As to the difference between Mr. G. and his own Church on the general view, the Notes preceding will, I think, show it clearly. I am not unaware that certain eminent opponents of the ecclesiastical system advocated by Mr. Gresley, do yet agree with him in speaking of the appellative sons of God as applied by St. Paul to all the members of the Church visible, "whether they walk worthy of their high calling or not." So Archbishop Whateley in his Kingdom of God, p. 8: who also at p. 52, notes all these as constituting the communion of Saints. But would St. Paul have counted in that communion such false professors as he alludes to Acts xx. 30, Phil. iii. 19, 2 Cor. xi. 13, 15, Jude 12; &c.? 'See in Vol. iii. p. 79, my reference to Archdeacon Manning's argument on this point. 2 See my general argument on this subject on the Sealing Vision, Part i. ch. vii. § 1, concluded Vol. i. pp. 264–267. It was through this erroneous view, primarily, that Mr. Sibthorp was led to join Rome. So he himself tells us, in his very illustrative Letter of justification. And I fear it still partially affects some, who would yet shrink back from Oxford Tractarianism. I might exemplify in a late Ordination Sermon by one much to be esteemed, on 2 Cor. viii. 23, based very much on this official, ecclesiastical, Levitical view of the Episcopacy, Church, and Priesthood::-as if from his mere office a bishop or presbyter can be the glory of Christ, unless he hold, preach, and live the doctrine of Christ; or as if men baptized can be really brethren to Christ's saints, unless they be really and in heart members incorporate with Christ the head. 3 What an illustration of this has been given, since my first Edition was published, in the Apostacy to Rome of the chief Oxford Tractarians, Messrs. Newman, Ward, Oakley, Faber, &c!--[2nd Ed.] 4 Original, with reference to the Cranmers, Ridleys, Jewels, &c., the actual founders of the English Church; not to the Lauds or Bulls, whom some would refer to as its fathers, of a later and very different generation. as re-discovered to men by express revelation,') we may expect that she will detect and expel from within her pale, as with touch of the spear of Ithuriel, every the most specious heresy: and that so, at the last great day of Christ's collecting together his jewels, the memorial of Zion shall be hers yet more abundantly, that "many were born in her, and that the Most High did establish her." 2 And might not a word be fitly added also of solemn practical application of the lessons of this prophecy to other churches, orthodox and unorthodox, among us?— In the anticipation of some tremendous approaching conflict, (if such anticipation seem warranted by the prophecy,) and yet more in the view of this conflict of the nations as but a prelude to the fearful and fiery judgments that are to accompany the Lord's own coming, do we not see motives pre-eminently cogent for union among all that love the Lord Jesus in sincerity? And does it not appear lamentable that, whether from political or ecclesiastical differences of opinion, there should be cherished by any such in the Protestant dissenting body a feeling of bitterness against our Anglican Church; a Church which they yet allow to be in its doctrines and profession of faith eminently scriptural and evangelic: especially considering that the supposition of Christ's declaration, 3 My kingdom is not of this world," militating against a national established Church, depends on an inference from that text very questionable; 3 and indeed, unless See my Vol. i. pp. 270, 271, and Vol. ii. pp. 39-43. 2 Psalm lxxxvii. 5. 3 With regard to this famous text, John xviii. 36, My kingdom is not of this world,” (Ἡ βασιλεια ἡ εμη ουκ εσιν εκ του κοσμου τούτου,) it seems essential to its right understanding, that we consider it in the light not only of its immediate context, but also of the larger context of Scripture (especially New Testament Scripture) in which Messiah's kingdom, called also the kingdom of God, or the kingdom of heaven,* is a topic perpetually recurring. " And this must, I think, at once strike a considerate inquirer, that as in Daniel's first celebrated prophecy respecting it (a prophecy probably whence the phrase kingdom of heaven chiefly originated) there was figured the distinction between the regnum lapidis and the regnum montis,†—the primary humbler state of Mes * In St. Matthew we find it generally called the kingdom of heaven, in St. Mark and St. Luke the kingdom of God. † Dan. ii. 34, 35. I use Mede's well-known Latin. my solution of the vision of Apoc. x, xi can be refuted, that the establishment of the Anglican, as well as of the German and other reformed Churches of the 16th cen siah's kingdom, as a stone (the temple's destined corner-stone*) cut out without hands, and its ultimate triumphant state, after shivering the world's great image to pieces, and as a mountain (the mountain of the Lord's house,† I suppose,) filling with its glory the whole earth,- -so this twofold state and phase of Jesus Christ's kingdom is prominently set forth by Christ himself and his apostles in the New Testament. The first is that which had its commencement from after the King's presentation of himself in human form on earth, rejection by those that deemed themselves the master-builders in Israel, suffering as man's redemption-price from the kingdom of darkness; and then absenting himself for a while, with a view to receive investiture of the kingdom,§ and both to prepare his people for it, and it for his people. And it is described as the preparatory state of the kingdom's proclamation and heralding¶ over the earth, with earnest invitation from the King to all to enter it: a state this which answers to the seedscattering and net-throwing of the Parable; ** with the foreseen result of a promiscuous gathering of bad and good, false as well as true: and which includes prominently among its characteristics a provision for the meet spiritual education and nourishment of all its true members; while still sojourners, far away from the King and kingdom of their hearts, in a world under the dominion of the Evil One. The second state and phase described is that of its manifestation in the heavenly power and majesty prefigured at the transfiguration; ‡‡ and establishment on the ruins of Antichrist's kingdom,§§ and of each other dominion allied with the Prince of darkness. It is this same for which Christ has bid us pray incessantly, Thy kingdom come : one that is to be ushered in by the King's own visible return in glory; the retinue of all his faithful saints and subjects of every age rising to attend him, in reflected lustre like as of the sun, and to the exclusion of the insincere and false : but which even the saints themselves in flesh and blood cannot inherit; ¶¶ and with a view to their entrance on which the we Matt. xxi. 42, Luke xx. 17. In what our Lord adds, as recorded both by “On whomsoever it shall fall λικμήσει αυτόν, St. Matthew and St. Luke, have I think a very interesting connecting link between David's prophecy about the corner-stone (Ps. cxviii. 22, "The stone which the builders rejected, &c.") here quoted by Christ, and Daniel's about the image-smiting stone. For dikunσei is not exactly rendered in our translation," it shall grind him to powder." It should rather be," it shall reduce him to dust like as of winnowed chaff from the threshing-floor." The similarity of which to Dan. ii. 35 is so evident and striking that I cannot think it unintended: "The stone smote the image upon his feet of iron and clay; and then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floor; and the wind carried them away." It is the self-same word that is used in the Septuagint, Dan. ii: λικμήσει και λεπτύνει πασας τας βασιλειας. Col. i. 13, 14. || John xiv. 2. Is. ii. 2, Mic. iv. 1. Compare Apoc. xxi. 10. § Luke xix. 12. Matt. iv. 23, Acts xxviii. 31, &c. I need hardly observe that кnpvoσeiv, usually rendered to preach, is literally to proclaim as a herald. ** Matt. xiii. 24, 47. ++ 1 John v. 19. ✰✰ Mark ix. 1; "There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God come with power. And after six days Jesus taketh Peter and James and John up into an high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them; &c." Compare 2 Pet. i. 16—18. §§ Dan. ii. 44, vii. 26, 27. Thess. v. 16, 17; Matt. xxv. 31, 34; xiii. 41-43. ¶¶ 1 Cor. xv. 50, tury, seems expressly noted in the Apocalyptic figurations as the Lord's own doing.'-The same as to the robing of incorruption is provided for them, and the world to be made a new world wherein dwelleth righteousness.* Conformably with all which the text under discussion is, I conceive, thus to be explained: "My kingdom is not of this world," might be said by Christ to Pilate, 1st. with reference to the principle of its constitution; as neither seeking for its object the grandeurs, dignities, or secular supremacy of the kingdoms of this world, nor involving disobedience or violation of allegiance in secular matters to the earthly sovereign:† but only vindicating to itself the empire of the heart: -2dly. in respect of its constituency, as including those only who in heart" are of the truth," in contrast with a world of which he had the night before said, that "the Spirit of truth the world could not receive;"‡ its members being thus "not of the world, even as Christ was not of the world: "-3rdly. in respect of the mode of its propagation and advancement, as not by force or the sword, like this world's kingdoms, "else would my servants fight: "-4thly. in respect of the time of its proper manifestation and establishment; as not during the existence of the world that now is, but in the world to come, as says St. Paul,§ at the end of the present age; in the regeneration, or new creation, when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory; ¶ the new heaven and new earth, of which speak Isaiah and St. Peter.** Supposing which explanation of the text correct, it seems, although what might be called a decidedly spiritual explanation, yet to involve no precept or argument against a national establishment of the orthodox faith. For the rich and the noble and kings are no more excluded from the offer of a part in Christ's kingdom than the ignoble and the poor. And in case of their accepting the offer, and becoming members of it, they are surely as much bound as any others to promote the interests of the kingdom, by such legitimate means as God may have put within their power: including especially, on the part of Christian kings, the provision of a gospel-ministry and an evangelic worship, throughout the countries ruled by them. Can the Queen of the Sandwich islands have violated any principle of duty involved in Christ's declaration to Pilate, in making provision for them in her distant territory? Or our pious King Edward at the Reformation in England? See my Vol. ii. p. 184, 185, &c. on the paßdos, or rod of authority, given by the Angel to the representative man, St. John.- "The Elector John," says Milner, in a passage quoted by me, Vol. ii. p. 187, "assuming to himself that supremacy in ecclesiastical matters which is the natural right of every lawful sovereign, exercised it with resolution and activity, in forming new ecclesiastical constitutions, modelled on the principles of the great Reformer."-How in the Anglican church this same principle was acted on is notorious, and may be seen in Burnet. [After the publication of my 1st Edition, my argument from the paßdos was impugned as an unfounded fancy of the Author's, both in the Patriot and other dissenting publications: but on my calling for proof of incorrectness in my Apocalyptic inference and argument, none was given. Subsequently, and since the publication of my 2nd Edition, Dr. Candlish has argued elaborately against it, in the second of his Four Letters addrest to me on certain subjects in the Horæ. I beg to refer the reader to his Letter and my Reply. Certainly the result does not seem to me to be the overthrow, but rather the confirmation, of my interpretation and argument. 3rd Ed.] John xiv. 17. * 2 Pet. iii. 13. Matt. xiii. 39. + Compare Rom. xiii. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 13, 17. ** Compare Justin Martyr, Apol. ii; Ὑμεις ακουσαντες βασιλειαν προσδοκώντας ήμας ακρίτως ανθρωπινον λέγειν ἡμᾶς ὑπειλήφατε, ἡμων την μετα Θεου λεγόντων. |