KINGDOM AND AGE TO COME.
“Earnestly contend for the Faith, which was once delivered to the Saints.”—Jude
Volume 1—Number 10 (October 1851)
KINGDOM
The word kingdom, in the Greek Basileia, is of very common occurrence in the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles. In the English tongue it is derived from the two words king and dominion, which when joined together, with the syllables inion cut off, make kingdom. The radical idea of the word is therefore king’s dominion, or dominion of a king. Kingdom has a plurality of significations in our language, and is not restricted to the idea of authority, or jurisdiction. It is sometimes used to signify the territory or country subject to a king, undivided by the interposition of other countries. This is the kingdom proper or “the first dominion.” At other times, it is used to signify the inhabitants of the country, or population subject to a king. This diversity of signification comes from the word dominion, which imports “territory under a government; region; country; district governed, or within the limits of authority of a prince or state. Government; right of governing. Persons governed.”
There may be many countries under the jurisdiction of one and the same king. The plural is then used, and they are styled the king’s dominions, of which all that are situated beyond the kingdom proper constitute the empire or second dominion. This distinction is observed in the prophets as appears from the testimony—
“I will make Israel that was cast off a strong nation; and THE LORD SHALL REIGN OVER THEM IN MOUNT ZION from henceforth even for ever. And then, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even THE FIRST DOMINION; the KINGDOM shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem”—(Micah 4: 7-8).
The first dominion, then, and the kingdom are the same; but that there is dominion beyond “the first” is also apparent from another testimony which speaks both of kingdom and dominion. Thus the prophet says—
“There was given to one like the Son of Man DOMINION, and glory, and A KINGDOM, that all people, and nations, and languages should serve him”—(Daniel 7: 13-14).
Queen Victoria has a first and secondary dominion. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland is the first dominion; while India, British America, the West Indies, etc., constitute the second. So it will be when the Kingdom comes to Jerusalem; the Kingdom of Israel then existing on the land of Israel will be the King of Israel’s first dominion; while all other nations and countries will be his secondary possession—
“For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee, O Zion, shall perish; yea those nations shall be utterly wasted”—(Isaiah 60: 12).
The word kingdom is not a full translation of Basileia; for while it signifies a kingdom, realm, that is, the region or the country governed by a king; kingly power, authority, dominion, reign; it also signifies, royal dignity, majesty and the title and honour of a king. In short Basileia imports basileos ta, the things of a basileus or king. It is in this way it is used in the scriptures.
A king’s personalia are all expressed by basileia. Hence it stands for the king’s majesty in which he shall appear, when he comes in power and great glory, as expressed in these words—
“Verily, there be some standing here, who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his KINGDOM”—(basileia)—
(Matthew 16: 28).
This majesty in the preceding verse is called “the glory of the Father,” in which the Son of Man shall come accompanied “with the angels,” and at which time “he will reward every man according to his works.” The passage might be more intelligibly, and quite as correctly rendered, “who shall not taste of death until that they shall behold the Son of Man making his appearance (erchomenon) in his majesty.”
In some MSS. basileia is displaced by the word doxe, that is, visible glory, splendour, brightness, dazzling light, or majesty. The persons to be thus favoured were Peter, James, and John, who six days after Jesus spoke the words, became eye-witnesses of the basileia or doxa with which he will be invested when he confounds the moon, and puts the sun to shame “at the appearing in his kingdom” (Isaiah 24: 23; 2 Timothy 4: 1). In bearing testimony to this Peter says for himself and his brethren—
“We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the POWER and COMING of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his MAJESTY. For he received from God the Father HONOUR and GLORY, when there came such a voice to him from the magnificent glory, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came out of heaven we heard when we were with him in the Holy Mount”—(2 Peter 1: 16-18).
The word “coming” in this place is parousia in the Greek, from pareimi, a verb which signifies to be present, to have come. Parousia, therefore, imports actual presence; which accords with our rendering of erchomenon in the text of Matthew “making his appearance.” What the three apostles saw on the Mount of Transfiguration was the majesty of the Son of God. This majesty consisted of “honour and glory” received from the Father; and therefore styled “the glory of the Father.” When Jesus is actually present on Mount Zion in Jerusalem, it is no cunningly devised fable to affirm, that he will be seen there as he was seen by three mortal men on the Mount of Transfiguration. This is his parousia en te basileia auloa and the erchomenos tou vhiou tou anthrapou—his manifestation in his kingdom.
The word basileia is used in the proclamation of John the Baptiser, Jesus, and the Apostles, before the crucifixion. They preached, saying, “the basileia, or kingdom, of the heavens is at hand.” In this instance kingdom means neither territory, population, dominion, reign nor power. Dr. George Campbell supposes that John and Jesus announced the approach of the reign of heaven, that is, of the Messiah, which after his resurrection was actually established. But this is contrary to fact. Jesus is king of Israel of right; but instead of his reign being acknowledged by his people, they refused to submit to him, and put him to death. And after his resurrection the national will was still supposed to be his. The apostles spent their lives in urging his claims to the throne and kingdom of David, which was nevertheless rejected, and brought ruin upon the nation. What sort of reign is this? The reign of a king over rebels, which is no reign at all.
John did not certainly proclaim the reign of heaven at hand in preaching repentance, because the basileia approached. He was too well instructed in the prophets to do this. What he cried was,
“Repent, because the kingdom of the heavens has approached.”
The kingdom here was not something to appear seven years after; but a something that was actually present. Eggike is the perfect of eggizo, and imports what has already come to pass. It does not signify at hand to come, but has come to hand—it is present, in your midst. What is it that is present? The basileia—THE LORD whose way I call upon you to prepare. “He standeth among you;” and “that he should be manifested to Israel, I am come, as his precursor, baptising in water, and preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Matthew 3: 2; Mark 1: 3-4; John 1: 26, 31).
Thus spake John, when in the spirit and power of Elijah he lifted up his voice in the wilderness in the performance of his mission to announce the presence, and approaching manifestation of the King of Israel, and to prepare a people to receive him (Luke 1: 17). Hence his proclamation was,
“Repent, because the Majesty of the heavens has arrived;” or, “because His Majesty, the King of Israel, and of the nations, is about to appear before you.” “I know not who he is; but He that sent me to baptise with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he who baptiseth with the Holy Spirit:” and when John saw this he bear record that Jesus is the Son of God (John 1: 33-34).
That basileia is sometimes put for king, and the contrary, in the scriptures, appears from these words—
“Blessed is HE THAT COMETH in the name of the Lord; blessed be THE KINGDOM of our father David THAT COMETH in the name of the Lord”—(Mark 11: 9-10).
According to another they said—
“Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord”—(Matthew 21: 5, 9).
This he regards as a fulfilment of the saying—
“Behold, thy KING, O Zion, cometh unto thee, meek and sitting upon an ass”—(Zechariah 9: 9).
A third records it in the words—
“Blessed be THE KING that cometh in the name of the Lord”—(Luke 19: 38).
In the prophet Daniel also kings and kingdoms are used synonymously (Daniel 2: 44); so that it is according to the analogy of scripture to render basileia or kingdom by king, if the scope and context of the place demand it.
EDITOR.
* * *
“KINGDOM OF HEAVEN”—“THE HEAVENS”—“THE HEAVENLIES.”
“Kingdom of heaven” is a phrase of very frequent occurrence in the New Testament. It is one of those particular names or phrases which distinguish the things pertaining to the economy of which Jehovah is the builder and maker. “With the true import of these names and phrases,” says Dr. George Campbell, “it is of great consequence that we be acquainted, in order to form a distinct apprehension of the nature and end of the whole. A very small deviation here may lead some into gross mistakes, and conceal from others in a considerable degree, the spirit which this institution breathes, and the discoveries which it brings.” We agree with the doctor entirely in this sentiment; but regret very much that so candid a man should have fallen a victim to the “very small deviation” he labored to preserve others from. He has rendered basileia by reign instead of kingdom in the phrase kingdom of heaven; so that he translates me’anoeite; eggike gar he basileia ton ouranon, the proclamation of John and Jesus,
“Reform; for the reign of heaven approaches.”
The rule by which he translates basileia is, that “when it refers to the time it ought to be rendered reign, and when to place, kingdom;” though he admits that “in some of the parables, it evidently means administration, or method of governing; and in one of them, the word denotes royalty, or royal authority”—Luke 19: 12, 15. He considers that in the proclamation of John and Jesus basileia had respect to time, and ought therefore to be rendered reign. That the reign of God, or of heaven, was about to commence. This, however, is contrary to fact. God’s reign over Israel commenced when he made a covenant with them at Sinai, saying,
“If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do”—
Exodus 19: 5-8.
From this time God reigned over them, and after some hundreds of years elapsed, “gave unto them Saul the son of Kish; and when he had removed him, he raised up David to be their king;” of whose seed he raised unto Israel, Jesus: “when John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel”—Acts 13: 21-24. And although in John’s day they were without a king of the house of David, God reigned over them through the institutions of the covenant he bestowed upon them and which they accepted at Sinai. He reigned over Israel then in the land both spiritually and politically—spiritually, because “all the people were baptised”—Luke 3: 21, “that heard John,” except “the Pharisees and Lawyers, who rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptised of John”—Luke 7: 29-30. This being the state of affairs, repentance could not be proclaimed on the ground of “the reign of God approaching,” seeing that it already existed.
But in the above passage from Acts, Paul teaches that the advent of the King of Israel was preceded by John’s proclamation; or in other words, that the manifestation of Jesus and his acknowledgment by the Father as Son of God was his coming, and not his birth of Mary: for he says, “John first preached before his coming,” or, “pro prosopou tes eisodou autou, before the manifestation of his approach.” John was six months older than Jesus, yet he said, “he that cometh after me is mightier than I,” though he was then standing in their midst unknown to John and the people as King of Israel, or Messiah.
It was well understood by the Jews that the promised king and saviour of the nation was to be the Son of God. For in the prophets which were read in their synagogues every Sabbath day, they were taught that “a child should be born, and a son given to them”—Isaiah 9: 6-7; that he should be at once Son of David and Son of God; that he should sit on David’s throne as the throne of his kingdom; and that Jehovah would establish him upon it for ever—2 Samuel 7: 12-16; Psalm 89: 3-4, 29, 36; Acts 2: 30. So that Son of God and King of Israel were inseparable ideas, which appears from the case of Nathaniel, who exclaimed with admiration,
“Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel”—John 1: 49.
John the Baptiser, Jesus, and the apostles, then, in their proclamation before the crucifixion, announced neither the reign nor the kingdom in regard to time or place, when they preached that “the basileia of God or of heaven was at hand.” Their proclamation had regard to the person or king of heaven. His actual presence among them, and approaching manifestation, were made the ground of repentance. While John preached, the manifestation was approaching; but when Jesus began his announcement, the manifestation had become a fact, and he declared himself to be the King and Heir of David’s throne.
“Repent; for the King of heaven has arrived.” The word in the Greek is in the plural, and ought to be so rendered in the English. The king of Israel is styled the basileia ton ouranon, or the King of the Heavens—the royal authority of the kingdoms. Dr. George Campbell in remarking upon the word says, “There are two senses wherein the word heaven in this expression may be understood. Either it signifies the place called heaven, or it is a metonymy for God, who is in scripture, sometimes by periphrasis, denominated he that dwelleth in heaven. When the place is the sense of the term ouranois, the phrase is properly rendered the kingdom of heaven; when God is the meaning of the word, the reign of heaven.” According to his rule that time and not place is indicated in the phrase before us, he renders it “reign of heaven” as the synonym of “the reign of God.” But this cannot be admitted for reasons already before the reader.
Without denying that “heavens” is a word that sometimes signifies God in scripture, we remark that this is not its import in the phrase basileia ton ouranon, or, royal authority of the heavens. We concede that basileia tou theou is used by Mark in his testimony as the record of what Jesus preached. They are not, however, of exactly the same import in the case. The basileia tou theou is the royalty of God, which is the basileia ton ouranon or royal authority of the heavens. Jesus proclaimed that God’s royalty had come, and afterwards argued with the rulers that he was himself the personage to whom it was attached. Being God’s royal son he claimed “the heavens,” or “kingdoms of the world,” as “Heir of all things”—Hebrews 1: 2—“that are in heavens—en tois ouranois—and that are upon the earth—Daniel 7: 14, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers”—he claimed them all as being created (dia) on account of him, and (eis) for him; he being (pro) above them all, and all of them consisting (en) because of him. —Colossians 1: 16-17.
“The Heavens,” hoi ouranoi, are the same as “the heavenlies,” hoi epouranioi—Ephesians 6: 12. “The Heavens” imports the aggregation of “the heavenlies.” A “throne” is a heavenly; so is a “dominion:” a “principality” is a heavenly; and so also is a “power.” A dominion is called a heavenly, because it is ouranos epi tes ges a heaven over the earth, that is, a government over the people. The heavenlies were, and still are, occupied by the pneumatika tes ponerias, or spirits of wickedness, termed “wicked spirits,” in the margin of the place. These were the “kosmokrators,” or world’s rulers, whom Paul styles, “the world rulers of the darkness of this age,” with whom he contended—kosmokratores tou skotous tou aionas toutou; called also “principalities and powers,” because these were possessed by them. He wrestled not with flesh and blood as a gladiator or athlete, to propagate the faith; but with Councils, Kings, Governors, Emperors, and inferior magistrates; who were all “the children of disobedience,” who walked according to the aion tou kosmou toutou the constitution of this order, termed “the course of this world” in the text; that is, according to the pagan order of things which prevailed in the Roman empire. This order was pervaded in all its constituents or elements, by “ the spirit” of idolatry, which in the apostle’s day, “worked in the children of disobedience.” It energised the Archon of the government, styled by Paul, the archon tes exousias tou aeros, or ruler of the dominion of the air; the Chief and Imperial Pontiff of the empire called the Pontifex Maximus, together with all the heathen under his jurisdiction—Ephesians 2: 2. This archon, or prince, was Caesar, to whom Paul appealed. “The dominion of the air” was the heavenly, or high place, he occupied; a heavenly, which still exists, though changed in its constitution, being now papal instead of pagan. In the days of Jesus and his apostles “the dominion of the air” was a civil and ecclesiastical pagan despotism under one head; but now it is a papal despotism under several heads, such as the Emperor of Austria, the Pope, and the Kings of the Roman territory bounded by the Rhine, Danube, &c. The heavenlies occupied by these worldrulers in the aggregate are styled “the air” in the Revelation—Revelation 16: 17; into which the Seventh Angel empties his Vial. This commenced in 1830, and will continue to affect the governments, or heavenlies, until the “great voice in the heaven” shall be accomplished, saying,
“The Kingdoms of the world are become our Lord’s, and his Anointed’s, and he shall reign until the ages of the ages”—eis tous aionas ton aionon—
Revelation 11: 15.
This is tantamount to saying, “The heavenlies are become the Heavens of our Lord, and of his King’s, and he shall reign until the kingdom is surrendered to the Father that God may be all and in all.”
It was the high honor of the faithful in early days to announce the “eternal purpose” of Jehovah in regard to “the powers that be,” to “them that dwell in the heaven.” The Gentiles and their rulers were to be made acquainted with God’s “purpose” concerning them, styled “the manifold wisdom of God.” This wisdom was a hidden secret, which the Gentiles could not search out for themselves; and therefore the treasures it reveals are termed “the unsearchable riches.” The wisdom so invaluable, and undiscoverable by human effort, was concealed from the ages in God’s own mind, by whom all things were created on account of Jesus Christ. Now, glory, and honor, incorruptibility and life, the world, things present, and things to come, are among the riches exhibited in the manifold wisdom of God. This wisdom, then, being hidden from the Gentiles, it must be obvious, that all their philosophical speculations and reveries upon any or all of these subjects must have been in vain. They were ignorant of God’s eternal purpose in relation to individuals, nations, governments, and all other things. Their ignorance alienated them from God’s life—Ephesians 4: 18, which is eternal. Their darkened understandings could not discover the constitution of man; nor could they search out his destiny, or that of the world which he inhabits. It is therefore clear as a sunbeam, that all their wisdom, or rather “foolishness,” which Paul styles “the wisdom of the world,” did not contain the true doctrine of immortality, nor the purpose for which all things consist.
Paul was pre-eminent in this work of turning the Gentiles from darkness to light, or of making them acquainted with “the eternal purpose of God which he ratified in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
“To me,” says he, “who am the least of all the saints, is this grace given, that I should publish the good news (euaggelisasthai) among the nations (even) the inscrutable riches of Christ; and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery which from the ages has been hid in God, by whom all things were created on account of Jesus Christ; to the intent that now to the principalities and powers in the heavenlies might be made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the purpose, which from the ages, he ratified in Christ Jesus our Lord”—Ephesians 3: 8-11.
If the reader accompany Paul in his several tours to Corinth, Ephesus, Athens, &c., recorded in Acts, he will readily see into the manifold wisdom of God, even the good news which he published to the principalities and the powers there. In Ephesus, he preached repentance, the kingdom of God, and Jesus the Anointed king—Acts 19: 8; 20: 21, 24-25; and in Athens before the Areopagus, repentance on the ground of God having appointed a day in the which he will rule the world in righteousness by a man whom he has ordained, the ratification of which he had given in raising him from the dead—Acts 17: 31. Here was the purpose which God had purposed in his own mind before the institution of the Mosaic Ages, revealed to the Athenian Senate. John and Jesus proclaimed repentance, because the king of the heavens had come; and Paul, because his kingdom would be set up at a certain appointed time, when all things in the heavens would be possessed by him.
But in relation to the publication of the good news by the faithful, how changed are things compared with what they were in apostolic times! Then the faithful, who in the aggregate composed “the church,” made known the inscrutable riches of God’s purpose to thrones, and dominions, principalities and powers; but now these “ things in the heavens”—Ephesians 1: 10, or heavenlies, are accessible only to those who know not the truth. The spirits of wickedness in the heavenlies have no ear for any thing but papal and protestant traditions. But, we suppose, it is all as it should be. The gospel of the kingdom was not sent to the heavenlies with the expectation of converting their occupants into joint-heirs with Christ of the future dispensation. The faithful were to “be brought before rulers and kings for Christ’s sake, for a testimony against them”—Mark 13: 9. To leave them without excuse. The gospel was good news to the people; but also a declaration of war against their governments and rulers. The authorities regarded it as such; and decreed that no one should proclaim any other king than Caesar—Acts 17: 7. But the pagan heavenlies of the Roman habitable have long since fallen before the power of the Invisible, whose adherents “overcame them by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them”—Revelation 12: 11. Yea, and they did rejoice; for the christian party and their chief possessed themselves of the honor, glory, and dominion of the Roman world.
But with the possession of the heavenlies the victors released their hold upon the anchor within the veil. They had founded a “christian” kingdom with Constantine and his successors, instead of Jesus, for their Head. So enamoured were they of this that they celebrated its praise as the kingdom of God itself, saying with acclamation,
“Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God and the power of his Anointed: for the accuser of our brethren (the pagan power) is cast down”—Revelation 12: 10.
Under this impression they look no more for the coming of the Son of Man in power and great glory to build again the tabernacle of David, and the ruins thereof, and to set it up as in the days of old—Acts 15: 6; Amos 9: 11. The kingdom according to them was established; and the saints possessed it. Judgment was now in their hands, and they would execute it according to their will and pleasure. Their hope was no longer the gospel hope. Having embraced the pagan tradition of immortal-soulism they lost sight of the resurrection, and the restoration of the kingdom again to Israel—Acts 1: 6; 3: 21, and surrendered themselves to the delusion, that their souls would fly away at death to regions of eternal day where they would revel in the delights of Paradise for ever with the Lord.
The extinction of the hope paved the way for an entire corruption, and apostacy from the faith. Their “christian” kingdom soon degenerated into a dark and cruel despotism; and became as ripe for destruction as the pagan “principalities and powers in the heavenlies” that preceded them. But that utter barbarism might not extinguish their dominion at once, their kingdom was divided into east and west. The civilisation of the age still found an asylum in the east, while the judgments of God fell with terrible severity upon the west, whose heavens were darkened again by the night of pagan superstition—Revelation 8: 12. The barbaric hordes of Germany and the north then established themselves in the countries that now acknowledge the spiritual sovereignty of the Bishop of Rome. The conquered imperialists, however, while they lost their dominion, succeeded in proselyting their victors to their own excessive, but less flagrant, superstition and impiety. The Roman and German delusions were blended, and became stronger than either of them alone; and grew into the Papalism of “the Dark Ages.” This mingling of the seed of men—Daniel 2: 43, that is, the melting down, as it were, of the victors and the vanquished into one common mass, and their adoption of a common superstition, laid the foundation of a civil and ecclesiastical system of things in Europe, which is now illustrated by the Papal Kingdoms which existed upon the continental territory of old Rome. Though they have arisen from a mingled mass, yet do they not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay; for though “God hath put it in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the Beast until his words shall be fulfilled”—Revelation 17: 17, yet are they individually, at least seven of them, independent, and antagonist kingdoms, seeking their own aggrandisement at the expense of one another. These kingdoms, together with those dominions, principalities, and powers which occupy the Continent between the Rhine, the Baltic, the Ural Mountains, the Black Sea, and the Danube, with Persia, Turkey, and Egypt, have none of them been evangelised as “the heavenlies” were which existed contemporarily with the apostles. God has not yet dealt with the modern heavenlies as with the ancient ones. He has had his witnesses among the nations who have “kept his commandments, and had the testimony of Jesus Christ,” to whom mankind are indebted for the little light and liberty that exists among them; but they have been unable to make known to the principalities and powers in the heavenlies the manifold wisdom of God. They could not gain access to them; and had they even stood in their presence, and reasoned with them from the prophets as the apostles did, not being attested by divine power, or miracle, the rulers would have resolved it all into mere heretical opinion. Their testimony would not have come home to them with power. Luther and his colaborers, indeed, prophesied in the presence of “them that dwell in the heaven”—before princes, kings, and emperors—but then they themselves knew not the unsearchable riches of Christ, and could not therefore make them known. They were protesters against popery and advocates of liberty to some extent, but had no claim to be regarded as preachers of the kingdom of God. Since their day more bibles have been circulated than for fifteen centuries before; comparatively few of them, however, have been scattered among the papal nations. Their rulers have proscribed it as a dangerous book; neither reading it themselves nor permitting their subjects to possess it. Their loyalty to the Beast has superinduced this fatal policy—fatal to the well-being of some of their people; but conducive to the perpetuity of their governments which are enthroned in popular ignorance and superstition. But had all the nations of Europe been like England, the papal kingdoms would not have given their power to the Beast. Now it is evident from the testimony adduced, that God desired that they should do so for the carrying out of his ulterior purpose, or he would not have put it in their hearts. We cannot but conclude, therefore, that he has influenced them to exclude the light of his truth from their dominions that they mat precipitate themselves upon that destiny which he is preparing for them, and which is necessary for the development of the crisis through which the revelation of Jesus Christ will be brought to pass. They are under “times of ignorance,” in which “he suffers them all to walk in their own ways”—Acts 14: 16; 17: 30. Those who are able to enlighten them cannot get at them; and if they could, it would be useless; for their eyes are blinded that they may not see. The good news of God’s eternal purpose has never reached their ears. It is as inaudible among the heavenlies as it is among the dead who are in their graves. But will this always be the case? Will remediless destruction come upon them unwarned? Did God forewarn the antediluvians by Noah, the Egyptians by Moses, the Ninevites by Jonah, and Judah and the pagan principalities and powers in the heavenlies by the apostles, and will he not also give the existing governments of the world warning; and afford them scope for the acceptance of peace or war with Him who claims the heavens as his inheritance? We shall answer this hereafter.
EDITOR.
* * *
THE EUROPEAN PROSPECT.
The intelligence by the Acadia has probably put beyond question the fact, that, in the progress of events, we are destined to see the great struggle between liberty and despotism, waged by revolutionised Europe on the one side, and the Emperor of Russia on the other. “Unless a stray bullet,” says the London Telegraph, “or the weapon of some fanatic of liberty, or the hand of over-ruling Providence, shall remove the Emperor Nicholas from the scene, and prepare the way for a revolution in Russia, the prospect of a fierce and devastating war, one of the most fearful that has ever befallen humanity, is before us. The immediate cost of this struggle must be great in blood, in treasure, and in the happiness of this generation. But the issue, although it may be protracted, will not be doubtful. Russia may support Austria, to retain her crumbling power; and these two may make head for a while; but, Poland resuscitated, Italy made free, Germany united, France revolutionised, and Great Britain, by the will of her people, ranged in support of freedom and the new ideas of Europe, must all act together. What chance will despotism have against an array like this? None! A long peace followed the last war; a peace more durable must follow the next. The new settlement of Europe must be founded upon true, not upon false principles—upon the interests of the people, not upon the systems of kings. And if despotism will fight in the meantime, despotism, most assuredly, will fare badly in the battle, and sooner or later be driven from Europe, to take refuge in more congenial Asia.”
The struggle between Europe and Russia must inevitably break forth before long; but with a vastly different result from that predicted by the London Telegraph. Austria and the Papacy will doubtless be supported by Russia against France and her allies. It will be the death-struggle of the Austro-Papal power. It will not only be crippled as aforetime, but utterly destroyed. Russia, however, and not “revolutionised Europe” will eventually be the gainer; and the Austrian and Papal territories will be in the end incorporated in the Autocrat’s dominion. This will be substituting a greater despotism for a less. But events are onward. Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Sardinia, Naples, and Greece, or Revolutionary Europe, will not escape. The tide will begin to ebb, and victory perch upon the standards of the north. The destroyer will fall upon them as the haters and desolators of the Austro-Papacy which hitherto he could not sustain in life; and the imperial sceptre of the Tzar will at length rule their destinies as the vassal kingdoms of his still increasing sovereignty. He will be a King of kings, and a Lord of lords; for they shall “surrender their dominion to him until the words of God be fulfilled.” God’s spirit being quieted for a brief space in the west, the indomitable British carry on the war in the east, where they and Russia meet in mortal fray; the latter urged by lust of universal empire, the former in defence of the Jews, then a colony in Palestine, and their own possessions in Hindostan. The Assyrian imperialists will over-run Turkey, Egypt, and a great part of Palestine, and plant their standards on the mountains of Israel and in the Holy City. Persia will also acknowledge the supremacy of the Tzar; and the Libyans and Khushishtanees “will be at his steps.” Instead of Despotism being driven from Europe, its “New Ideas” and Fierce Democracy will be suppressed; and Despotism will be again triumphant in the Old World, and prepared to contend in battle with God himself. In the progress of these events the political seers, peace prophets, and republican-gospellers will be confounded. Socialism will be in despair, and Britain and the New World the only refuge for the oppressed. The “New Ideas” of the nations are disorganising and anarchical, and not regenerating. The well-being of mankind for a thousand years to come demands their suppression; and the Prince of Rosh, or Russia, is the man to do it. When he has accomplished his work, he will himself be broken to pieces by the Prince of Israel; who will return to the Holy City and crush the Tzar’s dominion by a single blow, from which he will never recover. The words of God being now fulfilled, his late vassal kingdoms will assert their independence, and “gather their armies together to battle to make war” upon Israel’s Prince. This will be the last war period for 1000 years. The nations will be subdued, and their kingdoms transferred to the Conqueror and his companions. He will have conquered peace and hushed the alarms of war. The “new ideas” of a world lying under the wicked one will then be accounted “vanity;” and divine knowledge will “cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.”
EDITOR.
* * *
Next day we arrived at the hour appointed, when the Lincoln case was introduced. A delegate of the Glasgow church made some very pertinent remarks, and suggested the appointment of a committee to consider the matter, with the understanding, as afterwards explained, that we should be regarded in the meantime as its delegate pro tem. This suggestion gave rise to much dispute, in which Mr. Wallis figured conspicuously. As we could only be reached through the Lincoln church, it was thought expedient by him to make it contemptible in the estimation of “the collective wisdom”; so that if it could be made to appear that it was without ecclesiastical character or influence, it would not be difficult, nay all would desire, to be quit of so disreputable a constituent of the Denominational Sanhedrin, or “cooperation society,” of Great Britain and Ireland; and being relieved of its unprofitable and inconvenient fellowship by a vote of excommunication, both church and representative would be conventionally annihilated. So to work he went to disaffect the minds of the delegates, and the people assembled to witness their proceedings. He left nothing unsaid that might subserve so benevolent and holy a purpose. He descanted on the smallness of their number, though they were more numerous than some churches on the list, whose delegates were present. He did not, however, call our attention to this inconvenient fact. He reckoned them up by families and individually by name, not forgetting the young ladies of the flock. H e descended to the narration of personal difficulties; and accused two of their number of dishonourable conduct in commencing a tannery in Lincoln, a place of several thousands of people, because a brother in the church was tanning hides there already! He described the elder as a mere tool in the hands of one of these partners, who could be made to do any thing this same Simon of Joppa, or rather of Lincoln, pleased. Such was the twaddle and petty scandal, with much more of the same sort, that the Editor of the British Millennial Harbinger treated his hearers to on this notable occasion! Had we not known that the whole was a gross and malicious perversion of facts, we should have felt in a very “bad fix” in being the representative of such a church. He had bitten its heel and instilled into the wound no little venom; but fortunately an antidote was at hand, in the intractability of the major part, to prevent the death of his victim. In all he had said, he made no allusion to us. We were with him face to face; and though the real stone of stumbling and rock of offence in his way, he ventured no direct and open attack upon us! He reserved his “work of faith and labour of love” for the absent and defenceless; safely calculating that intrigue and clamour would prevent us from saying a word in their behalf. These cooperation conventions are admirable arenas for the development of every evil work. It will be long ere Britain and Ireland will be evangelised, that is, leavened with the faith and spirit of the gospel, by the emissaries of such assemblies as this. We heard many, both male and female, express their most unqualified disgust at what they witnessed at this notable exhibition of prejudice, turbulence and folly.
After this attack upon our constituents we very naturally requested to be heard in their behalf. The chairman thought it was no more than right we should. With his permission, therefore, we took the floor; with very uncouth utterances proceeding from the men of Fife! “As Dr. Thomas has come here to disturb the meeting, I move,” ejaculated one, “that the case of the Lincoln church be referred to a committee.” “I propose,” exclaimed another, “that Dr. Thomas be requested to sit down!” “We stand here,” said we, “with the approbation of the chair, and are in no hurry. We are making no disturbance, but waiting with singular forbearance and patience till the clamour has subsided. Having no other engagement, we are prepared to stand here all day, if need be, in the hope of being heard.” Up started a third and cried out, “I seconded the motion last night to reject Dr. Thomas; I therefore beg leave to withdraw it!” this was quite a joke for the seconder to withdraw a motion he had not made! Seeing this, probably, the mover called out, “I moved it and will withdraw it!” “Very well,” said we, “then we are to understand that we stand before you as the unrejected representative of the Lincoln church?” Upon this up jumped a very fierce looking personage who bawled out “No-o!” “Let me explain what I mean,” said our friend, “when I suggested a committee.” Having done so, “I move!” said one; “I propose!” cried another; “I wish to say!” exclaimed some one else: —but amid motion upon motion, and amendment upon amendment, the chairman, secretary, and ourselves, lost our bearings altogether! The confusion, worse confounded was so inextricably confused, that it became necessary at length to make a new start; and to decree that all motions should be submitted to the chair in writing. Mr. Wallis, humbled by the evil of his own work, rose and said that “perhaps it would have been more prudent not to have stated what he did about the Lincoln church, but he did it for their information. He would, however, now withdraw what he had said, as it would be best perhaps under the circumstances.” We then remarked, that “this was a most ungracious artifice. He had done all he could to poison the minds of his hearers against his brethren at Lincoln, which perhaps he had succeeded in to some extent; and now fearing an exposure of his evil work, he thought to shelter himself under the formality of a withdrawal. He might withdraw his sting, but the venom and its effects were left behind. His course was neither manly nor honest; but exhibited the meanest and most contemptible species of attack.” Mr. Woodnorth, the Liverpool delegate, said “he thought Dr. Thomas ought to be allowed to extract the poison.” We thought so too, especially as it was in our line.
But, after a little reflection upon the chief actors in this noisy scene, we perceived they were a phrenologically hard-headed and crabbed set, ready to do the bidding of him that used them—mere unreasoning partisans, ready for any mischief that might be carved out for them. We concluded, therefore, it would be best to give them full swing, and let them demolish themselves by their own fatuity. We accordingly expressed our opinion of the spirit that animated them. They might take their own course without further hindrance. We would be an observer, and watch their proceedings. We invited them to be prompt, and if they could, get a vote of the majority to cut off the Lincoln church forthwith. They had evidently prejudged the case, and would hear nothing in its behalf. They might also pass a decree against us, likewise, if they could. Their decision would not affect our cause in any particular. We had left America with peace in our heart and with the firm conviction that the truth was with us. We offered it to them without money and without price; but, they put it away from them and refused it cooperation and a hearing. Be it so. Our course was onward if we even stood alone. Thus we spoke, and having reserved to ourselves the right of future comment on passing events, we resumed our seat to chronicle their deeds.
The men of Fife, an ironside faction of tyrannical spirit, packed a committee of four, with power to choose a fifth, to sit upon the Lincoln case. One man named the whole. This, however, was objected to. Among various suggestions, it was proposed that we should name one half. But this we declined being determined to recognise no committee in the case. “What right,” we inquired, “had they to appoint a committee to sit upon the church at Lincoln more than upon any other on their list; would Nottingham or London endure it?” They were speechless!
Having formed the committee in their own way, they fell to reading letters handed in from the churches, containing counsel and news. Thinking that a little oral news would enliven the monotony of the reading, we interjected some items thereof as the reader progressed alphabetically in his work. As there was no delegate from Newark, and they were so anxious to hear from the churches, we informed them that the elder there considered himself in effect the church; but though opposed to us, was willing we should use his room; and that eight or nine of those who worshipped with him, had visited Lincoln while we were there and had actually partaken of the bread and wine at the same table as we! Was not this a case also for a committee?
The next thing was to register the churches in the Convention’s book of life, alphabetically, with their officials and numbers. When they came to the letter M. Manchester was called. A gentleman responded who said, he was not sent by the church there; but “some who were friendly said Go! And he came!” He added, that “the church did not belong to the reformation, nor could it be persuaded to fellowship it.” Notwithstanding this declaration, there was great anxiety to register it, to put it on the roll by hook or by crook. Their endeavours, however, did not work satisfactorily. At length, losing all patience at the open faced dishonesty of the party that worked the wires, we rose and enquired, “Upon what principle of righteousness were they so desirous to enrol the Manchester church on their list in the face of the unqualified and positive declaration, that it was neither of their reformation nor would it fellowship it; at the same time that they were doing their best to proscribe the Lincoln church, which was in fellowship, and willing to continue with them?” This question put an end to all coquetting with Mr. Go Andicame! Nothing more was said about Manchester, and so its name was omitted.
Two o’clock having arrived, the meeting was adjourned for an hour or so. Many came up and shook us heartily by the hand. While talking with one about Mr. Wallis, the gentleman himself appeared conversing with another behind us. We turned and offered him our hand, believing after all that he was not so much our enemy, as a deceived and misguided instrument of Mr. Campbell to do wrong. We exchanged a powerful, if not hearty, shake. We observed that we had just been speaking of him, and blaming him exceedingly for not coming to hear us in Nottingham where we had spoken more than a dozen times. We thought, if he had done so, he would have abstained from the course he had pursued, and have spared us much misrepresentation. He replied that he had our own words for having renounced the reformation in Virginia with those churches which cooperated with us. This however, is a mere fiction. “This Reformation” is an affair of principles and not of men. It inculcates the “proving all things, and holding fast what is good,” the “calling no man master upon earth,” the “contending earnestly for the faith originally delivered to the saints,” &c. from these principles we have never swerved; but in the spirit of them have gone on towards the perfection to which the scriptures invite us. We hold on to the reformation, which those who renounce and repudiate us have themselves abandoned, having more relish for human tradition and popularity, than for the truth and the tribulation inseparable from it. One remarked, that we seemed fond of strife. Not so. We love peace and retirement from the heartless turmoil of religious partyism and the world. But, believing the truth, hating iniquity, and loving righteousness, we cannot witness injustice, and perversion of the faith, and not contend against it. Mr. “Evangelist” King opined that we were of “a bad spirit.” We suggested to his meekness, that reformation like charity might as well begin at home. If he would exhort his employers to a good spirit, we should have more faith in the neutrality he professed. But, while he ran with the hare and held with the hounds, fawned upon them and worried us, we had no disposition to listen to his exhortations. The prophesyings of hypocrites are abomination to our soul. Had we the patience of Job, the sanctimoniousness of some creatures would exhaust it. They will propose early meetings for “social worship,” and with marred visage and holy tone, breathe forth lackadaisical sentimentality about bad spirits; and at the same time, subject a man from sheer malice, or envy, or something equally vile, for four mortal hours to every annoyance and indignity at their command! Talk of such miserable vanities converting the world! Pshaw! I t is better as it is.
The Lincoln case was not adjudicated till the following day. We were not present to witness the auto da fe, therefore must refer the reader to the letter of our friend below, which he addressed “To the Congregation of Saints at Lincoln;” to wit:
Irvine, N. B., October 4, 1848.
Dear Brethren:
Dr. Thomas would inform you that a committee was appointed to decide whether or not he should be permitted to take part in the late meeting at Glasgow as your deputy. As he was not present on the 29th September, I write this to inform you what transpired on that occasion.
The committee did not commence its deliberations till the business of the meetings was ended; so that when its report was rejected the proposed penalty of exclusion had been practically and irrevocably inflicted.
Mr. Wardropper was made a member of the committee, in which he occupied the place both of accuser and judge.
The committee passed sentence against you without reading your letter which explained some of your reasons for appointing Dr. Thomas as your deputy, and without hearing him in his own defence.
Bro. Linn, a member of the committee, was interrupted while protesting against the unfairness of its decision. It was with the utmost difficulty we could obtain a hearing for him.
I feel too much distressed to express what I think of such glaring acts of injustice perpetrated by men who profess to be reforming the world—the harbingers of a millennium of justice, peace, and love. O how inconsistent, how Christ-dishonouring, and what a stumbling-block to the people.
Brethren, I sincerely sympathise with you, and the Doctor, and remain your companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom of Jesus Christ.
J.B. ROLLO,
Deputy for the Disciples at Kilwinning.
They were about giving the case the “go-bye;” but it was called up by a friend. We are informed that when the report was read, a gentleman present could not repress his indignation, and cried out “shame, shame!” One of the men of Fife told him to “hold his peace for he was not a delegate; to which the other retorted that he was “an impertinent man!” While Mr. Linn was protesting many were speaking at once; so that confusion crowned their evil work. After all nothing was done. Their report was rejected. The Lincoln church remained in fellowship, nor was any ban decreed proscribing us. Their machinations were completely frustrated; and the Gnostics themselves overwhelmed with confusion and chagrin.
* * *
Moses Stuart and Dr. Lee believe that the Apocalypse was all compressed into the last three or four centuries; but Burgh, Todd, and Maitland, that it must all be compressed into the last three or four years of the christian era! These opinions belong to the arctic and antarctic circles of speculation.
EDITOR.
HERALD
OF THE
KINGDOM AND AGE TO COME.
RICHMOND, VA., OCTOBER, 1851
The next number of the Herald may be of late issue owing to our absence in Nova Scotia. It will be mailed immediately on our return. Mr. Magruder is kind enough to read the proof while we are away.
* * *