sally assented to by those whom we oppose: That the proper kingdom and reign of Christ are yet to come; that the millennium is its period; that having come the second time before that era, and taken possession of the throne of David in Jerusalem, he will reign there in person for a thousand years, with his risen and changed saints, over the restored and converted Jews in their own land, and through them over the whole Gentile world.

Let us hear some of them on the subject.

"We maintain," says one," that CHRIST HAS NOT YET RECEIVED ANY KINGDOM WHICH HE CAN DELIVER UP. A man can only lawfully deliver up that which is his own; but by this theory (meaning Mr. Scott's), Christ is made to deliver up that which is NOT HIS OWN, but the Father's. He occupies, no doubt, the Father's throne, being seated there beside him, and that throne he may leave; but, we are not aware that ever in the New Testament, ‘the kingdom' is used as denoting the present seat of the Father's power in heaven." Again: Now, Christ is only seated upon the Father's throne. He is only, as it were, exalted in another's right, and invested with another's power; but in the day of coming glory, he is to assume HIS OWN SCEPTRE, TO SIT UPON HIS OWN THRONE, and exercise dominion in a way which he has not hitherto done. He is to take to himself his great power, as if it had been lying beside him unused, and only in reserve for the day of its full display, when he receives the crown of all the earth."*

Here it is very nakedly affirmed that Christ is not now, nor ever yet has been, on any throne of his own-and consequently is king as yet in no proper sense of the term; that his present exaltation is not in his own right-that he is occupying another's throne-swaying another's sceptrewielding another's power.

But may not this be but the rash language of an individual writer? Is the sentiment responded to by the ac

"Presbyterian Review" of Mr. Scott's "Outlines of Prophecy," Jan. 1846, pp. 469, and 468, 9.

CHRIST'S KINGDOM.

127

knowledged representatives of the pre-millennial scheme? Let us see.

"Sit thou," says Dr. M'Neile, on my right hand until"-when? when thou wilt leave my right hand and sit on thine own throne

.. when he shall have delivered up the kingdom which he at present enjoys, where he wields the authority, the universal kingdom of God— the invisible kingdom of providence. When the Lord Jesus shall (in the exercise of his present almighty authority on the Father's throne) have subdued all things unto himself, then shall he be prepared to leave the Father's throne, and set up his own kingdom upon the earth as the second Adam.*

His chapter on "the

Let us now hear Mr. Bickersteth. Kingdom of Christ" is very vague, and sometimes seems to concede all that we contend for. But to make out the futurity of Christ's proper kingdom is undeniably the main object of his chapter. For, after laying down five characteristics of that kingdom not yet realized, and which show it to be future, he adds, "There is, however, a preparatory and spiritual kingdom already established." this case, of course, the kingdom must be organically different from any thing now existing. For, as yet, only the means of it and the preparation for it exist; and it is impossible that the means and the end should both be of the same character, that the preparation and the thing prepared for should not be essentially different.‡

* Sermons on the Second Advent, pp. 112-114, 5th edition. + Guide to the Prophecies, pp. 301, 302, 5th edition.

In

In his "Divine Warning" (p. 311, note), referring to the vagueness which I have ventured to ascribe to his chapter on the Kingdom of Christ, Mr. Bickersteth says, that "in another work on the promised glory of the Church, he has entered more fully into the subject." From the Duke of Manchester's remarks, I gather that it is the Lent Lectures for 1847 to which Mr. Bickersteth refers. I have read his Lecture in that volume, but cannot find from it that I have given a wrong view of Mr. Bickersteth's notion of the Kingdom. The Duke of Manchester seems to think I have. If so, it is after much pains to ascertain the

The Duke of Manchester is equally explicit.

"There are two thrones," says he, "mentioned in connexion with Messiah, one, on which he is now sitting, the other, on which he is hereafter to sit. The one the throne of God, the other the throne of David; the one for a limited, the other for an unlimited period. For want of discriminating between the two, much confusion has been created, and some detriment to all the expressions in Scripture which denote eternity. It may not be amiss to lay down some positions respecting the kingdom of Messiah, for which I refer to Appendix D." Turning to Appendix D, we find the first part of it devoted to proving just what has been expressed in the foregoing quotations, that the present "session or reign of Christ at the right hand of God," is his participation in the Divine government,— that his ruling now for God implies his present providential universal presence,"-that "the supreme kingdom of God is the one which he gives up on leaving his right hand, and that it is HIS OWN KINGDOM in which he shall reign, when he appears, for ever and

ever.

"The notion," says Mr. Brooks, "that the kingdom of Christ signifies the present visible Christian Church, or the Christian religion in the hearts of God's people, or both,-and that it has been manifested to the world ever since the establishment of Christianity,—is

right one, and I should deeply regret to have mistaken him. But I think I have not. I do not for a moment doubt, as will presently be seen, that Mr. Bickersteth and every one of the writers I quote from, including his Grace himself, look upon Christ as now exercising saving authority, and that in a royal character. But what I wish to show from their own writings is, that as they are looking for another kingdom of Christ to be set up during the millennium, and that his own in a peculiar and emphatic sense, continually reiterated, his present kingdom is not the kingdom of Christ in their view

* Horæ Hebraicæ, pp. 89, 114-116. The capitals are the author's own. I have taken the liberty of combining in one sentence the contents of two or three.

His Grace objects to my classing this passage along with what I have quoted from "the pre-millennialists, as it was actually directed against them." But I think he will admit, that in so far as it was directed against the ordinary pre-millennial view of the "giving up of the kingdom," it illustrates my point more than the other quotations.

CHRIST'S KINGDOM.

129

in the main erroneous, inasmuch as it mistakes the means for the end, and substitutes what may be considered as the preparation for the kingdom, for the establishment and manifestation of it.”*

Nothing can be more explicit than this. It represents quite correctly what we hold,-that the proper kingdom. of Christ has been "manifested ever since the establishment of Christianity." In direct opposition to this, Mr. Brooks' doctrine is, that we have never yet seen, nor till the millennium shall see, more than a preparation for Christ's kingdom. The establishment and manifestation of it are reserved for "the thousand years." A little farther on he speaks out, if possible, still more clearly:

"If," says he, "it shall appear that Christ's kingdom was to be manifested under this present dispensation, then it will be evident that the kingdom was to be nothing more than the propagation of Christ's religion, or his ruling in the hearts of his people, or the usual sovereignty of God manifested in his providential government; but if, on the contrary, it shall appear that it was not in its primary sense to be manifested under this dispensation, and has not been manifested, then it determines that its character will necessarily be something far more exalted and different from what has hitherto been witnessed." +

Just so. If the kingdom of Christ neither was to be, nor has been, manifested during this dispensation-if it is to commence, as a proper kingdom, only with the millennium, Mr. Brooks is perfectly right in concluding that its. CHARACTER "will necessarily be something different from what has been hitherto witnessed."

But Mr. Brooks seems to qualify his statement, by saying, "It was not to be manifested in its primary sense under this dispensation." I should like very much to know what this means. For at the outset of his chapter on the Kingdom of Christ, from which this extract is + Ibid., pp. 190, 191.

Elem. of Propht. Interp., p. 182.

taken, we have found him saying, that those who think the kingdom is already established, "mistake the MEANS for the END, and substitute what may be considered as the PREPARATION for the kingdom, for the ESTABLISHMENT and MANIFESTATION of it." So that after all, this "primary sense” in which Mr. Brooks seemed willing to allow that the kingdom" was to be manifested, and has been manifested, during this present dispensation," turns out to be no sense at all. The millennial state of things is the end; the present is but the means. The kingdom of Christ no more exists now, than the preparation for a thing is identical with the establishment and manifestation of the thing.

Here, then, I join issue with these writers, affirming as follows:

PROPOSITION FIFTH:

CHRIST'S PROPER KINGDOM IS ALREADY IN BEING; COMMENCING FORMALLY ON HIS ASCENSION TO THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, AND CONTINUING UNCHANGED, BOTH IN CHARACTER AND FORM, TILL THE FINAL JUDGMENT.

To guard, however, against mistakes, let the following explanations, which I give once for all, be borne in mind:

(1.) It is not meant that the kingdom of Christ was in no sense in being before his ascension in our nature to

the right hand of power. On the contrary, it is maintained that the whole grace of the Mediator, in all his offices, is put forth in the salvation of every soul that is saved, as well before his incarnation as after it; and more particularly, that in the administration of the new covenant and government of the Church before the fulness of time, there was as rea. an exercise of the Redeemer's proper sove