2

those who "sleep in Christ," and with whom will be united the changed and raptured saints, who were "alive and remained unto the coming of the Lord." But this event transpires prior to the visible appearance of Christ as Judge, with His angels, "at the time of the harvest." The risen and glorified living saints, St. Paul tells us, "will God bring with him” to this very "harvest." "For, know ye not," saith he, "that the saints," that is, as "joint-heirs with Christ," "shall judge the world?"5

The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is, that "the harvest" in this parable will consist of the judgment, not of the risen dead, but of the "quick," that is, of the living nations at the end of this alvos, age or dispensation. These will consist, first, of the converted nations, both Jewish and Gentile, who, as the saved nations in the flesh, will be admitted to that restored "dominion" in the earth which was lost by the sin of the first Adam,' now wrested forever from the hand of his "serpent" seducer by, and which thenceforward becomes "the kingdom of the Son of Man "* under the whole heaven."' The other will embrace the antichris tian confederacy of the nations whom Christ will "consume by the Spirit of his mouth, and destroy with the brightness of his coming." 10 Yea, these are they who then "know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ;" and "who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power."" Thus, and in no other way, will be verified the "gathering out of his kingdom of all things that offend, and that do iniquity."

66

13

There are several other passages to which we are referred, as alleged proofs of the same view with that affirmed of the one in this parable. These are: "He that receiveth not the kingdom of God as a little child shall not enter therein." 19 Another: Except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." And yet another, which speaks of our being "delivered from the power of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son." There are also a few more passages similar to these, e. g. Matt. vi. 33; xi. 11; xiii. 11, and verses 24 to 41; 52; xix. 12; Luke xviii. 29; 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10; xv. 24; Col. iv. 11; and James ii. 5. In view, however, of the expositions given

of the preceding passages, demonstrative of the fallacy of the popular view, that "the Church" under this dispensation and "the kingdom of God" or "of heaven" are one and the same; no further evidence is necessary to prove that the above passages are all susceptible of a similar interpretation than the following, than which it is not possible for language more clearly to set forth the distinction between the present Church state as "the kingdom of God" in "mystery," "as contrasted with the future "kingdom of Christ" in manifestation. Take these two passages from St. Paul and St. Peter, both of whom, it is presumed it will be allowed, were in a state of grace. St. Paul says: "And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom." And St. Peter exhorts his brethren, thus: "Wherefore the rather give diligence to make your calling and election sure; for if ye do these things, ye shall never fail: for so," he adds, "an entrance shall be administered unto you abundantly, into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." "

1

The sum of the matter, then, is this, to wit: that Christ is the divinely constituted "Head over all things to the Church, which is his body,' even that Church which had existed from the period of the first promise down to His day, and which still exists. But Christ was also born a king-" the King of the Jews." He also declared Himself to be such before the bar of Pilate. He, however, was rejected as a king, and was finally crucified by the Jews and Gentiles. Ay, envy and malice laid Him in the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea. But the third day He rises again. For what purpose? Was it to set up His kingdom then? Nay, verily. But, like the exiled nobleman in the parable, who, having committed his ten pounds to his servants, accompanied with the command, "Occupy till I come," "took his journey into a far country, to receive a kingdom, and to return," at which time he called them to a reckoning: so the risen Christ. Having commissioned His apostles to go to all nations, and preach the gospel to every creature, as His "witnesses," and "to take out of (or from among) the Gentiles a people for His name," He ascended, as an exiled king, to the far-off heavens, there to await, at the hand of His Father, the investiture of His royal prerogatives, when He will return with, and set up, His own rightful kingdom, and call

all His servants to a reckoning for the use or abuse of the talents committed to their keeping during His prolonged absence from them.

We affirm, then, readers-and on this point we challenge refutation-that though Christ is styled "the Head of the Church,” yet in the New Testament He is nowhere called the King of the Church. It is this circumstance, more than any other, that stamps the Church of Rome with the brand of an infinitely infamous apostasy, in that her long line of pretended popes claim to be the vicegerents of Christ in His Church as temporal sovereigns! If I am here reminded, however, that in Rev. xv. 3, Christ is styled "the King of saints," it is no exception. In the margin it reads, King of nations. But waiving this: "King of saints" is not "king of the Church." The Jews, before New Testament times, were called "saints." No. He is their King, and as such is ordained by the oath of God "to sit on David's throne." And on this account it is, that He is styled "the minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers."

But here arises a question, a proper answer to which is fundamental to a correct interpretation and application of that portion of the prophecies now before us. It is this: What is the position or relation of Israel and Judah to the Church of God under the Christian dispensation? An answer to this question renders it necessary to remind you,

First. That while the Messiah, Jesus, as "the minister of the circumcision for the truth of God," was the foundation, not only but the surety and pledge given to the lineal multitudinous seed of Abraham, to "confirm the promises made to their fathers;" God the Father, as the Author and Rectoral Head of that covenant, united Himself to Israel as her husband. This is evident from the following: "The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying, Go, and cry in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the Lord; I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown.' For, saith He, "I am married unto you." But, as we have seen, when Israel forsook the Lord, and provoked the Divine jealousy by her idolatrous practices, the two names, Lo-ruhamma and Lo-Ammi, were applied to her. That is, the

1 Dan. vii. 21.

2 Jer. ii. 2.

9 Ib. iii. 14.

Hosea i. 6-9.

Jehovah of Hosts as her husband, put her away, by removing her out of His sight. In other words, she was divorced from Him. The same holds true of Judah, who, on account of their "unbelief," as "the natural branches," were broken off" from the good olive-tree."

1

We have showed you, however, that this act of divorcement against Israel and Judah was not to be perpetual. For God, by the prophet Hosea, says: "And it shall come to pass in that day," that is, the day of their restoration, etc., "saith the Lord, that thou shalt call me Ishi" (my husband); "and thou shalt no more call me Baali" (my lord). Yea, saith He, then "will I betroth thee unto me forever: yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving kindness, and in mercies." "

2

But, brethren, this is not all. "The King's SON," the Lord Jesus Christ, must have His bride also. Hence it has transpired that as the literal Israel, to whom the invitation to the marriage feast of the King's Son was first given, "all with one consent be gan to make excuse," and, upon being further urged, finally refused to come," the King-Father, in His "wrath," "said to His servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy." And then was straightway issued the command: "Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage." And the result was, that "the wedding was furnished with guests." Now, collateral with this, is St. Paul's address to the unbelieving Jewish commonwealth: "Seeing ye put these things from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles."

Yes. Thus the Jewish nation, for the time, was set aside. That is, she was divorced from her former relation to "the King" as her husband. Not that the Jews were to be totally excluded from the privileges of the gospel under this dispensation. For, from the time of St. Paul down to the present day, they have lived in the midst of it, and, in common with the Gentile nations, it has been offered to them. So that, in their position or relation to the Church state under this economy, "Whether Jew or Greek, barbarian or Scythian, bond or free, they are all one in Christ." But, what is to be specially noted in this connection, is, the design of this arrangement, according to that "eternal purpose

1 Rom. xi. 20.

2 Hosea ii. 19, 20.

3 Matt. xxii. 1-10.

4 Col. iii. 11.

994

which God purposed in Christ Jesus." "Simeon" stated this when he "declared how that God did at the first visit the Gentiles, to take out of" (or from among) "them, a people for His name." Now these, collectively, constitute that "holy nation, and royal priesthood, and peculiar people," who shall finally be presented unto the King-Father's "SON," as His elect or redeemed "bride," "THE LAMB'S WIFE." And the marriage nuptials shall be celebrated when the "five wise virgins," who denote her, shall hear the "midnight cry, BEHOLD THE BRIDEGROOM COMETH, GO YE OUT TO MEET HIM."

Having, therefore, in the preceding section, demonstrated, as we deferentially claim, first, the fallacy of the theory that the phrases, "the kingdom of God," "the kingdom of heaven," "the kingdom of the Son of Man," etc., are identical with the Christian Church and the millennial era; and, second, having proved that the second coming of Christ, when it does take place, will be a literally personal and not a spiritual coming; we now proceed to a like direct argument, under

SECTION II.,

DEMONSTRATIVE, THAT THERE IS TO BE NO INTERVENING MILLENNIUM BETWEEN THE SECOND PERSONAL COMING OF CHRIST AND THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, THAT THAT EVENT, WHEN IT DOES TAKE PLACE, WILL BE PRE- AND NOT POST-MILLENNIAL.

We shall divide this section into two parts.

PART I.

Direct Scriptural and Historical Proof, that there is to be no Inter vening Millennium between the Second Personal Coming of Christ and the Day of Judgment.

This point, however conclusive as a matter of inference-as derived from the facts and arguments adduced in refutation of the several theories already examined in opposition to it-we now proceed, by a direct scriptural argument, to demonstrate, that the second personal coming of Christ, when it does take place, will be pre-millennial.

We flatter ourself that, with those who receive the teachings of Holy Scripture as authoritative on the subject, first, of the

1 Eph. iii. 11.

2 Acts. xv. 14.

31 Pet. ii. 9.

4 Rev. xxi. 9.