Memoirs of David King

Memoirs of David King

With Various Papers And Addresses

Advocating The Restoration In Principle

and in Practice Of Primitive Christianity

Compiled by his wife

"Captain and Saviour of the host
Of Christian chivalry,
We bless Thee for our comrade true,
Now called away by Thee.
We bless Thee for his every step
In faithful following Thee,
And for his good fight, fought so well,
And crowned with victory."

To all who love the old paths and desire to walk therein,

This memorial volume of David King is respectfully dedicated by his widow.

PREFACE

This volume is sent forth in response to a widely expressed desire to possess, in a more accessible form, some of the valuable papers from the pen of David King. Hitherto these writings have remained scattered through various works and magazines published through more than fifty years. This circumstance has rendered these instructive articles almost inaccessible to all but the favoured few who possess our publications during that period.
Even these few, in view of the difficulty sometimes experienced in finding an article remembered as good and helpful, and which they have wished to re-read, may not be least pleased to welcome such a selection as the present.
The Compiler’s chief regret is that the volume, large though it is, could only contain a very limited selection. Many articles, not much is any less valuable, have had to be left in the many volumes, where they lie comparatively buried. All that was possible was to consider on what principle the collection should be made; whether to get together an interesting book, merely, or to look out papers most likely to meet present needs, and to be permanently useful. The latter principle has been followed.
The aim was to present what would be helpful to those now stepping into the ranks, so quickly being thinned by the removal of veterans.
To the rising generation, the biography will show something of the history and condition of the movement for the restoration of Primitive Christianity, in the past half century; while the writings here reproduced will present some of the general and particular convictions as to Bible Truth, which occasioned, or were occasioned by, that plea for restoration. For the truth, as we now know it, was gained gradually. There was first the general principle of return to the teaching of Christ and His apostles, and the approved example of the Church in Apostolic days; then, as difficulties were surmounted, and barriers broken down, clearer light was found, and all that the plea involved was more fully understood. The articles here reproduced give many of the positions thus gradually arrived at, and, it is hoped, will help the reader more clearly to perceive, and more firmly to hold fast, the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints.
Many younger readers may require an effort to understand how great the prejudice was in the earlier stages of the movement. Some of the truths then deemed revolutionary, have silently, and almost imperceptibly, permeated nearly all denominations, thus smoothing the way for our plea. But fifty years ago, it was no flowery path they trod who boldly cried aloud - Back to Jerusalem! Back to Christ and his Apostles! It has been a matter of regret to some who do not look deep enough below the surface, that so much strength and time were spent in controversy. But this has to be. There was so much error and rubbish that wise builders must remove, before they could show a firm foundation; weeds and thistles that wise husbandmen must root out, before they scattered the good seed.
Paul was a controversialist - none keener. Read through Galatians and Romans, and realize how ready he was to oppose error, in defence and confirmation of the truth of the Gospel. And this need for discussion, defence and exposition of our principles will remain. The details will vary; but the need of continued Bible study, to know for ourselves, why we continue the good work begun by others, and where we can still further advance, remains; and on the extent that need is responded to in the faithful and courageous spirit of the Fathers, who have been called to well-earned rest, will depend the continued vitality, and success of the movement.
A voice from he grave, speaks of the future in the light of the past, as an incentive to staunch faithfulness - "History has not yet recorded that earnest resolute souls have ever lived for nought and in vain. Theirs is the kingdom of heaven! In proportion as we are earnest, Christ-like, and loyal to the Divine standards, God will not fail to mark our success. We may not even see it ourselves now, but we shall see it all in His time.

‘God knows the way, He holds the key,
He guides us with unerring hand;
Sometime with tearless eyes we’ll see;
Yes, there, up there, we’ll understand.’"

A word may be said on the arrangement of the materials here brought together into a volume. The Memoir by our esteemed Bro. Joseph Collin naturally takes precedence; and we take this opportunity of gratefully acknowledging the care he has bestowed in revising and extending what was originally written by request of the Jubilee Annual meeting in 1892. We have also had his help in Proof Reading, and in this connection our thanks are also due to John M’Cartney and Launcelot Oliver, for their prompt and kindly help, and to the last named for assistance generally.
In arranging the selection from the writings of David King, there was a temptation to seek so to arrange the articles as to present a complete view of the Scheme of Redemption. He regarded the Scriptures as a unit, revealing a complete, but gradually perfected plan of Salvation, and it would be possible so to select and arrange writings of his, as to present a harmonious and comprehensive view of that plan. The compiler has gone a very little way in that direction, by placing a few foot-notes calling attention to the character, and connection of some of the pieces here reproduced. The articles were written now on this, and now on that part of Bible Truth, as occasion required, and without any thought of giving a complete view of the Christian System; and to have gone further, and presented these articles as if intended to cover the whole ground, might readily have led to a misconception alike of D. King, and of the marvellous unity of revealed truth in which he so much gloried.
It may be noticed that no poetry appears among these writings. Those who know D. King best, know how much he enjoyed good poetry and would concede that in other circumstances, poetic conceptions and warm feelings would have been written. But the predominant note came to be clear statement and faithful defence of the Truth, the feelings being largely hidden from all but the few. The one hymn in the collection he made, written by himself, expresses what he sought to be, and may be here inserted as presenting the aim of life he would have wished affectionately, as a legacy, to urge on all who are in Christ.
BRANCHES of the one true Vine,
(Children of the risen King),
Let your clusters richly swell,
Steadfastly "Abide in Him."
Only in the living Vine
Can the branches life retain;
Only in her glorious heaven
Can the bride His glory gain.

Fruitless, withered branches, all,
When they stand before His face,
Must a bitter portion find,
Deepest shame and dire disgrace.
Branches rich in fruit and sap;
When before Him they appear,
Blissful peace shall shame uproot,
Confidence shall slay all fear.

Glorious hope of perfect bliss -
With Him, like Him, safe from sin!
There to sing the song of life,
Set for those who dwell in Him.
Living Lord, in light enthroned,
Hasten Thy return from heaven;
Boundless glory is Thy right,
Endless praise to Thee be given.

And now in closing a task which, though heavy, has been begun and ended, not only out of deep affection for the one who has gone before, but with a sincere desire to benefit the living, praying for God’s blessing on the volume, the hope may be expressed that the work will commend itself to the churches, and be useful for years to come in building up the brethren in their most holy faith, and in setting before enquirers the right "WAY of the Lord."

L.K.

CONTENTS

MEMOIR (by Joseph Collin)
HOME TRIBUTE (by Mrs. King)

WRITINGS OF DAVID KING:

THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT
WHAT IS THE BIBLE?
THE BIBLE AND THE SCHOOL
THE CHRISTIAN SYSTEM ESSENTIAL TO PERFECT CIVILIZATION
THE KING MESSIAH
THE KING
WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST?
GOD AND EVIL, OR THE ULTIMATE UTILITY OF SIN
THE BEAUTY OF THE LORD
THE DIVINE BEAUTIFIER
WORDS FROM THE CROSS
A CHURCH OF THE RIGHT KIND
THE OLD CHURCH
THE CONFESSION AND INITIATION
CHURCH MEMBERSHIP
GOD’S THOUGHTS AND MAN’S AFTER-THOUGHTS CONCERNING THE CHURCH
THE CHURCH AND THE APOSTLES
MINISTRY IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST (Introductory)
PRIESTHOOD
THE CLERGY
THE MINISTER
APOSTLES
PROPHETS
EVANGELISTS
DEACONS
ELDERS
ELDERS, SHEPHERDS, OVERSEERS
TEACHERS
WIDOW MINISTRY
HELPS (Conclusion)
UPSIDE DOWN
LORD’S DAY MORNING TEACHINGS
THREE MENTAL VISITS
THE BLESSEDNESS OF PARDON

WHAT THE FIRST CHURCH WAS STEADFAST IN:

THE APOSTLES’ DOCTRINE
THE FELLOWSHIP
THE LORD’S SUPPER
THE PRAYERS
CHRISTIANITY AND ITS EFFECTS
THE TRUE LIGHT

INSCRIPTION ON MONUMENT
____

In Memory of
DAVID KING,
Evangelist,
Who fell asleep June 26, 1894,
In his 76th year.

Over 40 years Editor of various Magazines
Circulated by Churches of Christ,
Among whom he was eminent as a
Preacher, Teacher, and Defender of
The Faith.
Rejecting all human creeds,
He pleaded that the Teaching of Christ
And His apostles is the only Divinely authorized
And all-sufficient Way of Salvation and basis of
Christian Union.

"He was a good man"
"Mighty in the Scriptures."

Ask for the Old Paths and walk therein.

Erected by Disciples of Christ who revere his memory.

Memoir.

I am sorry, in some sense, that the writing of this memoir should have fallen to me; chiefly, from the conviction that I cannot, all round, so my revered friend justice. Yet I cannot refuse the love that compiles this volume, and shall do the best I know how.

Birth.
DAVID KING - as we prefer simply to know him - was born in Clerkenwell, London, on February 28th, 1819.
Shortly after his birth, the family removed to Camden Town, where his father died in 1830 - before David was twelve years old; his mother surviving till May 1852.

Training.
The parents, making no definite profession of religion, did not impart any specific training, or bias to the boy; although his father died trusting in Christ, and his mother, late in life, was led to a clear apprehension of the Saviour, and, thereafter, lived and died in fellowship with Him, together with her son.

School Life.
His first school was entered by presentation; but not until the certificate, lacking in the first place by misadventure at the usual time for "sprinkling," was acquired through this process upon the grown boy. In the first instance, the procrastination of the "god-parents" had wearied the clerical patience, until the essential surplice had been doffed and refused to be redonned; and the child was left, pro tem, in its natural depravity; but, as events have shown, with rare native force of character.
Removal to a distance severed connection with the public school; and three private ones followed in rather quick succession; the first being associated with the following incident. The master - a famous maker and user of whips - having turned his back, order was broken by one of the boys. Immediately he walked down, pulled out a boy and was about to apply the whip, the boy protesting that he was not the delinquent. Seeing the punishment inevitable, David stepped out, cleared the boy, and acknowledged himself the criminal.
He received the full punishment, but thought it was mean, after his frank confession. In the second establishment, he signalized his intense dislike to being examined in Church Catechism, by a subterfuge to escape it, which he afterwards thought merited more justly the flogging referred to than did his former fault.

A New Epoch.
Soon after his twelfth year David left school, to assist his now widowed mother in the home business. Whilst this kept him, largely, indoors, it left a considerable margin of time unoccupied, and this was filled by such reading as was attainable. Home supplies being meagre, a new circulating library absorbed the almost daily two-pence per volume, chiefly to the damage of the young reader, from the quality of fiction selected by his inexperience. A devout neighbour, however, noticing this tendency, sought to correct it, by offering free access to his own comparatively well-stocked shelves, on condition that the former kind of reading should be abandoned.
This done, facts replaced fiction; new lines of thought were started, and a new era opened.

Distinct Religious Influence.
The same kind friend induced, in his new protégé, the habit of attending the Wesleyan Chapel, with his own sons; and, during the remaining stay of our subject in the locality, attendance at chapel and Sunday School was constant. Referring to this time, he says: "There I came fully under the influence of the great facts of the Gospel, and learned the world-wide love of God, being slowly drawn nearer to Him."

Business, with Drawbacks.
Having entered upon business which entailed living in the house with his employer, he found him to be one who poured contempt on religion, and practised falsehood, as far as safety permitted, in his business. In the conflict which ensued, while suffering in some measure from these adverse influences, yet, respect for divine things, and the inclination of the heart to the person and ways of the Lord, remained the ruling power.

A Wife-gauge.
This was evinced by his determination, about this time, that in choosing a partner for life, "she must, and above all, be one who reverenced Christ, and inclined to His service." Opportunity with Test.
The opportunity came for deliverance from the hampering conditions referred to; but with it came special temptation, which he thus referred to: "It appeared that my success, in all probability, would greatly depend upon my taking a certain course, commonly taken in such circumstances, but which, to me, was incompatible with the approbation of God. I don’t know that I seriously wavered. It stood before me thus - ‘I shall do what I hold to be right, and if I fail, I fail. The consequences I leave with God.’"

A Restored Link.
Being led (during a Sunday afternoon’s walk) within hearing of a working-man preacher, the "Old Story" revived the desire for advance in better things, and the determination was formed, to renew attendance at a place of worship.
A Wesleyan Chapel was fixed on, and from then, through life, the rare exceptions being unavoidable, it was his constant habit to mingle, more than once, on the Lord’s Day, with some worshipping assembly.

Begotten of God.
It is well that David King left a clear record of the Divine crisis in his life: on one occasion, "under the preaching of Dr. Beaumont, the love of God was felt as it had never been felt before" and he was (as he believed to his dying day) "on that night, under the influence of the truth repeated in that sermon .... begotten of God." The italics are the present writer’s, simply to emphasize a strong reasoner’s confession, that the religion of Jesus Christ, as a human experience, begins in the impartation of a new life from God, through the instrumentality of His Word, as the vehicle of the Divine creative power.

Church membership and its Interruption.
The quickening of the Holy Spirit, above referred to, was followed by Church-membership, and by characteristic activity in all accessible "means of grace;" the rule, for each Lord’s Day, including no less than six meetings. This continued more than a year; when, being induced by a classmate to go and hear Mr. Robert Aitkin, he was so attracted as to break off his Wesleyan associations. In its turn, this new connection was also broken, by the removal of Mr. Aitkin; and our friend was left to wander; but, with a full determination to study the Bible more closely, and to seek, from all quarters, further light, and, if possible, rest.

A Discovery.
While in this state of mind, it was incidentally discovered that a community existed in America, disclaiming all names but "Christian," and disowning any sectarian standing. Some of the literature of this people came into his hand, especially some articles bearing on the subject: Baptism and the Remission of Sins. On further study of the subject, and notwithstanding repugnance to admit any qualification of his former assurance, all doubts were removed, that the Lord had really connected the immersion of the believer - as a burial with Christ - with pardon in His Name. - "The act being one of translation into the Kingdom of the Son of God."

A Difficulty and a Surprise.
The difficulty was now, to find those who held the same faith, who might serve in the needful burial into the death of Christ. Yet, in the meantime, the lack of opportunity was not allowed to interfere with rest of soul in God; nor yet to hinder the making known to friends and neighbours his new and happy discovery; although disappointment waited upon the hope of finding others equally open-minded with himself, to receive and obey God’s testimony.
After about two years of apparently fruitless isolation, Mr. King providentially learned of an assembly in Lincolnshire, that seemed to promise a solution of his problem. Writing at once, to an ascertained address, reply came, after some delay, through Mr. James Wallis, of Nottingham, editor of the Christian Messenger; who supplied the address of Mr. John Black - familiarly known as Pastor Black - the first pastor of the Camden Town Church, then assembling at Clerkenwell Green. This being easy of access from his own home, he lost no time in visiting Mr. Black, and found him engaged, with others, in New Testament study. Finally, assuring himself that his new acquaintances were in accord with the faith and polity of the Apostolic Church, and fully committed to the old paths, Mr. King requested permission to cast in his lot with them. "They, being satisfied that he had been begotten through the incorruptible seed of the Word of Truth - the Gospel of Christ, the Son of God - gladly afforded him the means of burial into the death of Christ, and birth out of water into the Kingdom of the son of God’s love." Fellowship with the Church followed, and thus he was

Baptized and Added.
This was in 1842, when our brother was about twenty-three years of age. He had been married in 1839 to Louisa, eldest daughter of George and Louisa Stevens; "and she, soon after her husband’s immersion, also gave herself to the Lord by burial into His death, continuing a loving and faithful wife, and a diligent helper in the work of faith and labour of love." Such is our first introduction, from David King’s own pen, to The Beloved "Louise," of whose conformity to his early wife-gauge we can now judge, and, without whom, her husband’s life would, at least, have been less worth recording.
One witness, with good opportunity for judging, testified in our friend’s lifetime: "D.K. has been greatly helped through life by an admirable partner, whose culture and mental force have been equal, if not superior, to his own; and no estimate of the man will be just, apart from taking this into account." And we who have lived so many years concurrently with their joint lives and labours, cannot forget, even in the serial literature emanating from their house, how often we have turned with grateful refreshment to Louise’s department, to find feast of heart and play of emotion, in change from the more taxing pursuit of argumentative demonstration, and the exercise of mental discipline, in the Editor’s own province. In field or vineyard, wandering or at rest, a sister-wife was with him everywhere, except on the briefest impracticable occasions, and her mark was upon everything that pertained to the chosen work of his life. On her part, whatever were her advantages in early education and mental acuteness, she looked up to him as head, and leaned with beautiful and loving trust on an arm stronger than her own. Each was the other’s complement - incomplete apart, in labour as in life. They were no vain words of hers, in the day when she realized that the light of her life had gone: "The knowledge that I am borne up to the throne of grace by so many loving hearts, will help and strengthen me to treat the path of life, either long or short, that I have to pass along without the support of the strong, but tender arm that has borne me up so long." Her heart is the repository of the treasures of past days. We can only guess at them by floating straws, or reeds bent by fitful winds.

Vineyard and Field. The paucity of workers in the little church of his choice, soon forced our subject into the active foreground; and, before long, his exceptional power, both in exposition and proclamation, raised demands upon his time that led to his giving up of Saturday and Monday in each week, from business, to the ministry of the word, in and out of the Church.

An Early Success.
Not long after the time now under review, several interesting incidents are recorded. One of these was connected with an Adventist Church at Piltdown.
Hearing of David King, they invited him to preach for them; and, after several weeks of helpful and testing intercourse, they were led, bodily, to accept the simple ground he had laid before them. "Thus a church of over 150 members came over to primitive faith and practice."

An Individual Conquest. At Maidstone there was early fruit of labour. And, at a little meeting at Seale, in Surrey - at which Brother Scott (recently departed, in the ninetieth year of his age), who had brought him over to preach, had occasion to regret his onslaught on existing religious institutions, including the Bishop of Winchester, who lived in the neighbourhood - it afterwards transpired, that a young carpenter of promise who was present, was convinced of the importance of believers’ baptism, and having become obedient, was, in after years, in friendly touch with Mr. King at Birmingham, as the popular Baptist Minister, Mr. Charles Vince; whose own way of putting it, was: "Mr. King made me a Baptist."

A Gospel-man.
Records of 1848 show that Brother King was, at that time, a recognised Evangelist; in which character we find him present, as a delegate from London, at the Glasgow Annual Meeting. About the same time he visited the Northern Churches of Bedlington, Howden and Newcastle, and, in his notice of these places, marks with high appreciation the field and fruits of "our Brother MacDougall’s labours."
At first he was sustained by the London District Churches, after yielding to the strong pressure of the brethren to relinquish business and throw himself into Gospel work; and this arrangement continued for a good while.
In 1852 he was president of the General Meeting, held at Buckingham, at which, also, Brethren Harris, Wallis, and John Black took prominent part with him. There were then reported to be 76 Churches, and 1981 members in the movement. In this year Salisbury was visited, but without any lasting important results.
At intervals from work in London and the district, he was called to visit more distant places, among which Dundee and Auchtermuchty figure, as supplying "overflowing audiences" and "much inquiry." The G.E.C. and Manchester.
Pressure was put upon him, by this time, to take a wider scope in connection with the General Evangelist Committee; but this was again and again declined; until, at last, the painful want of effort in Manchester led him to consent to go there, for a time, in co-operation with that committee.
This came about in 1855, and the work there was begun in conjunction with brethren Rotherham, Hill and Sinclair. Brother Harvey, in reporting progress, makes reference, also, to Brethren Coop, G.Y. Tickle, and W. Turner, as visitors at the inauguration of the work.

Hibernia.
Ireland was visited, from Manchester, in 1856; and after some fine meetings during three weeks’ stay in Belfast, a Church of ten members was left assembling in that city. It was then his conviction, that Ireland was the most promising field in the "British Empire" - the needs being greater and the willingness to receive the truth being also greater, than anywhere else he knew of. This especially applied to Belfast and Dublin, and their respective neighbourhoods.

An Extended Radius.
Towns and districts easy of access from Manchester were first visited about this time - Ashton, Wigan, Huddersfield, Liverpool, Mollington, Chester, Saughall, and Wrexham, were all reached on brief visits.

Birmingham.
After a brief residence in his London home again, in 1857, Brother King was urged by the Annual Meeting held that year in London, to spend some months in Birmingham, whither Mrs. King and he journeyed in March, 1858; joining Brother J.B. Rotherham in that important town. They found a Church of eleven members - four brethren and seven sisters. Without any intention, in going to Birmingham, of relinquishing the London work, nevertheless, in God’s providence, he never returned to it; staying on from time to time, against strong personal preference for London, in obedience to what appeared to him indications of the Lord’s will. This suspense was continued for three years, before the London house was given up, and a new home established in Birmingham; which, thenceforth, became the centre from which all subsequent activities branched out.

Leicester.
In this way Leicester which reached - a town of 90,000 souls, where a Church of fourteen members meeting in brother Leavesley’s house, and from whence had come the “Macedonian cry” urging Brother King to “Come over and help us.” From the first, during many years of evangelistic labour and oversight, the church continued to advance, and others were founded in the neighbourhood; all of which counted themselves largely indebted to Brother D. King for their origin and success. Moreover, not a few, whose lives were brought into contact with those early days and work, and who have been removed to the ends of the earth, still bear witness to the good they received, and cherish the memory of some of the leading themes of discourse as valuable helps in laying the bases of the pillars of their faith. Wolverhampton came in for a share of care and labour during this period; such being continued until the time came for the recognition of an eldership in the church.
The Liverpool Crisis.
At the Annual Meeting held in Liverpool, in 1869, a resolution was adopted, recommending Bro. King to devote the next year’s labour to Liverpool. He promised to take the matter into his consideration, but said, that if unable to acquiesce in the wish expressed, he would close his connection with the committee at the end of the current quarter. In taking the latter step, he ended an important relationship, which had extended over twelve years. Birmingham District Association.
Following on the action referred to, the above association was formed, and Mr. King invited to continue the oversight of the churches in the district, whose existence was so largely due to his agency. In acceding to this request, he, however, retained the free use of three months of each year for labour in other directions. This arrangement remained unbroken until 1882, when, needing the time for other work, he called the brethren together, and, after a careful review of the whole work from the beginning, he tendered his resignation of responsible oversight, expressing his belief that this would not retard complete organization. The eleven members, at the commencement of the Birmingham work, had grown to 500.
The year before this, a valuable and touching tribute to his character and work had been presented by the Church assembling at Geach Street. And, at a meeting subsequent to the one above referred to, the following resolution was adopted by the Charles Henry Street Church:-
“That this Church receives with deep regret the unconditional resignation of his official oversight given in by Bro. King; deplores with him the fact that he has not found it practicable to realize his own desire in the complete scriptural organization of the Church; desires to convey to him, and record, its high appreciation of his long, successful, and self-denying labours and its admiration of his clear and consistent character as a man and a Christian; trusts that in his changed relationship he may still find opportunity to minister to its further enlightenment and complete organization; and that he may continue to be honoured in his other varied spheres of labour, in leading into the ‘old paths,’ which he has done so much to make plain, both individuals and Churches, now wandering in the bye-ways of error.”
Training Work.
The training of young men for Gospel work was begun by the subject of this Memoir in 1866. Practically the work originated in “the Widow’s Mite.” A poor widow, a seller of smallwares, who had received a legacy of £20, brought £5 to her trusted brother, David King, to invest for her in the Lord’s work. Suggestions by him for her own application of it having been declined, he entered the amount as a first contribution towards this object at that time occupying his mind - it being his intention to receive young men for training, and become, himself, responsible for the cost. The control of this training work having been offered to, and declined by the Charles Henry Street Church, he took it entirely into his own hands, receiving such contributions as were forwarded by individuals, or churches, but never appealing directly to either. The work thus proceeded until it was transferred to a general committee, with Bro. Alexander Brown as teacher and guide.
During Bro. King’s charge of the work, a number of young men received important help, extending, respectively, over months, or years. These included Brethren Strang, Adam, Scott, Thompson, Wood, Barnett, L. Oliver, and others. The first named was the first student - a railway signal-man, who had already received some help from Bro. T.H. Milner. He remained about three years with Bro. King.
It may be well at this point to supply extracts from the testimony of some of those who enjoyed the help referred to, all of which were written in the lifetime of the teacher; the first being part of a letter from Australia to Mr. and Mrs. King; the others supplied to the present writer by request, for a previous sketch:
I. Your kind and encouraging bearing towards me when a student, your generous hospitality, and the progress I was able to make in fitness for the Master’s service, under your instruction, or supervision, have laid me under a debt of gratitude, which I may have failed in any adequate degree to acknowledge, but which I have never ceased to feel. Ever since that memorable September 24th, 1866, your life and work have led me to regard you, as presenting for my imitation, the purest and greatest of human examples. And although no one knows how far I have come short, better than myself, it is my own conviction, that the measure of Christian character and of usefulness, to which I have attained, is largely due, under God, to your teaching and example. I presume you have gleaned enough from our Australian papers, and other sources, about me and my work, to render it unnecessary that I should the dilate upon either. And, although my career has not been by any means a brilliant one, yet I would venture to express the hope, that you are fairly satisfied, that the time, patience, labour, and unvarying kindness bestowed on me, have been justified to some degree in the general result.

Yours in the Lord,
JOHN STRANG.
II. “In my experience of him as a trainer of young men, I bear this testimony, that he never sought to influence me in any special direction, but his constant aim seemed to be, to get at the exact meaning of what the Scriptures said, and of what the Lord Jesus meant us to believe and do.”
Signed J. ADAM.
Bro. Adam’s letter also gives, in substance, the following general estimate of the man: “David King was an instinctive logician, and saw at a glance the weak side of his opponent; hence his great power in debate. His intellectual force was more intense than original; but, though lacking in creative power, his actual power in the use of material amounted to genius. As a clear expositor of first principles he was unique; and he was certainly faithful in carrying them to their legitimate conclusions. Loyalty to Christ was a leading motive in his character, and often led to an attitude seemingly harsh to those differing from him, especially those in whom conviction was less deep than his own. This applied both to Platform and Editorial work. Though possessing considerable power, both in writing and speaking, his oral power for excelled, when occasion called it forth. He rather enjoyed ‘letting down’ obnoxious people, and often his caustic wit and ready repartee turned the laugh of an audience against such opponents. He seemed more at home at the desk, or on the platform, than in the social circle; he lent no time to gossip; but, get him in a group of trustworthy friends, and he became a remarkable conversationalist. Some of his familiar pranks will not soon be forgotten - as on one occasion when a crisis was being discussed, he rose and began to feel down the back of one of the party. Asked, with some warmth: ‘What in the world are you doing?’ He replied: ‘I am just feeling whether there is any backbone.’” The sequel proved that George Collin was really vertebrate.
By nature, Bro. King seemed made for unique place and work, but mellowing grace made him a true yokefellow. He did not regard himself a fighting man by nature, or phrenologically, but his consciousness of power in exposing the sophistries of unbelief, and his interest in saving honest men from such beguilements, often led him into the fray. Nevertheless, as with many reasoners on Christian evidences, ghosts were sometimes raised by questions, that could not be laid by answers. Still, many were won by his agency to a simpler apprehension of scriptural truth and position; and, among them, some instances of note. A superb edition of his leading articles, sermons and lectures, with a summary of his debates, edited by a congenial spirit, from material of his own providing, would be of great service to the rising generation, and form the best possible criterion of the life and work of a remarkable man.”
III. “The help given was principally a thorough drilling in the inductive method of studying Bible topics. There was plenty of hard work in getting together all portions of Scripture on a given theme, such as ‘The Spirit of God,’ and drawing from these their teaching on the parts of the theme these passages suggested. When the theme had been well considered in this way, then one was permitted to read such books, or portions of books, bearing on the topic, as Brother King thought would be helpful. I dare say the results arrived at might, in some measure, be due to the teacher’s known views; but he took the utmost care to avoid that, watching the correctness of the method principally. I remember when the first difference arose, he said to the effect:- ‘When we differ like this, as soon as you think we have discussed the matter sufficiently, say so, and we will leave it at once; you must not accept anything merely in deference to me.’”
Signed LANCELOT OLIVER.
In further communication, Bro. Oliver claims a personal acquaintance going back to some years beyond 1878, and refers to impressions then formed, that never materially changed. Of marked characteristics are enumerated:- “First, and most outstanding: The courage of his convictions - a man who would say and do right no matter what the consequences might be. Second: Extraordinary clearness and power of intellect, and command of all his powers of thought and speech. Third: A geniality and kindness of disposition quite unexpected by those who knew only his writings. Fourth: A peculiar knock of putting an important truth in a single sentence, and saying it in a way that made it strike home, never to be forgotten.
“His use of occasion was, at times, very striking. On the first of the week, four of us met to break bread. Bro. King presided, and gave an address on one of the Psalms, in his very best style. After the service he came and laid his hand on my shoulder, saying, ‘How did you like my address?’ I began to express myself, when he intimated that he did not mean the matter, so much as the manner, concluding: ‘I want you always to preach to three people, the same as if you were speaking to three hundred.’” A lesson on “push” was illustrated one morning but reference to a scene enacted on the opposite side of the street. Two women had tried to gain admittance to a house, but seemed to be prevented by a drift of fallen snow. After consultation, one went away, presumably to fetch some hot water; the other, left to herself, seemed to determine on a “forlorn hope,” and, walking into the middle of the street, ran backwards with all her might, when the door gave way. That was “push.”

Sketch from “Old Paths.”
It will interest the reader to insert here, by way of parenthesis, the substance of L. Oliver’s sketch, printed in the Old Paths, at the time of Mr. King’s decease, leaving out some points dealt with sufficiently already:-

HIS WORK AND TIMES.
David King pleaded by tongue and pen for a return to Primitive Christianity for fifty-two years out of his seventy-five. To rightly appreciate the difficult of attaining success in this task, and the firmness of conviction needed to persevere in it, note must be taken of the strength of the current against which he had to contend. The tendency of the age, latent sometimes, but always powerful, has been to consider that what of the thought and practice of the past has given way to new, must have done so, because the new is, on the principle of the survival of the fittest, better than the old. Religious men, even, have acted as if of apostacy from Primitive Christianity, it also could calmly be said:
“’Twas but the ruin of the bad,
The wasting of the wrong and ill;
What ever of good the old time had,
Is living still.”

Against this tendency, manifested in hydra-headed forms, this “hero in the strife” pleaded that the old, in this case at least, was truer and better, was of divine origin and authority, and adapted to man’s need as a fallen creature.
This plea brought him into conflict with systems such as Atheism, Secularism and Spiritualism - opposed more or less obviously to Christianity; with all systems, professedly Christian, which he saw were departures from the “faith once for all delivered to the saints” - sectarian names, human creeds, the clergy as opposed to the laity, and so forth. Such was the work and place - now let us look somewhat at

The man who worked there.
By nature and personal endeavour he was fitted to command a great influence in this work. A strong full voice, commanding aspect, a powerful mind, and a great control of all his powers, gave him immense influence on the platform; and in his use of the pen, a terse but varied style was accompanied by complete mastery of the argument and much skill in showing the weakness and, if need were, the ridiculousness of an opponent’s position.
A result of much controversy has been that some who greatly admired his ability and his faithfulness to truth, judged him over critical and sometimes unnecessarily severe. I am sure he would have been the first to say, “Speak of me as I am, nothing extenuate.”
Expression may, however, be given to the regret that while so many saw the flint-like sternness, so few knew the humble walk with God, the love for all men, and the many amiable traits in his character. A few sharp thrusts are often noted and remembered, when many kindly hints and gentle means are unnoticed or forgotten. It has thus been lost sight of, that when he deemed severity unnecessary he was as gentle in dealing with errors and faults as at other times he was stern. I am sure it was painful to him to be severe in dealing with good men. It is true “He did not stint His necessary actions in the fear Of coping malicious censorers;” but it yet remains to be proved that what he deemed necessary in reproving and opposing incipient innovations could have been well dispensed with. However, we need “judge nothing before the time,” and all who know the work he did agree that morally and mentally he was among the stalwarts of our race.
How much of his greatness he derived from natural constitution, and how much from what, in contradistinction, may be called his principles, it is impossible to say. He doubtless had much, as most great men have, which we may neither praise him for having nor others for not having.
But there was much, very much, which all, the young especially, can be recommended to cultivate –
1. He shunned no trouble necessary to get at the truth. His method of Bible study, it is well known, was the inductive. Before he adopted any view of a subject, he did all he could to find the whole truth; not only getting all the Scriptures before him, but also reading the best writers on all sides. Even then he did not close his mind. Only a few months ago he accepted with delight a different interpretation of the passage “The Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by force” - from that he had taught publicly and privately for half a century.
2. Loyalty to his convictions. His central conviction was doubtless his acceptance of the sovereignty of Christ. This appeared frequently in his faithfulness to what might be deemed comparatively secondary truths - in his readiness to sacrifice time and means and comfort, to secure consistency to these, which to some of less fineness of moral perception would have seemed not worth the cost.
3. Thorough attention to duty. Whatever he held himself responsible for, he attended to in the most complete way. For instance, it is common, in accounting for his being always ready with proofs of a statement, to say that he had a wonderful insight, and somehow anticipated what would be wanted some day, and preserved it. It is true, his perspicacity was extraordinary; but there was an immense industry behind all that. Those who heard his lectures against Spiritualism will remember how effectually he brought extracts from public prints to bear in showing the uncertainty and injurious nature of the thing. Those extracts were, of course, the result of years of diligent watching, and gathering of evidence. His ever-ready proofs of charges against some of the American Churches, whom he deemed to have departed from the simplicity of the original plea for a return to Christianity as it was at the first, is an example clearly remembered.
4. His readiness to befriend and help. A great poet has written of little acts of kindness and love as the best portion of a good man’s life; and the highest authority places love that manifests itself not in word only, but in deed, as a sign of the possession of the life that was manifested in Christ. I have no hesitation in saying that David King was not only an ideally attentive husband, but that he was ever ready to sympathise, to give his best counsel, and to help to the extent of his power, whomsoever he could; while to some, whose privilege it was to become intimate with him, he was not only as a wise counsellor and friend, but as a devoted and affectionate father.
But I must close, content to mark that he was pre-eminent for care in the search for truth; loyalty to the truth found; thorough attention to the claims of duty; and was habitually kind in thought, word and deed. Well will it be for us all if, in spheres less trying than his, we can, considering the issue of his life, imitate his faith, looking as he did to Jesus, the unseen strength and source of his life, for Jesus Christ, his Lord and ours, is the same yesterday, today, and for ever.
IV. Bro. T.K. Thompson’s knowledge of our subject extended over nearly thirty years. After reciting the circumstances by which he was led into student-relation to him, he proceeds: “During those two years, I saw him daily, in his own house - by his own fireside. Many opportunities were afforded me of seeing the penetrating intellect and clear judgment of the man; and many, also for feeling the warmth of the heart, and the sanctity of the spirit, of the Christian. Indeed, for seeing the whole man dominated by ‘the truth as it is in Jesus.’ David King was one of the holiest men it has been my happiness to know. What do I owe him? More, much more, than can be set down here. I owe no man more than I owe to him. I went to him to get some training in the use of the mind I possessed; and to obtain a wider acquaintance with God, as manifested in His Son; that I might comprehend more fully the heights and depths of the Divine Love revealed in the Gospel; and if, in the after years, I have succeeded in awakening any sinner to love my Redeemer, or have been honoured to build up and encourage the saints, I would wish that the full measure of credit for my ability to do either, should be given to my teacher of earlier days. His patience, kindness, and encouragement, are as green in memory as ever; and must continue to be so, as long as memory itself remains.”
Brother Thompson supplies an incident, which indirectly marks Mr. Vince’s estimate of his friend David King: “At a public meeting in Birmingham, Mr. Vince was twitted by an opponent with refusal to adopt the prefix ‘Rev.’ He replied, referring to Mr. King: ‘Does my critic not know - if not, he ought to know - that one of the ablest defenders of Christianity in this town does not use the prefix ‘Rev.’, and never has used it?’” Bro. Thompson remarks further, that he has good reason to know that he stood in equal esteem with Dr. Dale.
We may be sure that intimacies could not go very far with the more clerical spirits in the “ministry;” for, while our subject was sometimes “chaffed” about his clerical vest, and white neckerchief, and loose robe, his principles and attitude were essential anti-clerical; and it was not difficult to surmise, that his attire was adopted as a matter of unstraitened freedom and comfort on the one hand, and in resentment of the prevailing taste for starch on the other, with the additional object, in the short-cut pantaloons, of never again getting into the “miry clay.” Literary Work.
While Bro. King’s literary work might be called voluminous, not much of it took volume form; indeed he published no single work of special magnitude. The first independent work, in point of time, was a tract entitled, The Subject, Action and Design of Baptism. Next came Alcohol and the Bible, being a plea for the use of unintoxicating wine only at the Lord’s Table; and for abstinence from intoxicating beverages, as the duty of all Christians.
In 1847, in answer to a call for a small penny monthly, the Bible Advocate was issued, conjointly, by D. King and W. Godson, from a little press of their own; and it ran a course of about three years. Succeeding the earlier Bible Advocate, the Quo Warranto was published monthly for some years; the main feature being a demand for authority for things done in the name of the Lord, that he had not ordained.
In 1850 came a large edition of the Report of a three nights’ discussion with Mr. G.J. Holyoake, who declined to take any part in the publication. This was followed closely by Anti-Mysticism; this again by The Holy Spirit in Creation, Providence and Redemption. Primitive Christianity, the Apostacy and the Restoration, was issued in 1856, and had a good circulation. Two pamphlets - The Man of Sin Identified, and The Resurrection of Saints and Sinners, were also freely asked for. Those also, styled Why Baptize the Little Ones? and Immersion v. Sprinkling, have had a wide circulation. Various other booklets and tracts came from his pen, including examinations of the claims of the so-called Catholic Apostolic, Mormon, and Christadelphian movements. Still further must be named, the publishing of the six nights’ debate with Mr. Charles Bradlaugh.

Serials.
Of these the chief have been the Old Paths, the Sunbeam, taken up at the death of Mr. T.H. Milner, the British Millennial Harbinger, received over from Mr. James Wallis, and practically continued through the British Harbinger, Ecclesiastical Observer, and the current Bible Advocate. The Extra for some time relieved the pages of the Ecclesiastical Observer in special matter felt to be needed by occasion.
Three HYMN BOOKS were also published - first in the earliest days, for use in the London District connection; a more important one being published later on - compiled by Mr. King, and revised by several brethren. This was used among the churches for some twenty years. The last one, now widely used, was the joint selection and work throughout of himself and the sweet singer, G.Y. Tickle, many of whose hymns are included. His School Hymn Book continued in use until, at a time of severe illness, it was given over to the S.S. Committee.

Debate.
David King ranked high in debate, far beyond his own chosen religious connection, and many champions of false ways were compelled to acknowledge the power of his agency, and the worth of his cause.
Mr. Sullivan - “a gentleman by position and conduct” - was his first opponent. The discussion lasted during six evenings, in Elstree Street Chapel, London, in November 1845, the questions being:

What is the Christian System?
Is it of Divine origin?
What are its legitimate effects?

Next in point of time, but of more importance, considering the representative position of the man, came the debate with Mr. G.J. Holyoake, Secularist leader and Editor of the Reasoner. This was again in London; and held during three nights in September 1850. The questions were:

What is the Christian System?
What are its legitimate results?

Another discussion was held with a Mr. Ellis, probably in 1853. This gentleman was a Secularist Missionary, and of a friendly spirit and high tone in every way. The debate covered three Sunday afternoons, and seemed to lead to the cessation of Mr. Ellis’s lectures on Secularism. He was discovered some years after, as a Unitarian minister. A discussion in Wigan came off in 1856, with a Swedenborgian minister named Woodman. The Action, Subjects and Design of Baptism occupied three nights. Both men were commended by the press for their perfect “Christian courtesy,” and good results were anticipated. The discussion with Mr. J.H. Gordon, “Lecturer to the Leeds Secular Society,” was held in Birmingham, on the 10th, 11th and 12th, of December 1861. The proposition, affirmed by Mr. Gordon, and denied by Mr. King, was:- “That while the gospel according to Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, is neither the gospel of salvation, nor of peace, the gospel according to Secularism is both!” It was quite evident from the first, that Mr. Gordon was not worthy of his antagonist; but he was an acknowledged leader of Secularism and of the most pronounced type. We read:- “The earnestness with which this young - but very bold - slanderer of the inspired Book, spoke, throughout the debate, was remarkable. To witness the degree of courage evinced by the firmness with which he reiterated again and again, those sentences which seemed to bid most fair to prevent his popularity - calling forth as they did, manifestations of the strongest opposition - gave rise, in our own minds, to deep regret, that that courage was not brought to bear in a better cause.” There were one or two interesting incidents connected with this debate; one of which may have had something to do with arresting the young and wild blasphemer. He had been caricaturing in the most slanderous manner the life and routine of Christian home life. When Mr. King rose to reply (having been furnished with an outline of Mr. Gordon’s history) he spake a parable of a Christian household, headed by pious and tender parents, whose history, pathetically set forth, answered too surely, in the consciousness of his adversary, to the factors of his own life. Mr. Gordon’s astonished gaze at the recital, and perfect silence in regard to it, in his subsequent speech, showed that the arrow had gone home, and justified the wisdom of the archer.
The other circumstance in this connection, is thus referred to in substance:
Mr. Seymour was one of Mr. Gordon’s committee and prompted him somewhat during the discussion; he had been said to have had a classical education, and to have made a very great sacrifice to accept and preach “the gospel according to Secularism.” Subsequently to the discussion, he called upon Mr. King and said - “I have called, Mr. King, because I consider you would like to be informed of a change which has come over my mind. I can no longer advocate Secularism. I find it cannot be sustained; and, though I have some remaining difficulties, yet I must proclaim myself a believer in Christianity.”
The ultimate sequence in Mr. Gordon’s case, was, that he shortly went back to Leeds, and, after being further influenced by the late “Rev.” Wm. Conder, of that town, he avowed himself a Christian, and published a confession of his faith in Christ. He joined the Congregational body and went to college to prepare for the ministry; but during his college course, again met Mr. King in Manchester, when they examined together the subject of Baptism; he became convinced regarding believer’s immersion, and with characteristic candour announced his changed mind to his valued and kind Congregational friends, who begged him, nevertheless, to finish the course the had provided for him. He did not think well to do that, but was baptized and called by a Baptist church to its pastorate. After some time, he found a more congenial sphere as a lecturer for the Liberation Society, and finished an intensely stirring life, in that position, dying on his way to America to recruit his shattered health.
In September, 1867, Mr. King met in debate, at Newcastle, Mr. Charles Watts, Sub-Editor of the National Reformer. “Mr. King undertook to affirm, and Mr. Watts to deny, ‘That Christianity is of Divine Origin and beneficial to man,’ and both agreed that Christianity should be understood to mean that system taught by Christ and His apostles, and recorded in the New Testament.” “This debate was consequent upon Mr. King receiving from a Committee, composed of members of various denominations (none of whom were known to him) an urgent request to debate with Mr. Watts, who had been lecturing in the neighbourhood.” The circumstances connected with this debate, and the disreputable conduct of the Secularist leaders, did much to discredit the cause of Secularism. The debate covered four nights; on the last of which, in his concluding words, Mr. King dealt with the attitude and conduct of his adversary, in such a way, as to draw forth “thunders of applause,” and show that his own verdict was the verdict of the assembly. A discussion was held at Banbury, in July, 1869, with the “Rev.” G. St. Clair, Baptist minister of that town. Subject:- “What is the design of Baptism?” The limitations of man and place, render this debate of less than average interest.
The King and Bradlaugh debate is the most widely known to the public of all Mr. King’s discussions; and, all in all, furnishes the severest handling that modern English Secularism has had. The discussion was held in Bury, in Lancashire, and lasted six nights, during September and October 1870. The subjects of discussion were:
1. “What is Christianity?”
2. “Is it of Divine Origin?”
3. “What are its Legitimate Effects?”
4. “What is Secularism, and what can it do for man that Christianity cannot?”
5. “Is the Bible Account of Creation opposed to Reason and Science?”
One other debate may be referred to - held in the village of Lindal-in-Furness, in 1876, with the “Rev.” L.O. Lewis, a Church of England clergyman. The subject of discussion was “the Action and Design of Baptism.” This gentleman was about as fair as Watts!
How he became an Abstainer may almost take rank among the debates, with the debates, with the peculiarity, however, that David King was placed hors de combat. While yet a Wesleyan, Mr. King was in the habit of going down to the notorious Seven Dials, to read the scriptures and talk to the people on Sunday afternoons. The cold weather setting in, he announced that unless some of his audience could find a room, the meetings would be discontinued from the following Lord’s Day. A carpenter in the company offered his workroom; it was accepted and the next meeting held there. At its close, owner and preacher being left together, the carpenter inquired whether he was a teetotaller. The preacher replied, “No.” “Then,” said he, “you must be, if you continue to use my room. I cannot have a drinking preacher here, and you cannot speak again unless you sign the pledge.” Health was pleaded as the only ground for taking a little. Remonstrance was urged against the arbitrary proceeding. It was all no use, the carpenter was inexorable! At last he softened to a compromise - if the preacher would sign for twelve months, he could have the room in the meantime. The case of “souls v. beer” was soon settled, the preacher signed, and went on with his work. The year wore away and the pledge ran out; but by that time he had learned too much ever to return to his former habit, and remained an earnest abstainer and advocate to the end.

A Consequent Dilemma. Years after the above event, our abstainer went to Bolton, under the guidance of Mr. Coop, to deliver a lecture. Mr. Coop was to stay all night at a friend’s house. Mr. King would return by a late train to Manchester. Accordingly, late at night the lecturer waited for a train that never came, or did not stop, and had to make his way into town to seek shelter for the remainder of the night. Meeting a policeman, that officer kindly went with him, in the forlorn hope of getting into the Temperance Hotel; but this did not succeed. What was to be done? Well, the only thing was to get a bed at a public house. He would not sleep in a public house! Could the officer not get him into the police station? Not unless he did something wrong, or gave somebody in charge. Leaving the guardian of the peace, a few paces brought him to where a donkey was busy rubbing himself against a lamp post. Light flashed upon quick wit! The officer was re-called, Balaam was charged with being abroad without justifiable reason, and policeman, witness, and culprit, walked off to the station, where the vagabond was locked up, and by dint of characteristic argument, the belated lecturer was permitted to stretch his limbs on the office “settle.” He awoke with the dawn, to a vision of manacles and weapons, adorning his bedroom wall. The circumstance serves, at least, to illustrate a humorous resourcefulness in our subject, that did not belong to a man who could not “spin,” because he could not “turn.”

As an Editor.
No one ever yet fulfilled a long editorial career without complications. To suppose such a thing, would be to perpetrate a fraud on oneself. Many of us, besides our general acquaintance with this august class, have lived in intimate relation with some of its individuals and have learned what a rocky path they have to tread, if not to thread. What with the varied provision they must make, by pen and scissors, for all sorts of appetites and tastes, and the use of their discretion in consignments to the deep abyss of the “basket,” they come to be the best abused of mankind. Every abortion of the brain is counted a comely child by its parent, however innocent it may be of claim upon intelligent recognition, and its “happy dispatch” to the editorial basket, is regarded with horror as one more added to the long list opened by Herod’s “murder of the innocents.” No doubt our editor was guilty, in his day, of this species of slaughter. At any rate he came in for his full share of censure, and, singular to say, most from those who never offered him copy, but simply passed the word on: that he was too rigorous in his methods, and too exclusive in his choice.
One friend, in referring to this point, says: “In editorial relations no editor escapes blame from contributors, whether deservedly or not; nor did he. I more than once named to him his reputed severity. In reply, he sent me a batch of contributions, and asked what I would do with them? I was silenced for ever.”
A “Contributor” is aware that complaints were made in regard to editorial work, but he himself had no reason to complain; but supposes he might perhaps have come in at a time when special attention had been called to the matter, and thus a little more allowance was being made. He was always treated with great courtesy and consideration. Of course, papers had been rejected, and, now and again, things aid on this and other matters, that were not joyous, but grievous; yet, in most cases, the contributor saw that the editor was right, and always regarded his wounds as the faithful wounds of a friend.
We cannot much extend the radius of inquiry on this head. One’s own experience may be typical enough as supplement. One or two cases occur to memory. A painstaking paper being sent, it was acknowledged in some such way as this: “Your article will be printed and opportunity given for some one to reply: failing this, I purpose dealing with it myself.” A momentary darkness envelops the recipient of an editorial threat like that; but the cloud soon disperses, and the contributor waits, but waits in vain. The adverse reply never comes. On another occasion, some such notice would be taken in a printed note with the article, and a veiled reference made, that no pressure could ever elicit the meaning of, except so far as to conclude that David was “Joe-King.” (Many readers will remember the witty rejoinder, on a public occasion, to a suggestion that Bro. King was joking: “I am not Joe King: I am David King.”) His “bark” was often “worse than his bite.” Sometimes, one would, in reading his strictures on work sent up, come across a crisp: “You affirm (so and so), I deny.” Any implied commendation was equally terse: “I never have to fault your elaboration - you are not a sprawler.” It may be interesting to let the editor speak for himself, as in a letter bearing date September 24th 1889, when the magazine he had owned and edited since 1862, was about to become the property of the churches, with David King as editor-in-chief. He thus writes: “I shall be glad to know whether we may look to you for any stated help re the New Periodical, and if yes, in what direction? You will be aware that while, of course, the editor marks out the departments, and determines the general arrangement of the paper, departmental editors are to be appointed by the Committee, each of whom will be at liberty to obtain aid in filling in his portion; and not less so the editor-in-chief.
“Nothing is yet fixed, but I have in mind, as covering part of the ground:-
1. A leader either by the editor, or entirely adopted by him. Also as now in E.O., two or three short articles, selected, or original, which it will be understood the editor endorses in their leading elements, without being committed to every expression.
2. Our Exchanges: being extracts, without comment, from papers received in exchange for our paper - British, Colonial, and American.
3. The Expositor (Department I.): articles helpful to right apprehension of the Bible.
4. The Young and their Helpers (Department II.) designed to take in matters to help the young directly, or indirectly, by aid supplied to S.S. teachers.
5. The Home Circle, or some such title (Department III.); designed for the Family.
6. Church and other Intelligence; without comment (Department IV.). And so on.
“In the editorials I would like a helper or two, each always writing over the same initial. I don’t think I should fall out with “C,” if he were the one, or one of two.
“Of course there will be a sort of Open Council, in which the writers only will be responsible; insertions in which will be at the option of the editor.
“Nothing is yet settled as to title. Send me the very best that can possibly be selected. Titles, size, and price will be determined by the committee.
“Have you any conviction, as to brethren desirable for Departmental Editors?

Shall be glad to hear from you early,
Yours in the faith, &c.
DAVID KING.”

It may be consoling to some who felt the editor, to find that one so heartily invited to co-operate felt him too. And yet, it must be admitted regarding the following letter that there is a rate blending of authority, dignity and grace; such as to make one feel honoured in the friend, rather than annoyed by the editor. It is as late as April 27th, 1894, when the beginning of the end was hedging him in, and yet there is no note of it. There had been much, moreover, to excite watchfulness against innovation, and this was more to him than the assault of disease: “Having sent the May 1st Bible Advocate on its way to the readers, I turn again to your two articles - ‘We.’ If you, thinking them likely to do good, desire their insertion, that desire can be complied with, only putting them beyond the range of leader-articles; thereby freeing the editor from supposed adoption of them, as a whole, or in part.
The above will suffice on what we may look at as the business aspect of the matter. I may, then, now venture a few words on the papers without reference to the question of insertion in the Bible Advocate.
I have gone over them again with care, and I cannot be sure as to their meaning, as a whole, nor as to which way their influence would tend - for, or against retrogression. I am surprised at this, because your writing is marked by clearness - what you mean comes to the reader without trouble. May I venture to say what comes to mind as the cause of this exception? Well, then, I think, that you do not see it clearly; and that you may render service by more complete definition and classification. For instance, there is in the New Testament an apostolic ‘We,’ applicable only to the Apostles, as such. Then comes the wider applications of the term - more than one. There is, certainly a church ‘We,’ but, then, you should give such a definition of the Church, as will test the claims of those whom you would have us recognize; otherwise, it seems to me, that, certainly, your remarks would go far to justify the range advocated by the ------s and ------s. You will discover from the above what I mean.

With Christian Love and Esteem,
Yours &c.,
DAVID KING.”

The picture of a man, sick, and nigh unto death, sitting down to a letter like that, is a monument in itself, to any fair and reverent mind. Probably my last letter from David King is dated June 2nd, 1894, and it indicates in calligraphy, and otherwise, the great stress under which it was written; yet manifesting the same jealous care for that which is true, and will bear after-judgment. Even in that last gathering darkness, before the dawn; when heart and flesh failed - physically; this man must do and see done, what is strictly right. “Is it worth while,” says he, “thus to come down upon an unknown, and to leave him unrevealed? At any rate, I shall be glad to know who he is, and what he wrote.” I had spoken in parable, and my seeming censure was upon “C,” and I knew that “C,” would stand the assault, and that all would come right; but editors cannot see everything, and of course do wisely to inquire. David King was a patient inquirer - he took time to know, even when time was hurrying to the end. There is a touching pathos in his closing words, to those who know how ill he was - he was far worse than I had dreamed - far worse than even this difficultly written note reveals - and yet how little prone to complain: “I am still troubled with severe cough - unfitting me to attend public meetings.” It was the failure of duty and privilege that was the trouble - the “Grand Old Man!” Besides this sense of natural failure, that word retrogression had grown ominous of late; the cause had been wounded in the house of its friends. Watchfulness, with not a little reason, had grown to fear, and it became necessary to question some of those who had been counted staunch. Thus the evening of a strong and hopeful life was somewhat overcast; the sense of success challenged; great anticipations chastened. The serene evening was rippled by passing gusts; but night and peace came together: “Yes, love!” - He knew whom he loved. Knew in whom he had believed. He knew all; had counted all; had provided for all.
His heart was a deep well. Down went the trouble and abode there. Nobody knew how much of life it sapped; how much of sympathy was needed, and how little shown, under the sadly mistaken idea, that strong David King - the lion-hearted; so large in kindness and deep in sympathy, needed none himself.
Very beautiful is the testimony of one who knew him well and was a member of his household for some years. Is a man never praised by his valet? This witness comes very near it, for opportunity: “Time would fail me to tell of instances within my own personal knowledge, showing that his life was one of patience, abnegation of self, and devotion to others - influenced always, first and foremost, by the motive - ‘Lord, what wouldst Thou have me to do?’ The outcome has been a life of unswerving allegiance to the Lord. He experienced much misunderstanding and misrepresentation; because he would never turn aside from a clear path, indicated by a ‘thus saith the Lord,’ to bye-paths of expediency and worldly conformity.”
After referring to the opportunity that came to him as a young man, to gain a college training, which he declined, under the sense of responsibility for souls that might be perishing while he was seeking educational honours - choosing rather the salvation of souls and the glory of God; we are led to a closer view: “It can be said of David King, as it cannot be said of all public men, that those who knew him most intimately in private life, loved him best. His thoughtful consideration for those employed by him; his tenderness and sympathy for any distress, or suffering, that came within his sphere; his practical, unostentatious benevolence - all showed that his everyday life was a copy of the Master’s he loved and served so well.” Illustrations are given of the way in which his kindness was bestowed, as if to hide it from the very recipient, and put the obligation on his own part. A widow was taken into the house and supported for many months; and one other example is too characteristic to be dismissed by mere reference. Noticing the pale face of a young worker, he managed to elicit the amount of her daily earnings, and then informed her that Mrs. King and himself would like her to do something for them, if she would come and stay a few days for that purpose; and they would give her the same wages. When breakfast was over, the first day after going, the new employee asked for her work. Ah, well, there was no hurry for a little, she might just take a book and interest herself until they were ready; this consumed the forenoon. Then, after dinner, her employer said, “Now put on your hat, and Mrs. King and I will shew you your first day’s work” - which turned out to be a visit to an art-exhibition. The remainder of the visit was just made a season of rest and recreation, and the girl returned to her work refreshed and strengthened for her daily task. He must have gone out of his way to entertain this working girl, for he rarely took any recreation himself. All the time of my intimate connection with him, I never remember him taking any time for rest between 7 a.m. and 10 or 11 p.m. He cheered many in their trouble, not only by material help, but by his strong, firm faith in God’s promises, relating to the temporal, as well as spiritual needs of His children. He wrote to one in difficulty:
“Would that I could make your way clear, step by step. What I cannot do, the Lord can, and will. Worldly prosperity is not always good for us. If the soul is not prospering, praise the Lord there is balm in Gilead, and a Physician there whose prescriptions never fail.” An instance of imperturbable kindness is afforded by another home-incident: One day special company had come in to tea, and Her Grace Louise must needs have out the best china. All went well, until the young sister, acting as housemaid, was clearing away from the sitting-room upstairs. On emerging from the room on to the stair-landing, some obstacle caught her foot, and away went the whole trayful of china over the rail, through space, to be smashed to atoms, or ever it came to the bottom of the descent. We need not speculate on the “turn” the catastrophe gave the guidwife; but David was unmoved, and very soon sought out the weeping girl to apply much needed consolation: “Never mind, dear! It was quite an accident, and I don’t care a button about the loss of the china.”
A well-known and venerable colleague in evangelistic work says: “I have found him a most pleasant, peaceful, and helpful co-labourer in the Gospel - having enjoyed unbroken mutual confidence and friendship for more than forty years. He is possessed of great, resolute purpose. Nothing short of absolute helplessness ever prevented his attendance at the Lord’s table. If his general bearing towards contemporaries has, to some minds, seemed lacking in courtesy, or friendliness, that impression has, no doubt, arisen out of the argumentative character of his writings, the earnestness of his plea for apostolic doctrine, or from the direct exposure of error in faith or practice. He is known to have avowed, that he never felt the least vindictive feeling against his keenest opponent, or fiercest adversary. As to the churches among which I have moved, far or near, I found him everywhere esteemed as a pillar of the truth.”
One correspondent learned to love and esteem him more than forty years ago, and always found him more like a father than a brother. Visits to his house are now as landmarks of help to live closer to Jesus.

A Little Salt.
A fine old veteran, after writing of work already referred to, concludes:
“My own opinion of him is that, although a most powerful proclaimer of the truth, referred to, concludes: “My own opinion of him is, that, although a most powerful proclaimer of the truth, he had a weak point - few of us but have - he was too much in the habit of pointing out the failings of others, rather than referring his hearers to the Scriptures for information as to the way of life. But I consider he greatly improved in this respect. We all require to be careful on that point, or we create prejudice.” He is no doubt thinking of that night at Seale.
Here is a note written in 1892: “My personal acquaintance is very slight, not having shaken hands with him above three or four times. While he is held in so high estimation by brethren in every way better fitted than I to judge, I hesitate even to express any adverse opinion. And yet, whilst fully recognising the good work he has done, I have often felt disappointed, that our leading representative should be of the type he is: as shown in his writings and magazines. His mission seems to have been, to find out the weak points in men and systems, and to expose them mercilessly, with little or no generous praise for the good that might accompany. Had his primitive Christianity included the love that thinketh no evil, it would have been well for the whole brotherhood. But I write with reluctance, and simply record my opinion, as asked for; and, for what it is worth, which, as I have already indicated, is not much.”
A similar attitude may be inferred from a refusal to co-operate in a former sketch; which refusal prevents the use of the correspondence as it stands; but the highly esteemed writer’s standpoint is worth transferring: “As to the Biographical Sketch; it would gladden my eyes to see one according to Bible models. It would be so like our life-long contention, and such a contribution to the veracity of Biography as centuries past have scarcely seen. I may add that Biographical Sketches generally, especially what are called religious ones, are not worth the paper on which they are written, so far as I can judge.” This brother, it will be no blame to say, suffered in mind and life, from results in church history in which our subject was called in as adviser, but which cannot be entered into here, and which he is unwilling should be opened up. In many of these cases, the germ of bitterness is local, and the adviser most of all unfortunate. David King remembered the occasion, and, with deep regret, the results; but claimed to have advised impartially, and to the best of his wisdom. These two last testimonies were asked for under the sense of fairness, and believing them certain, from known circumstances, to qualify, personally, the mass of commendatory evidence. The latter writer refers, nevertheless, to some of Mr. King’s work in his neighbourhood, prior to their troubles, as altogether satisfactory, and for which he is thankful. They both disclaim the ordinary witness’ qualifications.
We can only judge truly of work in the aggregate; and life in its completeness. Notes of discord are sure to be struck here and there, in human life, and man’s work. The harmony is in the fullness - in the blending of the man and his work from first to last. As this is being written, there lie at hand the notes of a sermon in William MacDougall’s handwriting, and on the back of the sheet, these words: “No man - no church - can be honoured of the Lord, to accomplish a higher blessing in others, than he himself has received from the Lord.” It seems, then, a somewhat fair estimate of a life, that is based upon criteria of good received by an aggregate of individuals and of churches. But even now, it is too early to gauge, confidently, the results - quantity and quality. In ten years time, or even in twenty, it may be time enough to ask: “What work did David King do? How much has endured? Of what spiritual weight and worth is it?”
In the meantime we can only take forthcoming evidence, and we have it from well-known centres of labour. One speaks of courtesy and considerateness towards contemporaries, and free general homeliness among brethren who held him in the highest esteem, and among whom his decided utterances on difficult questions often helped them to shun dangerous and doubtful paths. It is remarked that Evangelists after his type would influence a more intelligent class of hearers, and: “Would that we had more of the sturdy, uncompromising spirit that characterized him. The Lord send such, if He has any more like David King.”
From another large centre, acquaintance dated back to 1860, when Mr. King was invited to go there to labour. Some of the discourses then given made a deep impression, and numbers were added to the church. The mention of the subjects warms the hearts of those who heard them, even to this day. His influence, in the original and success of the local churches, is freely acknowledged; and the indebtedness, generally, of the churches in the co-operation, to his unswerving adherence to the truth, will “never be known on this side the river.” While he enjoyed a little humour in private intercourse, he had no sympathy with frivolity, or worldliness, and his chief delight was in converse on Bible themes. Never an hour is remembered, in which interest and instruction were not derived in his company. A forty years acquaintance is summed up: “During all that time I held him in the highest esteem for his integrity and uprightness of character, always (whether praised, or blamed by those associated with him) unflinchingly doing what he believed to be right. Whether on the platform, teaching in private, or wielding his pen, he has always appeared to me to be indefatigable in his work and always ready to help any who desired it, to a clear understanding of the Lord’s will, with a view to intelligent obedience. I believe his influence for good, upon the churches and the age, to be greater than that of any other man I have known, and it will be enduring. The general estimation in which he was held has often found expression in the words: ‘Ah, we shall never see his like again.’ At home, I knew him to be a most affectionate and devoted husband, and also most kind and thoughtful to those in his employ.”
An exceptionally close acquaintance yields this result: “If my hand could obey my heart, I could write a good deal; for that manly face and massive head, are with me even now, and I cannot shut out that wonderful eye, seen under almost every phase of human passion - twinkling with humour - glowing with pity and tenderness - flashing with virtuous indignation. His tenderness was known best to those who knew him well - a few candid, congenial spirits, in whose presence his really sensitive nature would unfold itself. But to anyone not thoroughly candid; not perfectly loyal to truth; not willing at once to commit himself to the truth, as known at the time, he would not be known - he was only stern, inflexibly just, ready to rebuke or smite, with the hope of ultimate good. Emphasize his purity, his tenderness, his absolute incorruptibility.”
It is worthwhile to find a place for a word from a younger standpoint, and one less under personal influence than some of the foregoing. May we hope the spirit of the writer is typical of many in the next-following generation: “I am, comparatively speaking, a young disciple, and had not the privilege of a close intimacy with Bro. King, only having met him once; but on several occasions, in correspondence with him, I enjoyed the benefit of his wise counsels, and his writings for many years back have been a source of inspiration to me, to contend earnestly for the Faith of the Gospel. David King was unwavering in his fidelity to the Word of God; he was a faithful soldier of Jesus Christ, fearless in exposing error, and a noble champion for the truth. With my whole heart I thank God for such a man.” But David King was more - deeply compassionate. “I have been,” says one, “ever since his visit to my house, deeply impressed by his sympathy for the fallen. One evening he opened his heart very unreservedly to me, and told how, before he was called out to evangelistic work, he use to go out into the streets and pick out a fallen woman whom he thought might respond to his entreaties, and take her home to Mrs. King: when, by kind actions, they sought to turn her back to virtue. I remember well the deep regret he seemed to feel, that this work should have been broken in upon; the reference to which was modest and unpretentious in the last degree,” This reference can be illustrated by fact: “Even then - just entering life, with business cares, his way to make in the world, and unable to take time from the business-week - having come across a young woman who had been led from a country home, some thirteen miles from London; and who, though tired of the life, feared to go back to father and mother; on a Lord’s day morning, as soon as it was light, taking some food for the day, he started to walk to the girl’s home (for there was no conveyance). With some difficulty he found the place, and after considerable urging and remonstrance, overcame the father’s scruples, and gained from him a promise to receive his daughter kindly. Satisfied with the accomplishment of his errand, he trudged home, reaching it about three in the morning, having missed his way somewhat in the darkness. It was a journey never to be forgotten - the forlorn hope, the successful appeal, the protracted, dark, weary tramp, the anxious waiting at home, with many fears and misgivings, the joy of the successful return, must all live for ever as a reminiscence of the valley of labour and hope. The father came for his daughter and took her home to his heart and to her mother, and all save one of that group of fifty years ago, have passed into their rest.” For the waiting one there remaineth “rest, sweet rest!” That, reader, was David King, without his war-paint - the real David. In concluding the list of witnesses, we will put our subject, himself, once more in the box, by transcribing a letter of his, with brief introductory comment, from a former sketch:
A Pastoral Epistle.
We have before us now a document which is, no doubt, rightly named. It need not be copied in its entirely for our present purpose, a substantial extra shall suffice. It is a letter to an evangelist, who, not quite understanding outward tokens, and much questioning his own personal fitness, contemplated retiring from support in the work, and using, in the gospel, his leisure from toil; but he had laid his case before one whose judgment must have gone far to decide his course. After dealing with the question in its outward bearings, Bro. King proceeds thus:- “I fail then to see, in this matter, anything indicating that you cannot accomplish good work for the Lord; nor in any degree indicating that you should retire from the field.
“Having now cut off these two elements from the broad question of your remaining in the work, I will give you my impression thereon; holding that it should not be affected by the proceedings (referred to).
“Some good men, who do useful evangelistic work, could do quite as much good in the same direction, while working at their trade, as they can by being specially sustained. In such cases they had better labour at their callings. But care is to be taken in determining the case; and it should be determined rather by the brethren, than by the individual for himself.
Nor does the number of baptisms settle it. There is much needful work, not of a showing kind, that needs doing, and would justifying devoting one’s whole time to accomplish. Everything of this kind has to be taken into consideration, and, as I said, the mind of the brethren, rather than of the individual, should be acted on. As to myself - I think I COULD, if I pleased, change my course of action so as to bring to baptism a hundred to every ten I now bring. Many would say, ‘Then you ought to do it!’ But I feel I ought not to do it, and don’t intend; and that if I were to do so, the cause, as a whole, would suffer loss.
“Then, you tell me of certain peculiarities and defects about yourself. Perhaps the proper thing is to mend, in some respects, rather than to retire. On one point I have been surprised and disappointed by you. I did expect that as a young man, with no home ties, you would have been ready and glad to go anywhere when an opening came, or there was promise of good results. To you the field should be the world, and if you are needed in places distant and in changes often, you should be ready to respond, keeping in view always - ‘which is the best opening for good?’ You don’t feel at home, when you are not at home! Well, very few people do; but many such don’t trouble themselves about that - they look at what there is to do, and set about doing it in the best way they can. And the Lord records the effort to their account. Such men make no unsuccessful efforts, for if the desired results are not gained, the effort itself is a fact for God, and goes into the treasure-house above. I have settled down in the conclusion, that right labour, done from right motive, is never lost, and cannot be. Now then, crack that nut, and cheer up!
“Then, you are conscious of failure in appealing to the emotional part of man. Perhaps you want to be a revivalist, which you are not likely to become, and such don’t do half the good that many people suppose. Two things you have to lay hold of here.
I. A vast amount of teaching and general instruction is needed, both in the church and out, that does not deepened upon emotional addresses; and if fewer persons are brought by that preaching, they are more steadfast, as a rule, when brought. Then gifts differ, and there are highly useful men of both classes. So you may do good service in that line.
II. Increase your appealing power. You CAN. There is no need to be ever merely what you are. I don’t mean that, in this respect, you can be equal to many, but you can be far beyond your present self.
“One or two hints. 1. Don’t make sermons in the way that you study Bible topics. 2. Don’t explain too much, and don’t tell your hearers about the other readings of the Greek, unless the common translation be absolutely misleading; and not then, unless the point be of real importance. 3. Study men rather than texts, in order to make sermons. Go into the market-place, or call at some houses with a tract, and get into conversation directly on experimental matters, so as to find out what is the matter, and what the hindrances which keep the person you talk to out of Christ. In your next sermon, don’t say a word about the conversation, but preach as if you had fifty such persons before you, and appeal to them to surrender, as you unfold their peculiarities. You cannot know too much about the Bible; but apostolic preaching did not consist in expounding texts, excepting so far as believers in the Word misunderstood it.

“I don’t know that I can say more now. I am not good at exhortation, or I might exhort you. But I pray the Lord to direct your way.” Yours in Love,

D. KING.

Those who cannot make their own comments on such a letter, and read the man in it, cannot be further helped at present.
Two, whose testimony has not hitherto been included, even anonymously, spoke their tribute on the occasion of the burial of Bro. King’s mortal remains.
They shall have a place here:-
At the meeting-house, G.Y. Tickle said:
“When I was asked last night by the friends of our Bro. King to say a word as to what I knew of him, I felt that I had a great privilege conferred upon me; but since, and this morning, I feel how inadequate my powers are to express all I feel. I have known Bro. King since I was a little boy - forty years ago. He was an honoured guest at my father’s house, and we boys then were taught what I fear is today a lost art, i.e., to reverence our seniors and to esteem, for their works’ sake, those who labour for the Lord. This morning, the one feeling with me is: thanks to God that ever I knew David King.
In the Annual Meeting in Liverpool, 1862, Bro. King preached. I went home with my brother that night, and we decided to be Christians. Others may speak of Bro. King as an eloquent preacher, a clear debater, a champion of New Testament truth, but I shall always remember him as a friend with a tender heart.
He was staying at my house in Liverpool, Annual Meeting, 1878. I was called home after the picnic at that meeting, and just arrived home to see my little one die, and I found that Bro. King had a heart of deep tenderness that would touch the very depth of one’s need, and, however others may think of him, that stands in my memory.
When my father died, he was one of the first to be there to offer his word of comfort. He spoke to us words of hope, and those are the words that I speak to you today. He has gone from us and we are the poorer by his loss, and as I look round and consider the faces of those whom I knew as leaders of the movement, wonder at the few that are left. They have gone from us, and we have now to prepare to go to them. May we so live as to follow in their footsteps, and that we may be worthy to be with them, as they are worthy to be with the Lord.
I am reminded of Sir Noel Paton’s picture, “Mors et Vita.” So it is with our Bro. King. We have below the armour that he has thrown off; he has entered into rest, which is far better.
Words spoken at the grave by George Collin, of Carlisle. (Readings: Rev. vii. 9 to end; Rev. xxi. 1 to 5).
“Many of those who are gathered here know that we are laying to rest the mortal remains of a well-beloved personal friend, and we all know that we have lost a brother in the Lord and a faithful guide. Another name now adorns the long roll of the illustrious dead. It is an honoured name. Few, if any, more distinguished names have ever found a place upon that roll.
“David King takes rank among the princes of the Kingdom of God, and we must allot him a place high up in that list. We will make free to adopt words written by another honoured and venerated brother who has passed away:
Written to commemorate the dear woman who anointed the head of our Lord, and with a slight alteration we may apply them to our dear brother departed:-
“He has gone to his rest, but his memory today
Rises high o’er the flood that sweeps ages away:
It gleams o’er the waters of Jordan for all
Who have done what they could, when the Master shall call.”

“We are doing honour to that memory, and we are well employed in do doing. Let us cherish it, and let us try to copy his noble example of fidelity to truth, and duty to God and to his Christ, for we shall never see his like again in this generation. He has not left a man to step into the breach, nor to fill up the gap caused by his death. David King was a great man, and a grand. He was an all-round man in his own place. His place was in the sphere of the moral and spiritual. He loved the truth he taught. He lived the truth he taught, and taught the truth he lived. His life-work was holding forth the Word of Life, and he did not hold it forth in vain. Many of us now standing around his open grave are his grateful pupils: we learned the truth, and how to tell it out, from his tongue and pen. He was a man that the times needed. He was the man the churches stood in need of, and God gave him to us. He has done noble work for us through long years and now he rests. “The time of his departure has come. He has fought a good fight; he has finished his course; he has kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for him the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give to him.” His will be the fadeless crown! David King was the right man in the right place. Dare I say of him that he was the meekest among the brave, and bravest among the meek? Yes, I will dare to say it! Some may question that he was a meek man, because he could be, and doubtless was, stern by times. We, however, who have known him long and well, know his meekness and the gentle spirit he was. I knew him through may years, and used, in days gone by, to see him frequently. Never can I forget our meetings and our partings: how he would take my hand - my big hand - into his two small delicate hands, and hold it with a gentle, firm, and friendly pressure, until, at meeting, he would say some kind words of cheery welcome, or, at parting, some words of sweet and fervent benediction. Ah, yes, he was indeed a meek and gentle man, notwithstanding that he could, at times, be stern. He was only stern when the circumstances of the case in hand called for sternness. He was stern when any violation of truth and right was involved, and when his duty made severity an imperative necessity. Then, indeed, he was stern. Of course he was; would it not be imbecility in a leader of men to be anything else?
Surely it would. Few men could be found more stern than the grand leader of Israel’s hosts from Egypt’s bondage to Canaan’s freedom - yet he was the meekest man in all the earth. The prince of peace Himself was stern. Who ever rebuked sin with more severity than Jesus of Nazareth? Who more stern in exposing hypocrisy and shams? We need men that are faithful followers of these great leaders. It is faithful followers of Jesus this age wants: men who dare to be true to truth - true to “The Truth;” men who will not sell their Master for silver and gold, men who will not sell themselves. David King was not for sale. He was a man sound from centre to circumference: true to the heart’s core. He feared God and hated covetousness. His conscience was formed and educated by the inspired word of God, and it was true and steady to that which formed it, as the needle to the Pole. He would do right, though the heavens might totter and the earth reel. He could tell the truth and look men and devils right in the eyes. He neither swaggered nor flinched. He had ever courage for the emergency. He was a man in whom the current of everlasting life ran still, and deep, and strong. Careful of God’s honour, and careless of men’s applause; a man too large for sectarian limits, and too strong to be bound in sectarian bonds. He was a man who knew his message, and told it; knew his duty, and did it; knew his own business, and attended to it. He would not temporize or tell a lie, to gain the wealth of Crœsus. He knew what he believed, and in whom his noble life was hid; and whence his reward would come. He stood on the Rock of Ages with firm foot and stout heart. He was strong in the strength that God supplies; and wise with the wisdom which cometh from above, “which is first pure, then peaceable, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.” He was loving with the love of Christ. Thus was David King, as he lived, toiled, and waited; and now the grand man rests. He was a true man: manly as a man; and the manliness of the man was united with the tenderness and simple innocence which you find in the virtuous maiden. He has sent no formal laboured message from his bed. He wished no dying message of his to be an object of worship; but his last words are a message to us. They were spoken to our beloved Sister King.
She said to him, “Do you know me, Dear?” He smiled and said, “Yes, Love.” They are sweet last words, and so like the man. They will be treasured in the heart of Sister King till the day arrives when the lives of earth and time will be restored in the golden city. If any of us had been allowed to ask him, Do you know me? He was the man who would have given every brother in Christ a kind word, for the he loved the brotherhood. May the gentle manliness and courage of our departed brother be an inspiration to us who are left (maimed and crippled by the loss of him), to carry on the work from which he has ceased. Brethren, we shall need it, for we know not how soon our ranks may be invaded by subtle and dangerous foes, in the guise of friends. I pray the Lord to raise up from the youths among us, someone strong to follow in the footsteps of our brother. May the spirit of David King live in his children, and they are many. “His children?” someone may say, “David King had no children.” Yes, but he had. There are many, and in many lands, begotten by the Word of Truth he preached. No man has more children in Christ than he had. England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, the United States of America, and the colonies of the South and East will join us here, in mourning the loss of a trusted leader, and they will all feel the poorer. The Lord grant to the widow needed grace and consolation for the little time until she will meet her love again. The Lord grant to each and all here, grace to follow the footsteps of David King; that we may all share in the re-union in the crowning day that’s “coming by-and-bye,” when the loves of earth shall be re-established in the land where death will be an everlasting stranger, and where God will have wiped away all tears from every face. And now, my dear friends, I must cease my speaking. It is not easy to cease from the praise of such a man, but time forbids my continuing. It may be that in the relations of some of you with our departed brother, there may have been occasions of strain, when human infirmities have caused distraction, and circumstances which may leave unpleasant memories. Let me ask you to lay all such memories and feelings here, beside this open grave, and never lift them up again. Let us think only of the nobility, the courage, the life-long service of our departed brother, and then this death, so sad in itself, may prove a blessing to you all, and nothing mar the joy of our hope of meeting our brother on the golden shore. Amen.
In all that has been put down, there is nothing fulsome. The witnesses have been experimental and sincere. In the word of the devoted editor of this volume: “We only want the truth, and nothing but the truth.” No one is fit to write about David King, who does not write in that spirit. There is no claim to absolute uniqueness, and his own self-estimate was modest enough. He was, at best, in quality of life, what all Christians ought to be; but, alas! what all Christians are not. In gift - in certain directions - he was strongly marked; and in some special departments he was, no doubt, unique in his generation, amongst his brethren. Historically, he stood central in the front rank of pioneers, and his compeers, on the right and on the left, vary the picture, without entering into competition in any marked point. There could hardly be, within the same limits, stronger marked, differing individuality, with the same brotherly affection and harmonious working in a common cause.
George C. Reid was of the martyr-stuff - a “fine fellow to burn.” He gave up everything to conviction; counting all things but refuse, that he might win Christ. He reached the goal through toil, poverty, suffering and premature death - worn out by excessive labour for Christ’s sake and ours. David King tenderly revered the memory of G.C. Reid. His attitude was similar towards John Black - Pastor Black - to whom James Wallis’s letter at first introduced him.
Perhaps, for simple Bible erudition, John Black had no peer among the churches. The “Living Concordance” they called him; and no doubt our subject found great utility in his keen, logical, scriptural sense, in the early days of the new rôle. He spoke of “David” with the utmost fatherly affection. He, also, was as royal as God makes His “poor rich in faith and heirs of the Kingdom.” He loved, and was loved, with a wealth of affection. He had been a deacon in the church presided over by the celebrated Christian historian, William Jones.
James Wallis was a prosperous tradesman, who, besides the profitable management of a large business, applied his rare wit and extraordinary energy to writing, publishing, and acceptable preaching: exercising in these combined ways a wise and salutary influence for a number of years. It has already been noted how David King succeeded him in his magazine work. In literary work and otherwise, William Godson was an early associate, and for some time gave freely of his life and fine powers, for the same ends, having relinquished a prosperous business for conscience sake, in the early prime of life. His old relation to the churches did not continue to the end; but he is to be remembered as one who helped to make the new “Reformation” such as it was. And even in his angularities, as they were esteemed, he was admirable. He was a strong reasoner, and powerful both in proclamation and debate. Severe and ascetic in his views and manner of life, he was yet generous, gentle, and kind in his way.
George Greenwell, at his best, shone with his own peculiar lustre in the group. His towering majesty of presence and flashes of poetic fire - “afflatus,” as he would say - are not easily forgotten. His figures were grandly rugged and realistic, so as to strike the mind with admiring awe at first, and afterwards by frequency of repetition, to be greeted with reverent affection as friends, of a classic ilk, that helped to adorn and elevate one’s mind at each breaking forth. Shadows fell upon the early radiance, and he missed his way for a time; but was led back tenderly to his old fellowship, by the hand of David King, and continued in fellowship and somewhat fitful service, until his removal to Australia, where, it is understood, he served to the end of life.
William MacDougall, of the same school as G. Greenwell, exercised, in the area covered by his work, a powerful influence, that yet lives. Closely exegetical, his expository work was very fine; and as a setter-forth of the person and claims of Christ, his power almost reached fascination. His life and work were, partly, marred by some who, through lack of fine sense, were entirely unsuited to exert a commanding influence over his destiny. He was a pastor, and should never have been thrown over into the stress and exposure of the general evangelistic field. It was the old story of self-willed wealth stepping roughly in, where angels might have trod delicately. The superb G.Y. Tickle has often been referred to, in certain quarters, in favourable comparison to David King, especially in their respective editorial and other kindred relations. But the men’s own mutual love and esteem, at their best, disarms all contrast. So different and yet so like. G.Y. Tickle’s presence was a peculiarly attractive one. Gentlemanly, even in the conventional sense, impulsive as a poet, tender as a woman, forgiving and ready to seek forgiveness; you loved him thought his fire scathed you; you sought consolation in the passion of his love, from the judgment of his warmth; which was as unworldly as the man himself. In Liverpool’s irretrievable loss, David King lost one of his most beloved colleagues. His literary work was marked by fine taste and tone, and, on occasion, by a vigour all his own. As editor of the Christian Advocate, his relation to contributors was of the happiest, and was well sustained by valuable correspondence. Some of his hymns rank with the sweetest of age-lasting praise.
T.H. Milner’s labours were chiefly bestowed in Scotland, where his leadership was of the finest in spirit, and with a fine culture, that made all he did respectable. His tracts were, perhaps, the best issued by the brethren, and were largely circulated by the churches at one time; and the Christian Advocate was, under his editorship, a tasteful and efficient little magazine; this character being well sustained under the subsequent editorship of G.Y. Tickle.
The now venerable Edward Evans is one of the oldest surviving comrades-in-arms of our subject. His testimony is incorporated in the foregoing pages. His evangelistic career - speaking of sustained labour - has been broken by vicissitude, but at this writing, he is in the field, with wonderful vigour for his years, notwithstanding recent heavy personal trials.
Such are David King’s chief colleagues, as distinguished by actual co-operation, long and steadfast friendship, continuity of labour, and age in the work, and in fact. Readers can place the subject of our memoir where they please in the list. Forty-five years ago, G.Y. Tickle made him known to the present writer, in terms that conceded to him the very first place then. That was a high commendation; whether we regard the source of esteem, or the place given him. From then until the end, and for years yet to come, every power, for or against, the cause he had at heart, must reckon with David King’s influence. If the stream be adverse, he breasts it, though wrecks of faith are carried past. If cross winds raise tumult, he is steady and calm - rock-founded. If innovation threatens by onslaught, he is armed to the teeth. If it come by stealth, he is on the watch-tower, quick to descry, and wise to thwart. Designing and weak-kneed people had a warm time in his neighbourhood.
His stand, his strength, his courage, his self-command, were offences in themselves to weak, impulsive, and wavering mortals; and the enemy who would have come in like a flood, found the gates closed, debarred, and defended. Yet all these qualities were needed in the champion of such a cause; for while ground so simple in the main so just, and so scriptural, attracted to those grand pioneer-men numbers of open-minded and thoughtful New Testament readers; on the other hand it was not strange, that much opposition was aroused by the challenge for authority hurled at every unscriptural institution and practice; and the strong justifying “It is written” for every demand for return to the “old paths.”
A Divine warrant in a Divine word, was alike unpalatable to priestly leaders and abject followers; as well as to the indifferent element, which, of course, desires to live as it was born and bred, without further trouble. We do not wonder, then, that, with his qualities, and in such surroundings, “David and Goliath” was often a “living picture” on the boards of current history, and we know that this turned, in the main, to the great encouragement of the godly, and to the disconcerting of the foe; and, far beyond the circle of his chosen associates, to whose interests and fellowship - being to him the things pertaining to God’s Kingdom - he remained faithful from first to last. And in their experience, though, at times, under a somewhat stern aspect, his heart proved to be as tender as God makes human hearts by nature, and renews them by grace. He was philosophically discriminating, but childlikely kind. That he was first a prophet of reform, was a necessity of his calling and his times, and that this sometimes involved action that appeared arbitrary, in insisting on principles deemed essential, need occasion no surprise.
With the same power and opportunity, very, very few men would have come out so truly noble, and free from personal aims. Great will-power is essential to great work; and, under strong conviction, and a high resolve to carry out the Divine behests, it cannot be cheaply thwarted. Nor need it be wondered at, if, at times, jealousy for God should be pressed to extremes, in the case of fallible man. There are men, who delight to be thought broad and unbigoted, who are, in fact, the most loose-jointed and flaccid of God’s sufferance; inflated into graceful and smooth rotundity, and beautiful in the changing colours of the chameleon; and such, above all the rest, had to learn that David King was neither balloon, nor chameleon. The latest pre-Christian type of his ilk, was one of whom the Saviour said: “Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist.” And, wherever you find the genuine context of the camel’s hair and leathern girdle, you may be sure “this kind goeth not forth but by prayer and fasting.” And, when the last man in the succession has come and gone, a “mighty angel” shall “set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot upon the earth,” and shall “lift up his hand to heaven” and swear “by Him that liveth for ever and ever,” that there shall “be delay no longer.” David King has left room for such another man. Where is he? Will he be tolerated by the present generation?
It remains to be asked: ‘How far are we to allow ourselves to be influenced by the life and work of David King?’ the answer is plain and simple: as far as he was under the direct and clear power of the “Truth as it is in Jesus.” But his sign-manual is not to be accepted as proof. His earnestness, his devotion, his fearlessness and determination for the right, his loving kindness, his incorruptibility - these are attributes we may take and copy without qualification.
They are reflections from the Light of Life. Beyond these, we must go - as he taught us - to the Fountainhead - Truth. That is his chief lesson to us. “It is written,” is our defence, our keenest weapon, our safest guarantee. No man’s deductions are final for others. David King’s are not, and cannot be. He must have grown beyond his first apprehension of the Truth; we may grow beyond his last. But it will be hard to find a safer base than the one of his choice, to build upon:- Where the Scriptures teach, we accept; where they command, we obey; where they speak, we speak; where they are silent, so are we. But if we are truly in Communion with the Infinite, and we “will to do His will,” there is no limit to our growth; no end to our knowledge of the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent; and in this is Life Eternal. Nor must we despise any light, because of the vehicle by which it is brought to us. We want - we need - the sum of all. Test it, nevertheless, by the invariable and infallible standards. Our great personal responsibility is to practise the practicable; to reduce teaching to life; to engage love in service; and reverence in tender courtesy to man, and worship to the Deity.
There are dangers, however, that must not go unheeded. All reforms tend to become stereotyped into sectarianism. The “plea” becomes a creed, and dogma becomes legalism. Every plea ought to be held in solution and tested, ever and anon, by the essence of truth; and so all foreign growths be precipitated and, in due time and order, removed.
Other dangers are suggested by current phases of religious propaganda. “For ward Movements,” “Christian Endeavours,” “Pleasant Sunday Afternoons” - all attempt to cover loss of life and power in the churches, and to electrify dead bodies into the semblance, if not the potency of life.
Then, stages of church history intervene, in which robust individual interest, and labour, lapse into proxy. Instead of disciples seeking out the ways and wants of men - mingling in, and sympathizing with, the vicissitudes of their lives - pointing them, personally, to the Lamb of God, who takes away sin, and offers rest of spirit in His own fellowship; and impressing them by the presence and power of Christ in His people - instead of this, the work of the Spirit is impeded by general idleness and indifference in the mass and the church’s work is handed over to the machinery of co-operation. This is the Committee stage, in which precious time, and means, and life, are wasted in locomotion, and priceless energy evaporates in talk and manipulation.
We need not pursue this further. There are other things to learn, if only one would keep mind and heart open, as a true disciple, to the ever present Christ. Personal service may always keep hand in hand with the Master. Ways of proxy are too much like limited companies - much business and little heart. May the next wave of reform bring in a real advance to higher, holier and more useful activities! If so, it will have to be by a revision of the whole church-life and area of operations, and a harking back, truly, to the old apostolic paths for which David King and his compeers so much lived and laboured.
Since writing the foregoing, it has been urged that some notice ought to have been taken of Mr. King’s relation to what has been known as the “American Movement” in this country; but one feels little disposed to quicken, even by a passing notice, a dead controversy. For that reason, Timothy Coop’s name was not included, in the body of the Memoir, among the associated pioneer-men. Not that he did not play an important and worthy part, especially in Lancashire, in the early days - he and William Turner, as intimate co-workers. Indeed, he exemplified an earnestness of purpose, and an energy of appliance, that have not been surpassed in their way, and according to his light. He had the misfortune to get rich, however, and in the conscious power of the dollar, added other ambitions relating to the conquest of England by American methods and mercenaries. His hirelings, finding, at the outset, the Churches of Christ strongly entrenched and defended, resorted to the expedient of belittling David King and his brethren; but the failure of their own campaign is the best answer to all that; and a sad reminiscence paints Timothy Coop as the man that “went down from Jerusalem to Jericho.”
Another subject was passed over, notwithstanding recent public reference to it, in much the same spirit as the last named. The divergence of view between David King and some of his brethren on the eldership; his standards of qualification being regarded as too exclusive. But one would think that anyone of mature experience and average observation, must see, and be increasingly conscious, that no greater peril waits on the life of a church that of the “election of pastors.” Think of a score of half-wrecked churches, and say, candidly, if the eldership has not been the occasion of disaster. It might, in many cases, be too truly chronicled: “Within were fightings and without were fears.” There need be no doubt about the Lord’s ordinance of sheep-tending; and there would be as little difficulty as to the men who, by necessity of God’s calling and fitting, must do the work; except for the ambition of incompetence and disqualification, and the miserable tincture of officialism that gets footing in spite of the simplicity of the Faith. We are all in such haste, moreover, to run before the Lord, instead of waiting for His tokens. It should be remembered: the Lord has ordained leaders, not officials. And (all too rare) a leadership proved, first, at home.
In these, and all other things, we have not been called upon to judge David King; but to look at him as he was. We will do well to copy his finer attributes, so far as we can reach them; and equally well to avoid what is clear as mistake, when that is evident. His own words, in this volume will prove, no doubt, his true and lasting credential; and we may rest assured they have not been printed in vain.
In material things, he was of those who scatter yet increase; and let us hope this sowing, in spiritual things, shall be succeeded by gathering at the harvest.
We leave him to God and posterity.
JOS. COLLIN.

The Home Tribute.
It is widely asserted that the “Age of Chivalry” has passed away. Nevertheless, ever and anon, we meet with one to whom we would accord Christian Knighthood - “Sans peur et sans reproche.” Such an one was DAVID KING!
Endued with strong mentality, with energy, and business tact, he could have made his way in any chosen profession.
On the threshold of his manhood he was arrested by the power and beauty of the Gospel; though not fully realizing its simplicity and purity till two or three years afterwards. Yet, it subjugated his whole life. Professional ambition, and lofty earthly aspirations were laid aside. The will of the Lord dominated over all.
He had neither position nor wealth, with which to endow his chosen companion, but he gave a love, second only to that he gave the Saviour. The injunction, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it,” was duly fulfilled by him. For over fifty-five years that gentle courteous love has been the pride and joy of her life; it was manifested even as he close his eyes on all earthly objects “Yes, love” were his last words. The blank left, no words can tell!
The struggles and temptations of their early life are unknown; but their support was in Christ, so difficulties were overcome.
As in the present day, when a man displays power to interest and attract the public, he is pretty sure to receive “a call” or “calls” to wider and more remunerative spheres, so it was with the subject of this tribute. But he remained steadfast to the chosen path, looking for the Saviour’s “Well done,” to crown the whole.
He became a staunch Abstainer, and early pleaded the non-use of Intoxicating Wine at the Lord’s Table. For some years the London Church was supplied with Unfermented Wine, made at his home. He was widely sought for on Temperance platforms, but he could not let that advocacy, valuable as it is, interfere with the gospel demands on his time; and as others were more ready to occupy Temperance ground, he retired somewhat therefrom, in order more fully to labour where others were not ready to do so. But he rigidly adhered thereto.
Some who did not look deep enough, thought him lacking CONSISTENCY - because, after differing in opinion from his brethren, in some matter of expediency, and their point being carried, he could at once, energetically set to work to make their suggestions successful; deeming the interest of the church more important than his own views, so long as they were only expedients, and not principle.
When leaving London to engage in the Manchester work, the possibility of never returning to live in the home he loved, was never dreamed of, his thought and affection were fixed on London for his final work and resting place.
Upon Birmingham, he never looked as a desirable place of residence; and when it was found needful to decide upon giving up the London home, the decision was come to with some deep amount of regret.
But the Lord’s work so coiled around him there, that all desire had to yield thereto.
In 1861, Bro. Wallis proposed to him to take the editing of The Harbinger. He would fain have declined, as home arrangements and failing health rendered increased labour and responsibilities undesirable; but pressure was brought heavily to bear upon him, and so cherished plan and purpose had to be laid aside, and he yielded, fully realizing that the resignation was for all time.
At the close of 1861, Bro. Wallis wrote - “The end is approaching - for three years we have been admonished to relax our labours, and rest awhile - of this we have become fully convinced and are prepared to stop. The Harbinger, with responsibilities and list of subscribers, has been transferred to Bro. David King.”
The opening page of 1862 reads thus:
“Brother Wallis is still with us, and may it please the Lord still to spare him. Till the year just closed he has conducted this periodical, and now he is obliged to rest, we are called to fill the post vacant by his retirement. If spared to produce the amount of good realized through the volumes given to the public by its late Editor, we shall certainly be numbered with those who have, to no small extent, served their day and generation; and then we shall have to cast back upon our predecessor - in part at least - the results of our own labour, seeing it was a stray volume of the Christian Messenger which first called our attention to the Unity of the Spirit, the Oneness of the Church, and the translation into the Kingdom of God’s dear Son by the Bath of Regeneration.” “From the first of the Harbinger we have contributed to its pages, and for several years have taken charge of a given section.”
From 1862 to July 1894, the magazine continued to be thus edited; though in 1890 it passed into the hands of the Annual Meeting, and its name was changed to the Bible Advocate. From 1862 to the close of 1889 it was private property, even as it had been in the hands of Mr. Wallis; though not a remunerative one. At the close of 1870, when about to make a change of size and name, in order to bring the magazine under postal arrangements, we find the following notice:-
“We want a considerable increase in circulation, not as a matter of personal advantage, but as an aid to spread the Truth. We desire to secure the services of the most powerful writers; but with a circulation which only pays outlay for printing and office work, giving no compensation for present literary labour, we cannot advance to the payment of contributors.
We then urge the brethren to respond, but not asking it as a favour, because personally we seek no advantage. Our periodical was not originated as a trade enterprise, but as a labour of love. It has never become a property, but has remained a charge, remunerating its conductors by giving them the privilege of bestowing labour, toil, and anxiety, as a work unto the Lord.”
In 1871 the magazine appeared as THE ECCLESIASTICAL OBSERVER. At the Annual Meeting, 1869, held in Liverpool, the following resolution was proposed:- “That Bro. King be recommended to labour for the next year in Liverpool, extending help to such other churches as he may think require his aid.”
This, rendering frequent removals unavoidable, in view of the publication of the periodicals, and the importance of the Training Work, prosecuted by him, requiring a fixed residence, he deemed unadvisable. He expressed his intention of considering the matter, and would make known the result as early as possible. One thing, however, he would have understood, “that he would comply with the resolution, or terminate his connection with the Evangelist Committee at the expiration of that quarter.” He forwarded his resignation to the Committee in October of that year. Just an except or two from that letter may be here given:-
“I would have you understand that I give the greatest possible weight to a resolution which results from the consultation of the brethren in a general meeting. So much so, that had the resolution been passed with anything like unanimity, with the facts fully before the assembly, I think I must have complied, even against my own judgment and liking. But you will remember the resolution was carried by a majority of not more than five .... That I had so resolved you already know, and I have your very kind letter, urging me to remain in connection with the General Committee, notwithstanding that I decline to remove to Liverpool. My doing so you are confident would not be objected to by the Annual Meeting, and you deem my remaining to be for the general good. On this point you may be right, but still, I cannot comply .... The Committee know that I would object to the reversal of the resolution in favour of another, and I ought, therefore, to exemplify the principle in my own case .... I cannot but say, in conclusion, that it gives me pleasure, upon looking back through my connection with the Evangelist Committee, extending over more than twelve years, to find that in the whole period not the slightest conflict of any kind has arisen between myself and them. In the best of bonds I desire to remain, yours for counsel or for work,

D. KING

In the Evangelist Report for 1870, the following appeared:
“Being deeply grieved at the prospect of losing the services of one so universally beloved and honoured, we felt it our duty to urge every consideration likely to induce him for remain in the general field. He, however, thought it his duty to retire, assuring us that he would be no less available for any special work the brethren might wish him to perform, that would not interfere with the Birmingham district. Proof of this has been given by the able and effective anti-secularist lectures since delivered at Darwen and Bury.”
His own plans and desires, however cherished, were subservient to the work before him. His life was one of personal sacrifice, and no doubt Christ will so view it. He was self-sacrificing, and devoted to what many would call an extreme, in the service of the cause he loved; without envy or jealousy of others, manly and brave, without ostentation or pride; an upright clean man; a hater of shams, and a fearless soldier of truth.
After the reading of the “Jubilee Paper,” in 1892, and the remarks thereon, he thanked the brethren for their expressions of approval, saying, “That it was not always when keeping on straight lines, we receive commendation. Still, much as he valued the approbation of his brethren, he was free to say, that had it been that he knew that the course he was taking in the past would have entirely deprived him of their approval, it would still have been taken; and that, because he valued the approbation of the Saviour more than the approval of men, however good and many. He said this now merely that others might be influenced thereby to stand firm to the right and to the true, so far as comprehended.”
He was a man of Faith - faith in God - in Christ - in the right and in truth and he believed that they would be ultimately triumphant. Few, who were present at the Annual Meeting of 1893 will forget his closing words. They were his last to the assembled brotherhood. Ere they gathered together again, he was at rest. He was called upon to speak, and responded by an impressive exhortation to “Have Faith in God,” both as individuals and as churches; suggesting that our business is to work for the Lord in the Lord’s own way, leaving the result with God, and that a want of firm adherence to God’s methods may account for our not making greater progress.” Concluding with great emphasis and power - HAVE FAITH IN GOD!”
A pleasing incident of that Annual Meeting dwells in the memory of the bereaved one. He had left the Meeting on the Thursday afternoon, and some brethren had been seeking him. When about to enter the meeting place they stayed him by the enquiry, “Where have you been? We have sought for you.” “Well,” he rejoined “I went to seek my wife.” One laughingly responded, “You might just be a newly married couple.” “It is the Honeymoon,” was quietly said; and a gentle pressure was given to the hand that rested on his arm. Yes, a Honeymoon of fifty-five years. A moon bright and clear that never waned, until he passed away. He was not an over-demonstrative man. Love and marriage were serious subjects with him; not to be lightly treated.
He was a patient man - patient under acute bodily suffering, how patiently endured the loving watchers could testify - patient under misrepresentation patient under abuse, bitter and unmerited. He possessed his soul in patience! When spoken to as to the debate with Bradlaugh, and referring to the coarseness of his opponent, it was asked how he could be so calm under such bitter vituperation? He simply observed: “I felt the coarseness was only the manifestation of the man’s inability to grasp the facts placed before him. The predominating feeling on my mind was that of deep pity, that Bradlaugh should so prostitute his power, for he was powerful. And then, I could afford to be calm. I had the truth, and prayer was sent forth from anxious hearts, so I was upheld, though some very unpleasant work had to be done. Poor Bradlaugh! that Debate was a thorn to him as long as he lived; he met it everywhere.” The last copy went out the week Bradlaugh died. The calmness and courtesy were characteristic - it was not conquest he sought but the elucidation of truth; and many, though differing from him, yielded him thanks for his gentlemanly and kindly bearing.
He was a patient, prayerful man - with an abiding faith in God’s promises. Jesus was to him an ever present Helper and Saviour. In a word he was a Christian! “All things else fade away in presence of that fact.” Was he faultless? - No. Only One Faultless Being has trod this earth. David King looked for His footprints. There is no desire to eulogize his life, consecrated as it was in all its aims and toils; and he would be the first to rebuke the eulogizer. He worked for the Lord, realizing that all his powers, talents and resources belonged to Him who had so richly endowed him.
His earthly toil is ended, he rests from all labour; a rest that nothing can disturb. He fought the good fight, and the rising generation of workers in the Lord’s vineyard, who know but little of the fighting that has been achieved, will find their work much expedited and simplified, because such men have unselfishly toiled, removing obstruction, grappling with error, living Christed lives, holding forth the Word of God against all opposers. To whom we may surely apply the gracious assurance - “That they that be wise, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.”
His place in the Home is vacant, but his influence floats around it still -
“Gentle as woman, manliness and meekness
In him were so allied,
That they who judged him by his strength or weakness
Saw but a single side.
And now he rests, his greatness and his sweetness,
No more shall seem at strife,
And death has moulded into calm completeness
The statue of his life.
And round his grave are quietude and beauty,
And the sweet heaven above,
The fitting symbol of a life of duty
Transfigured into love.”

The eternal doors have closed behind his footsteps; on this earth his face we see no more, but in that world where they dig no graves, and flowers never fade - may we clasp hands again! LOUISE.
Here the writings of Mr. King selected for reproduction in this volume commence. No very exact classification of the pieces has been attempted. When several consecutive articles deal with different aspects of one general theme, attention will be directed to the fact by a foot-note attached, like this one, to the title of the first of the group. Accordingly, the reader is now asked to note, that the opening articles have been placed first and together, because they present those general views and principles which dominated all Mr. King’s teaching and life.

The Divine Government
AN infinitely wise Creator placed the world under law, but soon the divine government was set at naught, the prodigal wandered from the Father’s control, and the bulk of mankind have been until now feeding upon husks, seldom if ever satisfied with their lawlessness, yet unwilling to return to parental guidance. Violence and wrong exist, not as exceptional, but as ever living manifestations, alike of the cottage and palace, the hamlet and city. The government and the governed seldom agree - a people satisfied with their rulers would be a world-wide wonder, and a people having cause for such satisfaction scarcely less so, while a population prepared for the liberty it claims, does not exist. There prevails a general expectation of a coming good time - a conviction that schools, printing presses, and railways will produce a legislature and laws, that will place the might with the right, and supply a government adapted to an enlightened and happy people. We, however, are certain that, if ever man gains such a condition, he must place himself under Divine guidance. After trial under every diversity of circumstances, he has shown himself unable to frame a government suitable to his condition; he has erected empires before which the world has been prostrated, yet they have been dissolved from want of just government. Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, have melted as nations are now doing from the same cause, proving that man in his best state is unable to govern himself, and leading us to expect a divine legislature, warning us to flee for safety to Him “of the increase of whose government and peace there shall be no end.” The prophecies point to a kingdom of unsullied happiness, where the garments rolled in blood and every trophy of war shall become fuel for fire, and point to a governor designated “Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Father of the everlasting age.” This exalted Prince has been revealed, His government established, and the kingdoms of this earth, as “things which can be shaken,” shall become the kingdom of our God and His Anointed. Jesus the Head of the new dispensation, developed through His apostles the principles of the divine government, and having all authority in heaven and in earth given unto Him, the family of Adam are commanded to put themselves under His government.
The world may be divided into three classes; those under the government of Jesus - those only professedly so - and those avowedly not so. The two last are in a condition of lawlessness, dishonouring Him whose right it is to reign - the one openly, the other, under the title of friendship, making void His law by substituting human arrangements.
The great principles of the heavenly institution are, undivided love to God and love to our neighbour, even as to ourselves. Many laws and ordinances are enjoined relating to the naturalisation of aliens, thereafter as citizens, etc.; but these all exist to beget, maintain, and enlarge the love of the subject to his Creator, and to his fellow; and, being the product of infinite wisdom, cannot be neglected without greatly preventing the progress of the divine life in those who announce themselves subject to this government.
In kingdoms of human origin, law is mutable; ever requiring revision - faulty in construction, and when otherwise, soon rendered unserviceable by the growth of society. Under the reign of heaven, the faith is given once for all - for all time, and for all persons. When God called nature into being, He fixed unchanging and perfect laws, and in regulating His greater work, perfection was stamped on every feature.
The establishment of a kingdom was the Redeemer’s great design. Having presented Himself a sin-offering, and being raised from the dead by the power of the Father, and exalted to His throne, He left the ordering of the kingdom to a duly qualified band. The voice from the excellent glory had said, “This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him;” He had called, trained, and prepared, by His parables and general teaching, the heaven-selected Twelve; when, just before the traitor-led throng hurried Him away, He lifted up His voice to heaven and said, “As Thou has sent Me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.” To Peter He had exclaimed, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” After His resurrection, He added, “whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them;” the same of sins to be retained; also, “as My Father sent Me, even so send I you; he that receiveth you, receiveth Me, and he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me.”
Though personally taught of the Lord, they were required to remain at Jerusalem until endowed with power from on high. After the bestowment of the Spirit on Pentecost they were placed on their legislative seats, their apostleship being not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus the Christ and God the Father; they could do nothing against the truth, but for the truth; speaking with the demonstration of the Spirit and of power, not in the words that man’s wisdom teaches, but in the words by the Holy Spirit, being enabled to say, “He that is of God heareth us - God bearing them witness both with signs and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts.” Under the former dispensation the law was given in one short period, accompanied by manifestations of power. In the new and more glorious, only as much of the divine government was developed as the particular circumstances of the time rendered requisite. The laws of God delivered on the last named principle were, however, not the less perfect or permanent. Perhaps the main, or only difference is, that while the Jew would find his law compacted in few pages, the Christian regards not only the commands of the apostles, but their approved example. Happy would it be, were all who call themselves by the name of Jesus prepared to do this, then would “names and sects, and parties fall,” for the apostles taught the same things and established the same order in every church. Paul, in directing the Corinthians, observes, “and so ordain I in all the churches.” (1 Cor. vii:17.) Of Timothy he said, “who shall bring you in remembrance of my ways, as I teach everywhere in every church.” The churches planted in Judea were model churches, as we have model houses; hence, to the Thessalonians, the same apostle writes, “For ye, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God, which, in Judea, are in Christ Jesus.”
It may be said, that if the apostles legislated for the church as events called for instruction, why not continue to arrange and re-arrange, ever adapting the discipline of the church to the circumstances of each generation? The answer is, that their acts we never reversed, they did not arrange and re-arrange. When, for instance, they were called upon to decide relative to the converts from the Gentiles, in regard to circumcision and eating of things strangled, and blood, they did so, once for all; what they made law then is law now, and ever will be. They continued with the church till the completion of its legislation, and thus provided for future requirements. They affirmed in relation to their acts, that it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to them. They have no successors - all subsequent claims to inspiration are worthless - they have finished their work; being dead, they yet continue to speak; as Moses continued to be heard in the synagogue after his earthly career had terminated, they are now heard in every uncorrupted church, as the only propounders of the divine law, and safe expositors of the divine work. The miraculous attestation of their truthfulness and accuracy was secured to the church during the entire legislative period. This attestation was no longer required when the introduction of new truth ceased; and, consequently, looking forward to a time when they should be removed - when they should know even as they were known - the apostles clearly announced the discontinuance of spiritual gifts. (Eph. iv: 10-13.)
These miraculously endowed brethren were then given, until the church should reach the unity or completeness of the faith or system. The apostle also exhibits the evil to be prevented by thus perfecting the laws of the kingdom that we should not be tossed to and for, and carried about with every wind of doctrine and freak of will-worship, which is precisely the condition of existing sects, consequent upon their unauthorized legislation. With such convictions upon his mind Paul could freely say - “Charity never faileth, but whether there be prophecies they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away” (1 Cor. xiii:8).
The importance of this position is only fully perceived by those who understand that, had it been duly regarded, the apostacy could not have taken place. Papal Rome could never have existed, the union of the Church with the State must have remained impossible, and sects and sectaries have been unknown. In foretelling the apostacy the apostle thus describes it - “Let no one lead you into a mistake by any means, because the apostacy must appear, the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition, must be revealed, who opposes and exalts himself .... The mystery of iniquity doth already work, only he who now hinders will hinder until he be taken out of the way, and then shall that wicked (lawlessness) be revealed.”
This personified lawlessness was to appear in the temple, or church of God, taking the government off the shoulders of Jesus, making void the laws of His kingdom, by substituting merely human enactments, professing to worship God - while teaching for commandments the traditions of men, changing the ordinances, and making void the everlasting covenant.
The Prophet Daniel revealed, that between the setting up of the kingdom and its final triumph, its progress would be arrested by the introduction of the apostacy already contemplated. After the division of the fourth empire (the Roman) into ten kingdoms represented by ten horns of his fourth beast, another born or kingdom appears, unlike - diverse from - the first, and it was to subdue three kings. Papal Rome arose from the ruins of Pagan Rome, and the power thus established was unlike that of every former kingdom. The ecclesiastical and political united - the Church wedded to the world - the world Christianized in name, with its spirit unchanged - the throne of God usurped, and the legislative seats of the apostles filled by the erring ministers of lawlessness. Personifying this opposing kingdom the prophet wrote - “He shall speak great words against the Most High, and wear out these saints, and shall think to change times and laws, and they shall be given into his hands for a time, a time, and the dividing of times.” (Dan. vii:25.)
According to this statement, the main features of this apostacy are persecution and changing the laws established by the apostles. Rome and other sects have been condemned for introducing bad laws in place of those appointed by the apostles, but to have introduced even the harmless, could such have been framed; to have added to the already perfect and inspired, would have been presumptuous sin.
It is, then, our duty to hear the apostles, to regard their laws, to use their words, and thereby be enabled to say - “He that is of God heareth us.” It is ours to reject all ordinances, bonds of union, creeds, and attempts to legislate for the church since the apostles fell asleep in Jesus, that it may be said of us, “I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil, and thou hast tried them who say they are apostles and are not, and hast found them liars.” (Rev. ii:2.) Reader! Are you subject to the government of Jesus? Remember that godliness has the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. Of the peace of His government there shall be no end - a peace which passeth understanding, such as the world can neither give nor take away. O that men were aware of the world’s great need - that they knew the blessedness of Jehovah’s government. Let us commend it to you as a righteous government.
Truly God has a right to rule our every action - the right is His as CREATOR, for to Him we owe our being. It is His as PRESERVER, for by Him we live and move; and He is the SAVIOUR of all men - from death in many ways - by the fulness of His temporal blessing, even to the rebellious, for he maketh the sun to shine upon the just and unjust, and His long suffering is for salvation. It is His as REDEEMER, for He so loved the world, as to give the Son of His love, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
It is a righteous government, because, from everyone is required according to what he has, and not according to that he has not. Where little is given, little is expected; but that little must be rendered - the one talent must not be concealed in the earth, because at the coming judgment, the intents of every heart will be manifest, each one will receive according to the deeds done in the body; and all, both of the saved and the lost, will acknowledge the perfect justice of the divine rule. As A Peaceful Government, it stands preeminent, for it is peace. The individuals subject to it are at peace even with their enemies - at peace in themselves; when persecuted they can sing the songs of peace, even with their feet fast in the stocks, and their backs sore from chastisement. The Christian family is the abode of peace, even in cases where disorder and violence were formerly predominant. A Christian nation we know not; but just in proportion as the influences of God’s government are brought to bear upon nations, so are they virtuous and peaceful. The entrance of His word giveth light and peace.
Under losses, pains, and in death, the Christian has peace; he can exclaim with the Prophet, “Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be upon the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields yield no meat; the flock be cut off from the fold and there be no herd in the stall: yet will I rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation.” (Hab. iii: 17, 18.) He will affirm with Job, “Though Thou slay me, still will I trust Thee.” And with the Apostle, “For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands eternal in the heavens.” (2 Cor. v:1). Lastly it is A Progressive and Eternal Government.
In order to its consummation, all past things have existed, and the present do exist. The Dispensations are preparatory. A people are being gathered to His name. Righteousness will cover the earth, as the waters the channels of the great deep. The subjects are being gathered by the gospel - the ranks of the saved enlarge and anon, the heavenly city will descend, and the multitude whom no man can number, crowned with immortality, will enjoy its eternally progressive peace. Come, then and drink of the waters of Life freely!

What is the Bible?
A QUESTION always important, and never more so than now; one to which a number of answers might be given (each correct, so far as it goes) without fully answering it. Nothing more, however, is at this time intended than to ask attention to one of those partial answers which, being true, settles a good deal.
Our present reply, then, to the question, What is the Bible? is, “The Bible is a Miracle;” a Standing Miracle, evidencing the Existence of God and the Divine Origin of Christianity. “But we are not believers in miracles,” certain readers may reply. Be it so! But the miracle is here, before your eyes, and we are confident that if only fairly and fully kept in view, with every desire subordinated to that of knowing the truth (whatever that may be), and with the further set purpose of complying with its requirements, it will certainly compel faith.
What is the Bible? Read the answer of Charles Bradlaugh:-
“I do not pretend the Bible to be a forgery. I have not pretended it in any fashion; but I do pretend it to be, like every other religious book, an outcome of different ages, of different men, of different peoples, bundled together, without due reason for bundling together; and which cannot be contended to be a complete coherent book under any circumstances whatever. I do not contend that from the time of Solomon it may not be possible that every king recorded in the Bible may possibly have ruled.” National Reformer, July 2, 1876.
This is not exactly the form in which a Christian would reply to the question, “What is the Bible? He would most likely prefer to say something like this:-
“God having, of old time, spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, and having in later times spoken unto us by His Son and by the Apostles, the Bible is the record, by inspired men, of the revelation thus given and of such facts as the men thus inspired were divinely led to inscribe.”
Now, in maintaining our affirmation that The Bible is a Miracle, we are indifferent as to which of the foregoing is accepted. Take the last. If God did thus speak to man by the prophets, by His Son and by the Apostles, then the Bible is the record of Divine revelation, and as such a MIRACLE. But reject that conclusion and accept that of Mr. Bradlaugh, and the miracle is equally apparent, only, you get to it by a somewhat longer route. Let us look at the Bible as defined by this Atheist Editor.
He describes it as an “Outcome of different ages, of different men, of different people, bundled together,” We accept this as fairly near the mark. The Bible is not one Book, save as made so by bringing its numerous parts together. In this way we get over sixty different books, pamphlets, or epistles, of different ages, from the days of Moses down to those of the last of the Apostles; from different men, including kings, rulers, poets, herdsmen, fishermen, and the like; and from different peoples. That being the case, could we reasonably expect to find, running through the whole, as a sort of backbone, to which all the parts adhere, any one line of prediction and purpose, opening out in clearness and brightness as the books approach, in point of time, the age in which we live? Certainly not! From such “bundling together” we could expect nothing but incoherence. But the very thing we could not expect, because in the nature of the case impossible, apart from the overruling of one superior mind acting upon the different men” of the “different ages,” is exactly what the Bible presents to us. So that, take it as you please, the miracle stands before you. If God did reveal His purposes to, and speak by, that whole line of prophets then the Bible is a miracle. If, on the other hand, he did not thus reveal Himself, then the result is utterly unaccountable and the Book equally miraculous.
To John, in Patmos, the angel said: “I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus; for THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS IS THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY.” That prophecy here takes in the entire Messianic unfolding, from Enoch to John is clear in the light of 2 Peter 1:21 - “For the prophecy [concerning the Christ] came not, in old time, by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” We put it, then, as the one remarkable thing which cannot be accounted for without the admission of God speaking through the centuries by the prophets, that there does run through these numerous books, of which the Bible is composed, this trend of prophecy, gradually unfolding the Christ of Christianity, as to His divinity, humanity, suffering, triumph, redemption, and reign. But is there really, and beyond the possibility of mistake, this chain of Messianic prophecy running through the Book? Many of our readers will need no answer to this question, because, though they may not have set themselves the task of tracing it out, yet, as years have rolled on, here and there, in abundant instances, it has compelled recognition, so that, in a certain sense, without searching directly for it, they have found its ample presence.
Here, then, we might leave this one answer to the question, What is the Bible? But in view of some who have neither searched nor found, it may be better to point to instances. To go into the matter fully would be to write volumes upon the Christology of the Old Covenant Scriptures. All we can attempt is to touch the chain here and there.
We repeat:- “The Bible is a Standing Miracle, evidencing the Existence of God and the Divine Origin of Christianity.” This is said on the ground that if (as we believe) God has of old spoken to man, by His Spirit, in the prophets and, subsequently, by His Son - the Lord from Heaven, and by His apostles; and if the writers of the Bible were divinely guided to record these communications from God, together with such facts as they were inspired to embody, then the miraculousness of the Bible is unquestionable; whereas if, on the other hand, such inspiration be denied, and the answer of the atheist editor accepted, so that “the Bible is an outcome of different ages, of different men, and different people, bundled together without due reason for the bundling,” it is not less a miraculous result; because there is, running through it an harmonious line of prophecy, centring upon, and finding fulfilment in the Messiah.
At this point the argument for completeness needs that the chain of prediction shall be shown, not by any approach to exhaustive examination, but by here and there holding up a link. “The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy.” And so the whole book tells of Him, although written in parts, in different ages and by men so many and diverse, as to defy true sequence, had there not been one mind controlling the writers all along the line.
Starting with Moses, as the earliest of its writers, and taking the chronology of our common Bible (about which, in this inquiry there is no need for minute precision), we have five books, ranging over a period of more than two thousand five hundred years, the Messianic foreshadowing of which is of vast extent. The earliest prediction is the most indefinite; those that follow, slowly but surely, advance to unmistakable clearness. In these five books we have spread out, that vast system of typical institutions (the evidential value of which is immense) all pointing to Christ - the sin offering, burnt offering and others, both sweet-savour, and otherwise. The ordinances of the Tabernacle point to Him in almost endless complexity, the actual correspondence, when the fulness of time had come, proving that in Christ and in His work, we have the numerous antitypes, and, consequently, showing that the old Jewish institutions came from one and the same mind as the scheme of redemption unfolded by Christ and His Apostles. Into these, however, it is not possible to here to enter.
Early in the first book we have the temptation and fall of man, and, immediately connected with it, the first Messianic promise (Gen. iii:15) foretells continued conflict between the woman’s seed and the seed of the serpent. For our present purpose it is not needful to inquire as to the personality of Satan, nor whether he took the form of a serpent, or had power to enable that creature to express the suggested evil to our first parent; nor does it in this inquiry at all matter whether the narrative be understood as literal or allegorical, because, in any view of it, there is a clearly-foretold conflict between the seed of the woman and the serpent-power - be it person or principle, or whatever you please. The fact is, that, right at the beginning, the conquest of good over evil, of God over Satan, of the women’s seed over the serpent-power, is foretold with ample clearness. The language is remarkable when you look at Christ as that seed, and at His already advanced and secured triumphs over the forces of evil. But when you take into account the birth of the Saviour, from the woman, without a human father, then “the seed of the woman” becomes an apt expression of that great truth. You follow Him into the wilderness, where, as the Second Adam, he is tempted of Satan, and conquers. Still by the Sin-power He is brought under the dominion of death - His heel bruised. But the heel is not a vital part. He revives, and ascends to the throne of the Father, from which he is to put all enemies under His feet. He will bruise the head of Satan - irrecoverably crush it.
But if, on the other hand, some prefer to take the seed of the woman as her entire progeny, the case is not much altered, the import then being that Satan, though bruising the race, shall finally be crushed by her progeny, to the complete triumph of God and right. If content to accept it as expressing only this, there is enough to meet the requirements of a thus early Messianic prediction, subsequent revealments indicating the final conquest of the race, yet to be realized by power infused by One of that race, who is, in a special and extraordinary sense, the Woman’s Conquering Seed. Passing over several chapters, we come to the blessing of Shem and Japheth by Noah. Could we take into view the whole prophetic line, it would be needful to go into this early unfolding of God’s dealing with the race, indicating, as it does, that the kingdom of God would be established among the descendants of Shem, and that those of Japheth would be engrafted therein. The language of Calvin may be taken as here highly warrantable:- “This is indeed a support to our faith of no common strength, that the calling of the Gentiles was not only predestinated in God’s eternal decree, but also publicly proclaimed.”
Advancing to Gen. xii:2, we come to God’s promise to Abraham, marking him off as one from whom - by whose seed, blessing to all the families (nations) of the earth should come; the fulfilment of which finds realization in Christ, who, as to His flesh, is of the seed of Abraham. Were we able to dwell here, we should need to follow this line of promise in its special repetitions and enlargements, subsequently made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, rich in progressive unfoldings. As it is, we pass on to the time of Moses.
In Deut. xviii., the Messiah, as the prophet of Jehovah, comes into view.
Note:-
1. Moses was raised up from among the Covenant people. The Christ was of that people, and of the seed of David.
2. In certain important particulars he was to be like unto Moses, as no other prophet ever was.
(a) When Aaron and Miriam likened themselves as prophets, to Moses, Jehovah reproved their presumption - “If some one be your prophet, I, the Lord, make Myself known unto him in a vision, in a dream I speak unto Him. Not so my servant, Moses; mouth to mouth I speak to Him, and face to face, and not in dark speeches; and the appearance of the Lord he beholds.” (Num. xii.) No prophet in these respects equalled Moses; Christ alone came up to, and surpassed the prophecy. Consequently, in directing the Jews to Him, John said:- “He that cometh from heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that He testifieth .... For He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God; for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him.” (John iii.) And he himself added - I have not spoken of Myself, but the Father which sent Me, He gave Me commandment what I should say and what I should speak .... Whatsoever I speak, therefore, even as the Father hath said unto Me, so I speak.” (John xii.)
(b) Moses was not only distinguished from all the prophets by direct and “mouth-to-mouth” communication with Jehovah, but also by his leadership of the people and as Mediator of the Old Covenant. So here, too, the Messiah was like him. He came as leader, commander, and mediator of the Israel of God, in the New Covenant relation. The reader will be able to discover other points of correspondence.
Gleaning from the books of Joshua and Samuel would result in profitable addition to the foregoing, but we cannot stay longer in this portion of the field, and therefore turn to the Messianic Psalms, of course taking samples only.
In Psalm ii. we see one who is addressed as the Son of Jehovah, begotten by Him from the dead, who shall have the heathen for an inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for a possession; who, though rich in mercy and blessing, will nevertheless visit in fearful retribution those who continue to refuse the salvation of God. Therein also are indicated, the combination of the people (Jews) and the kings of the earth (Romans) against the Lord and His Christ; that ultimately the wicked combination fails, inasmuch as Jehovah has them in derision, and sets His King (His Son, the Messiah) upon His holy hill of Zion. It is not needful to point out to any devout Bible student how largely are here shown forth the salient points of the life and suffering, and final triumphs of the Christ.
Thus clearly does Messiah appear as the Son of God, in whom, through faithful surrender, there is salvation; but whose rejection and anger bring destruction. Passing on to Psalm cx., we see Him as David’s Son and David’s Lord, sitting at the right hand of the Father, invested with the power of Deity over heaven and earth, ruling in the midst of His enemies (which can only mean extending His providence and power over sinners on earth, as He can have no enemies in heaven), having here a people who are described as free-will offerings, and beautiful as the dew of the morning. There, too, He is not only seen in kingly power, but also as, at the same time, a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedec, who was king and priest. In
Psalms xlv.-lxxii. he is designated God (Elohim); eternity of dominion being ascribed to Him.
But more advanced unfoldings will be found in the Prophets. Take only a few instances: Isaiah vii. gives the invitation of the prophet to the King to ask a sign of God, which, in his rebellious spirit he refused to do. God then gave a sign to the Nation - “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shalt call His name Immanuel” - exactly corresponding to the birth of Jesus, and to a name by which he is known wherever the Gospel has gone.
Isaiah ix., speaking prophetically, as from Messianic times, crowds into a few lines the wonderful name and office of the virgin-born child - “The government shall be upon His shoulders.” His name (implying what He is in Himself) shall be called “Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father (Father of the Everlasting Age), the Prince of Peace.” His government is to know no end. From the throne of David (his seat of rule over the Israel of God) He establishes justice for evermore.
Isaiah xlii. presents Him as the Servant of God. Strange that he who is called LORD GOD should also appear as a servant! But the Gospel history meets the case. He divested Himself of the glory which he had with the Father before the world was, and took upon Him “the form of a servant” - subordinate in office, though not in nature. There, too, it is said, “A bruised reed He shall not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench. He shall not fail. He shall set judgment in the earth, the isles shall wait for His law.” If written after the fulfilment, instead of centuries before, the description could not have been more exact.
Isaiah liii. is a marvel of extraordinary description as to His office, vicarious sacrifice, death, burial, subsequent life as the Saviour and Justifier of men, and of His eternal triumph.
Zechariah presents Him as the Shepherd and Fellow of Jehovah, to be smitten, whose sheep shall be scattered; who yet shall deliver His people. Malachi tells of His coming as the Messenger of the Covenant, preceded by the Harbinger, to prepare His way, graphically describing His work of salvation and of judgment.
With this very scant and rapid glance we must conclude.
But now look at the facts. These writers, ranging over so many generations - from Moses to Malachi; written, as some would tell us, by different men, of different centuries, without other inspiration than is common to men in general, “bundled together without any reason for the bundling,” do, nevertheless, contain this wonderful trend of prophecy concerning the Christ, His salvation and kingdom; predictions, looked at in the light of the times in which they were written, largely contradictory; and, yet, the foretold One having come, all is seen to apply to him, as having been fulfilled, or in fair way to fulfilment!!!
“Apart from the repulsively carnal form which it has taken, there is something absolutely sublime in the continuance and intensity of the Jewish expectation of the Messiah. It outlived not only the delay of long centuries, but the persecutions and scattering of the people; it continued under the disappointment of the Maccabees, the rule of a Herod, the administration of a corrupt and contemptible priesthood, and, finally, the government of Rome, as represented by a Pilate; nay, it grew in intensity almost in proportion as it seemed unlikely of realization. These are facts which show that the doctrine of the Kingdom, as the sum and substance of Old Testament teaching, was the very heart of Jewish religious life; while, at the same time, they evidenced a moral elevation which placed abstract religious conviction far beyond the reach of passing events, and clung to it with a tenacity which nothing could loosen.
“Passages in the Old Testament applied to the Messiah, or to Messianic terms in the most ancient Jewish writings amount in all to 456, thus distributed - 75 from the Pentateuch, 243 from the Prophets, and 138 from the Hagiographa, and supported by more than 558 separate quotations from Rabbinic writings. These passages are in detail, of great importance as showing the universal expectation had in the Jewish mind. They proved, beyond all question, that the Christian application of so many passages of the Old Testament to Christ was not an afterthought, nor an imagination, as Rationalists would represent.”
What, then, is the inference and the conclusion? That the Bible is a miracle of inspiration and revelation: that God has spoken by the prophets, and providentially preserved a sufficient record of the fact and truth revealed. To whom be glory for ever! Amen!
This address clearly sets forth principles, needing to be thus set forth, at the present day. Their exposition and emphasis are, we regret to think, perhaps even more needed than when Mr. King wrote. Since Dr. Dale’s voice is no longer heard, Nonconformists have perceptibly wavered. The British Weekly however, continues to plead with much clearness and vigour, precisely the view of the education question, here set forth. We trust the re-publication of this sermon may be helpful in the cause of truth.

The Bible and the School.*
TEXT, Psalm xix.
THIS Psalm consists of two parts, distinct, but yet forming a complete whole, in which are contrasted the revelation of God in nature and that still more glorious revelation which shines forth in the written word. One might imagine, and perhaps not be far from correct, that it was written at early morn, when the glories of an eastern sunrise had burst upon the Psalmist, - the sun as bridegroom coming out of his chamber, rejoicing as a mighty man to run his course.
1. “The Heavens are telling the glory of God;
and the work of His hands does the firmament declare.
2. Day unto day poureth forth speech:
And night unto night revealeth knowledge.
3. There is no speech, and no words;
Their voice is an inaudible one.
4. Through the whole earth hath their line gone forth,
And their words unto the end of the world.
For the sun hath he set a tabernacle in them.
5. And ye is like a bridegroom that goeth forth out of his chamber,
He rejoiceth as a mighty man to run (his) course.
6. From (one) end of heaven is his going forth,
And his circuit as far as the (other) ends thereof;
Neither is anything hid from his heat.”
The rendering of these six verses is that of Hengestenberg and Hupfeld, with the exception of one line. The first verse grandly and richly states that the heavens publish the glory of God, and then informs us how the publication is made, - by exhibiting such work as only Jehovah could be the author of.
We are not thereby taught that the heavens reveal God to men who are destitute of the God idea. The Psalmist knew God, and, hence, was prepared to understand and respond to the telling lessons of the heavens. The Psalm tells us what the heavens tell to men who have been previously told of God; and all the men who have heard aright the inaudible voice of the “star-be-spangled firmament” have, by tradition, heard of Him of whom “day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night showeth knowledge.” All races and tribes of men have come from that first man to whom God revealed Himself, and from that one family saved from the deluge, all of whom knew and worshipped the one, true God. Consequently, all races and tribes are in a position which renders it impossible to say that the excellence of God has not come to them by tradition; often, no doubt, much obscured and corrupted, but, nevertheless, always retaining the radical idea. To men, thus far instructed, the heavens declare and reveal the glory of God, rather than His existence. To them “day unto day poureth forth speech, and night unto night revealeth knowledge” There is no halting, nor change, in the stately testimony of the heavens. In bold figure they are said to pour forth speech, though their voice is inaudible. They speak, but not to the outward ear.
Addison has it:-

“What though in solemn silence all
Move round this dark terrestrial ball,
In reason’s ear they all rejoice,
And utter forth a glorious voice.”

“Through the whole earth their line has gone forth, and their words unto the end of the world.” There is no place where man is, which is not blest by their unceasing testimony They publish the glory of God.
Well may it be said “That splendour which fills their arch, that beauty which so attracts the eye, that everlasting order by which day and night follow in sweet vicissitude, - these things are not the offspring of chance: they are not the evolutions of some blind spirit enchained within the mass which it vivifies - much less are they the work of some evil power, whose kingdom and whose triumph are to be seen in the material universe. God created them, and they show forth His glory. His fingers fashioned them. He clothed them with light as with a garment, and put the sun in the midst of them to show forth His praise.”
But what has all this to do with what follows? Some have seen so little connection as to suppose that, originally the two parts did not constitute one psalm. Ewald speaks of the former part as a splendid but unfinished fragment of the time of David, to which some later bard subjoined the praise of the Law. But there is no ground for his supposition - it rests only on internal evidence, and there is none that requires that conclusion. The change of style and seeming suddenness of transition, are elements not of discord, but of harmony - they give force and majesty, just where the subject requires them, that could not otherwise be so well attained. First the glories of the heavens are gloriously set forth; but in declaring God, though glorious, theirs is the lesser glory - they belong to the lower plane. “Come up higher,” is, in effect, the call of the Psalmist, “Behold a clearer and more resplendent revelation of God. I have directed you to the inaudible speech of nature, but now learn the higher power of the love of God; given, too, in human language, spoken by the unerring Spirit. Here shall ye learn vaster things of God, and find correcting, preserving, sanctifying power, which neither the sun’s glorious rays, nor the moon’s silver light, nor all the teachings of the day and night can ever unfold.” These six verses, which tell only of Nature’s testimony to her Creator, are but as the portico to a splendid temple. Men never erect costly marble columns in front of a mud-plastered hut. On beholding a magnificent exterior and approach, we expect the interior building to correspond. So here, the testimony of the heavens is but as the step-way of ascent to the more glorious revelation. Accordingly, the next verse ushers us into the inner temple - “The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise the simple.”
We now behold the majesty of Divine law. To what does the description refer? To the Ten Commandments? To the entire ceremonial, of the Old Dispensation? It was, of course, fully applicable to all the precepts and commands of that time, and, without doubt, was so applied by the Psalmist. But the Law of God to man is His revealed will - the totality of that which, at any time, He requires men to believe, to do and to be. Whether we speak of the Dispensation under Moses, or of the present, under the Christ, the Law of Jehovah is perfect, in view of the time, the circumstances, and the end designed.
The Law, then, as thus defined, is perfect, restoring the soul. Some translators read “refreshing” in place of “restoring.” Let us take both terms as implied in the original word. The soul, as to its wanderings, is restored (brought back); and as to its weariness, refreshed. “The Testimony” is but another term, covering, as does the word Law, the whole body of statutes, judgments, etc., referred to in the subsequent verses, together embracing the revelation of God, in relation to Himself, as regards His good will to man and His displeasure against transgressors. the Psalmist seems to lavish epithets of admiration upon the Testimony of Jehovah. He declares it perfect, sure, right, pure, clean, ever-enduring, and righteous altogether. With him it reflects the holiness of God; is worthy of all reliance; must not be infringed, is no elastic rule, to be stretched or shortened at the pleasure of man, but the perfect truth, that it may lift us out of sin and death and guide to endless holiness and life. Let us endeavour to appreciate what the Law of the Lord, as thus defined, is intended to accomplish in us and for us.
1. It sets before the soul its high destiny - nowhere else can man learn what he is and what awaits him - and in order to healing and restoration it brings into view the Infallible Physician and Good Shepherd - it points to the balm in Gilead and to the one only fold of Safety.
2. In making wise the simple it supplies wisdom that is unto salvation. The Testimony of the Lord is perfectly sure - is actually the Testimony of God, and, therefore, must of necessity bestow wisdom upon him who receives it as a simple or child-like one.
3. His precepts are right, i.e., straight, as opposed to the crooked ways of man. the precepts of the Atheist, of the Deist, of the mere philosophies of man, as man, walking after the counsel of his own heart and in disregard of the wisdom which cometh from above, are crooked and lead to sorrow. But God’s precepts rejoice the heart, filling it with gladness by manifesting Him as the soul’s true portion, and lifting it above the sorrows and joys which are merely of the earth.
4. The commandment of Jehovah enlightens the eyes, because it is pure. Emanating from infinite purity, it makes him who keeps it pure, and thus he walks in the light, and not in the darkness. God’s children are children of the day. The more we obey the commandments of God, the greater our purity and, consequently, the clearer our light.
5. The fear of the Lord, as expressed in this psalm, is, perhaps, another name for His Law, not so much in regard to its outward aspect, as with reference to its effects upon the heart. And truly the fear of Jehovah (filial and loving, as in the case of the truly enlightened) is the great cleansing and preserving force.
6. The judgments of the Lord are true. No error, no injustice, no wrong of any kind - they are altogether righteous.
7. Value. “More to be desired than gold.” Gold is costly; gold is beautiful. The commandments of God, the Law of God, the testimony of Jehovah, are more to be desire than gold - more to be desired than fine gold - more to be desired the much fine gold. Honey, too, is sweet; but they are sweeter than honey and the droppings of the honeycomb! He who keeps them is enlightened by them, and in keeping them there is great reward, both now and eternally. Now, not only is all this true of the Law, the Testimony, the Doctrine of God, but it is exclusively so. We may describe one man as good, very good, but there are others his equals in goodness. We may gaze upon an enchanting landscape, but elsewhere there may be landscapes not less enchanting. We may, justly, most highly extol the virtues of a given medicine, but there may be other health-restoring draughts not in the least degree less potent. We may wonder at the, to us, unsurpassed beauty of one who smiles upon us, and yet large may be the number of her peers. We may bow with professed admiration before an exalted genius, and yet the past may have known, and the future may produce, more than his equal. But this Divine Testimony stands by itself. In goodness, in power, in beauty, in wisdom, it stands alone. It must do the work for which it is designed, or that work remains undone. It is not a power among other powers, by several of which its intended effects can be produced. If by its means a man is not enlightened, he remains in darkness. If by it men (to whom it comes) are not saved, they remain eternally lost.
The Law of Jehovah is recorded in the Bible, and the Bible is committed to the church. Two things we desire for man - 1. Fitness for the highest and best life in this world. 2. Preparation for the most elevated glory in the world to come. Now, in view of what we have seen in the Law and Testimony of God, the Bible stands as essential to these desiderata. We shall never see a kingdom whose subjects are of the highest order, unless the Bible finds its way into the hands and hearts of the people; and, certainly, without the Bible they will not be influenced to that preparation needful for the higher glory of the future life. Bible truth is the true regenerator of mankind. Education without that truth is incomplete and inefficient. We need the Bible in the church, in the family, in the school, and in the hand of every individual able to gather its meaning. Heavy responsibility rests upon the church, and each Christian shares in that responsibility to the measure of his means. But, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,” was not addressed to the unconverted. The Lord has never commanded those who believe not in Him to preach His gospel; nor does Christianity sanction obtaining money by the strong arm of law, from those who do not believe the Bible or who are indifferent to its claims, for the purpose of teaching its saving truths. “Righteousness exalteth a nation;” “Godliness is profitable for all things: having the promise of the life which now is and of that which is to come;” and “therefore,” say some, “the government should assert the Christianity of the nation, and the Church should be united to the State.” These men contend that Bible teaching should be supplied at the cost of the nation, that the church should be subsidized by the State, and that the Bible and religion should be taught in rate-aided schools.
The result has been a vast expenditure of national funds (taken from the pockets of Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Nonconformists, Jews and Infidels), upon an already rich and largely endowed State church, which, by baptismal regeneration, teaching more than semi-popish and open worldliness, has made more Infidels than Christians, more sceptics than believers. The policeman and the soldier have been employed in compelling those who have no respect for the church and no faith in the Bible, to pay priests, whom they despise, for expounding a book they neglect and, in many cases, hate. Beds and books have been taken by execution and sold to pay church-rate; and rather than the priest of the Protestant State Church should fall short of his tithe (by which he is supported to minister the Bible to his parishioners, whether they desire or abhor it), the widow’s sons have been shot down, and thus Protestant Christianity has been glorified in the face of Romanists and Infidels!
As before said, and for the reasons given, we would have the Bible in the church, in the family, and in the school. But, after all, the Bible may be forced in, and kept in, by measures directly opposed to its principles. Willinghood is the great law of the Bible and of Christianity. To man is not committed the authority to compel his fellow men to worship; nor is it given him to compel them to pay for the worship of others, nor for printing, circulating, preaching, teaching the Bible. To the Church - to those who will - is left the honour, the responsibility, the labour, the cost of disseminating the Bible and its truths. Let the Bible go into every family, into every school, into every hand into which, upon this principle, it can be got; but, rather let us go back to the time when but few copies were found in a parish, than keep up, or extend, its circulation by means of rates and taxes imposed upon those who are opposed to Bible teaching, or unwilling to have it expounded by teachers for whose support their money is appropriated.
Among the great questions of the day, in this country, in Australia, in Germany, and in America is the question of National Education. It has long been a disgrace to Great Britain that common school learning has not been placed within the reach of every child in the kingdom. What an imposition is that of having thrown the common school education of hundreds of thousands of children upon the religious denominations! It no more appertains to the church to find schooling for untaught children, than it does to supply the community with public baths, wash-houses, and water carts. But the denominations have largely devoted their means to educational work, and thus have done benevolent service, which the Lord will not disregard. In so doing they have made the Bible a school-book, and rightly, because with the book they have supplied believing and earnest teachers, and have paid the cost from their own pockets. In every such school, by all means, let us have the Bible. But this system leaves millions of children outside the schools, and the country is disgraced and afflicted by the consequent ignorance and its results. State aid has been largely given to denominational schools, and thus those who do not believe in the dogmas of Rome, the catechisms of the Church of England, and other sectarian doctrines, have been compelled to contribute for teaching the same. To the extent that this has been done there is violation of the true voluntary element of Bible Christianity. By the Government Education Bill, so recently become law, provision is made to enforce the violation upon every section of England and Wales.
True, catechisms and creeds are excluded, but the Bible is retained, and in the exposition thereof, by the teacher, every point of the excluded standards may be taught. Apply this principle to Scotland and Ireland, which justice requires (if it be continued here), and you have, to a large extent, the schools in England and Wales subsidized by public money to teach Church of Englandism, the schools in Scotland to teach Presbyterian dogmas, and the schools in Ireland instruments for the inculcation of the Romish faith.
Rates are now imposed, and School Boards have resolved to pay fees to denominational schools. Already property belonging to those who cannot conscientiously pay for the inculcation of religious tenets which they do not believe, has been seized to pay school rates. But the Nonconformists of this country, as represented by nearly 2,000 delegates at the Manchester Conference, have resolved “That in any national system of education, the School Board and the State should make provision solely for the secular instruction, which all children may received in common, and that the responsibility of the religious education of each district should be thrown upon voluntary effort.” Now, this resolution accords with the Bible, and justice cannot be done on any other principle. The whole nation is taxed to supply what the entire population holds as right and good - a literary or secular education. In matters of faith, upon which men differ, let each faith be taught by teachers who hold that faith, and let the cost of that teaching be paid by the voluntary contributions of those who believe in it. But to apply this principle fairly and fully, the Bible must be excluded from State-aided schools. We may be told that the Bible is not a sectarian book, that it might be used without note or comment, and that in that case there would be no violation of principle.
But surely friends who so hold have failed to look closely into the matter. Let us see what would follow. Within sight of my house reside a Jew, an Infidel, and a Roman Catholic. These will, with myself, shortly be compelled to pay School-rates. the Jew finds that he is compelled to pay for teaching Christianity as exhibited in the New Testament, which he considers contrary to revelation and offensive to God. The Romanist finds that he is compelled to pay for the use of the Protestant Bible, which he denounces as considerably false, and which, if it were not, he considers objectionable unless in the hands of a priest of his church. The Infidel feels, that though he holds the book as false, unfit for children, injurious to mankind and bad in every way - yet, by church influence, he, through the law, is compelled to pay for what he thus abhors, and he hates the book the more because he is thus compelled to pay for it. Now we have not so learned the Bible as to be able to believe that so using it is anything short of a direct violation of its precepts and principles. Nor would we consider of much worth the dry, unexplained reading of a chapter of the Bible, in school hours, by thoughtless children. Bible reading in school where the teacher is prohibited from exposition and enforcement, is of but little value; while if you admit exposition by the teacher then you have all the evils of concurrent endowment, the sects in that case being privileged to teach their opposing dogmas to the young at the expense of the State. Let, then, the government see to it, that for every child, in the nation, there shall be provided instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and so far as may be deemed proper, the elements of a good literary or secular education. Let the Bible be the book of the Christian and the Church. Let those who believe in it see that it is taught, not merely to their own children, but to all the children they can bring under its influence. Let Sunday Schools be remodelled, as the government schools come into operation. Cast out from your church schools all that belongs to the common schools, and teach and preach to the children Bible truths only. Add evening classes for the same purpose, leading up from the most simple and pleasing exhibition of Bible and Gospel truths, for the very young, to advanced classes for the study of the evidences of Christianity, the original languages of the Bible and whatever may be useful to a complete understanding of the Book of God’s Revelation. Let the Church do this! Let the believers in the Bible do this! Let them depend upon God; upon their own labour; and upon their own resources. Let them not go cringing to the devil, by requiring the State to use the argument of the stick (the broker and the policeman), to obtain the costs of teaching the Bible to the young, from those who do not believe it and who are unwilling to pay.
Would we have the Bible excluded from all schools? Certainly not! If churches please to establish day schools for general education, let the Bible be therein used, by teachers who believe and live its truths, and let them do their best to plant its precious seed in the hearts of their pupils. But then, let the church, or those who send their children, or who desire to contribute, pay the costs. If such schools were established, Christian parents should send their children to those schools in preference to a rate-aided school, from which the Bible is properly excluded, provided only that the Bible exposition therein given is deemed accordant with the Bible itself. Surely we may rejoice in the speedy coming of the time when the church shall have done with the ABC of the common schools, and when the State shall neither endow a church, not compel men to pay for teaching religious dogmas they do not believe, nor subject them to disabilities on account of their faith. To the church we say, Arise, take the Bible; fill your schools; teach and reach to the young, book in hand; pay the cost; go forth in faith, and the God of the Bible will be with you!

The Christian System, &c.
INTRODUCTORY NOTE.
MR. KING having been invited to read an essay to the Hammersmith Institute, did so. The subject elected was - “Christianity essential to perfect civilization.” At the close, several important questions were presented. Among them - “What are we to understand by the Saviour’s declaration to Peter” - “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven?” - and, “Is it allowable to dispense with the breaking of the loaf on the first day of the week?” These questions compelled the essayist to exhibit some of the great principles of Primitive Christianity. Several persons were desirous to hear more, and consequently it was arranged that Mr. King should deliver four lectures, on Lord’s day afternoons, in the Temperance Hall. The first was presented December 12, 1847, and embraced the following items, - The Kingdom of Heaven - What it is - Where it is - its Laws - their unalterable Character.
The attendance was very good, and questions were presented at the close. The second lecture on “the Lord’s Supper, the time and manner of attending to it. - Its Utility” - was announced for December 26.
Several friends, residing in Hammersmith, having been some time members of a Baptist church, expressed strong desire of seeing the original order restored.
Lord’s day, December 26, D. King, according to previous appointment, again occupied the Temperance Hall, and addressed an attentive audience. At the close, the audience was reminded that questions might be presented, when the Rev. J.T. Cumming, an Independent in the town, came forward and shook Mr. King warmly by the hand, and expressed concurrence in some of the topics advanced; admitting that the primitive Christians broke bread every Lord’s day, he addressed the audience with a view of cautioning them against being deceived by what he believed to be a catch. A second reformation was needed, but he could not look favourably upon any plan that did not embody strenuous effort for the conversion of Jews to Christianity. The Rev. Gentleman was replied to on every point, and invited to be present at the next lecture. In March 1848 we read - Several addresses have been given since the last notice, to good and appreciative audiences. Last Lord’s day a Church sat down for the first time, consisting of four persons, with every prospect of success and immediate increase.
The notice in April informs us that the church numbered eight members. The outcome of this effort can be traced on to the present year, in varying prosperity, as developed in Chelsea, Fulham, and the varied projects of “Twynholm,” still helped forward by the fostering hand of Robert Black, the esteemed Pastor of College Street, who was one of the early four who came forth from the Baptists in 1848. May he and his family, all earnest workers in the Lord’s cause, be long spared in health and strength to labour on.
The Essay read to the Hammersmith Institute was as follows:
The Christian System Essential to Perfect Civilization.
Glancing at the first four thousand years of the world’s history, we find but one exhibition of the perfectly civilized condition, and that one in the inspired page. “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward of Eden, and there he put the man He had formed. Out of the ground made the Lord God to grow, every tree that was pleasant to the sight and good for food.” The earth - a cornucopia poured its unadulterated treasure at the feet of man - the feathered tribe hovered o’er the blissful spot, and with the mighty monarch of the forest waited to learn their names - there the man received as part of himself his companion, his helpmeet - and there held perfect communion with the Deity. Jehovah, man, the quadrupeds, the heavens, the earth, formed one harmonious whole - then appeared the perfect pattern of civilized society. But soon was man’s blissful standing lost, and by one offence ruin and disgrace introduced. Society had now to flow from a source polluted, and he who first descended from our common sire soon evinced a nature wholly uncivilized - envious, revengeful, cruel - with blood-stained hands a fugitive and vagabond he wandered through the world, while Abel’s blood for vengeance cried aloud to heaven. Nor did this dire calamity serve as warning to our race, for “God looking upon the earth, saw it filled with violence,” - excepting the family of Noah, they were -
“Corrupt in every part,
They sinful paths had trod,
And works abominable had done;
None doing good, not even one.”

Amidst this universal scene of consummated wickedness the fountains of the deep were broken up - the windows of heaven were unstopped - the highest hills were covered, and the baptized earth was washed from sin. The receding water, bearing upon its bosom the prison house of the only rescued family, was bidden to its icy home, and mankind commenced a second infancy. From Adam to Noah man’s course was downwards, and no fair spot appears whereon the love, the unity, the society, the brotherhood, the civilization of heaven is seen.
Here, it must be observed, that heaven’s civilization is the theme upon which we dwell, and which is by us denominated perfect. It is not the measured tones of softness falling upon the ear, and stealing the unsophisticated heart, while perhaps the being who gave them utterance waits but to gain his purpose and blot your fair name with infamy. It is not the etiquette of circles trained in luxury. The classic regions may be trodden, the choicest flowers of poetic grandeur culled, and our very breath perfumed by their power; we may loathe the vulgar idiom and the plebeian gait, and remain as far from that civilization for which the world now pants, as the torrid from the frigid zone. He who is perfectly civilized must feel “when there’s joy in another’s glad breast, some pleasure enkindled in his.” He must “weep with those who weep, and rejoice with those who do rejoice.” He must “look not on his own things only, but also on the things of others.” He must feel himself the orphan’s parent and the widow’s husband. His large heart must expand with sympathy for the family of man - the ties of brotherhood must link him to the human race. Willing to die for men, he lives to serve his generation, gains a rich treasure in the heavens, as also in the heart of man - then falls asleep, and waits the passing to another sphere, to bathe his soul in boundless seas of love.
Oh! what a scene presented itself when the Noahic family descended from the towering Ararat. Nature’s fair bosom, scarred and lacerated - no groves from which the feathered songster carolled forth hymns of praise - no marks of orderly vegetation - no hearth or home - without a habitation - without an inhabitant. Would you command imagination to review the scene? Behold a mighty sepulchre by torrents rent - the fresh deposited remains of thousands thrown in wild disorder all around. No solitary footstep can be heard, no murmur, groan, or sigh - no lamentation for departed friends - he who should mourn his sire, is stiffened like to stone, and she who would weep the mother’s tears of tenderness is prostrate by his side. But why this universal death? Man had ceased to serve God and live in brotherhood - selfish, barbarous and uncivilized had he become.
By heaven’s command the quadrupeds went forth from the Ark. Noah and his sons, by the same authority, builded their altar and commenced to replenish the earth. Now, surely, we shall find SOCIETY - not mere existence on one spot - but oneness, unity, brotherhood, civilization. Surely this lesson with its every outline marked in death was phrenotyped, and the new earth from then till now has been the abode of peace, unity and joy. But ah! in vain do we look. As the first sixteen hundred years of the world’s history gives no instance of perfect civilization, so the Patriarchal and the Mosaic dispensations exhibit man still selfish, revengeful, cruel; and as the antediluvian age closes, by showing him as having fully fitted himself for destruction, so the Jewish terminates by giving an exhibition of his deep depravity; proving him capable of sinning to an extent beyond that manifested by the accumulated transgressions of four thousand years. Abel had been slain - righteous Lot vexed by the men of Sodom - the prophets had been martyred - but all combined presented no enormity equal to the crucifixion of “the fairest among ten thousand and the altogether lovely!” Well may we say that, in justifying Jesus, and proving Him the Messiah, the Holy Spirit convicted the world of sin.
Our race knew not the depth of their depravity till Jesus cried “It is finished.” It is said that we cull the drear and the dark, when bright and beautiful exhibitions of virtue and philanthropy from time to time have appeared, like stars gemming the very heavens. In removing this objection, we have only to observe that our subject does not embrace the individual, we can only notice society, tribes, nations.
We are not insensible to the traits of grandeur which form the characters of a noble army of witnesses - unceasingly should we strive to imitate those who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, submitted to mockings, scourgings, bonds, and imprisonment; who were stoned, sawn asunder, slaughtered by the sword, who wandered in deserts, caves, and holes of the earth; destitute, afflicted, maltreated, rather than do violence to their conscientious convictions. Joyfully do we admit that we could fill our remaining pages with the names of those sturdy sons who, like forest oaks, stood firm against the oft-returning blast. But these formed no community, no social band, no kingdom where Mammon swayed not his sceptre. Still, upon looking at the past, we are not surprised that some cling to ancient ruins, and, dragging to the light of day the long, long hidden remnants of departed splendour, account them marks of ineffable civilization. We must visit the cities, not the ruins, and there we request you to accompany us on a rapid tour.
If perfect civilization can be found, will it not be within a few generations of the time when God taught the exceeding sinfulness of sin, by sweeping away the entire population? Come, then, to Babylon, founded within one hundred and fifty years of that time. Nimrod, the great grandson of Noah, a mighty hunter before the Lord, commenced this kingdom, while his brothers settled themselves in Arabia and lent their aid in subduing his neighbours, and uniting them under one and the same authority, which (it is not doubted) was soon accomplished by the instrumentality of his hunter-band, trained to hardship and inured to toil, for the purpose of subjugating his fellow-man. Making, in all probability, the abandoned tower of Babel, the centre of his empire, he considerably extended its ramifications. Among the cities he builded, Nineveh stands foremost in grandeur. The walls, says Rollin, were one hundred feet high and so thick that three chariots could run abreast. But why speak of the walls, gardens, bridges, artificial lakes, temples, palaces, etc., etc., belonging either to this city, or Babylon? Enough has been said by historians to cause our faith to waver, and yet enough must be believed, to give us exalted conceptions of the power and grandeur of these kingdoms. But what of their love, their brotherhood, their unity? The army, controlled by the son of Nimrod, consisted of one million seven hundred thousand foot, two hundred thousand horse, and sixteen hundred chariots armed with scythes. Where is civilization? Where the sword, the spear, the scythe, are made to prune the vine and till the fallow-ground - where men learn war no more. Follow Semiramis to the battlefield, and behold her forgetting her mission and leading men to stain the earth with blood, as if it were requisite to wreak Jehovah’s vengeance on each other, because a second deluge was refused. Continuous iniquity filled their cup, the avenging power of heaven was manifested, and, where multitudes have trodden in pomp and pride; the ravenous beast his dwelling-place has made.
Shall we find more of brotherhood in highly celebrated Greece? Has she not advantages arising from the wisdom of her laws, her improvements in the arts and sciences, her able statesmen and historians? Without staying to notice the origin of the Grecians, their descent from Japheth, their rude and early customs, or their fabulous emanation from the gods, we refer at once to their laws, or rather to those possessed by a position of them. The extremes of affluence and poverty were abolished by the just and equal division of their land. The abolition of gold and silver money, and the exceeding weight of the iron coin, rendered the laying up of treasure next to impossible. The gratification of the palate was prevented by the provision of public tables, at which all were commanded to partake of the commonest fare, and private eating was forbidden by law. Children were brought to these tables as to schools of wisdom and temperance, even kings could find no exception. Agis, after returning from a glorious victory, having presumed to eat in private with the queen - his wife, was reprimanded and punished. Here, at first sight, we have something like brotherhood, but another glance, and all is dark. See yon infant deprived of life by its legal murderers, because its limbs bear no promise of future usefulness in time of war. Look at those mothers gazing with delight on the lacerated bodies of their offspring, as they are sacrificed to the gods; view the slaves, exposed, maltreated, slain in hundreds; youth corrupted by the committal of theft by law commanded, to fit them to despoil the enemy with dexterity, and tell us whether Christianity was not needed to direct and influence these sons of severity and self-denial?
Coming nearer to our own time, and visiting the seven-hilled city, its every object shining with transcendent splendour, the same development will meet the eye. The temple of Jove; the spacious baths; the amphitheatre, with its walls of solid marble, fatiguing the sight to look towards the summit; the Pantheon arched over by its magnificent dome; the unparalleled Forum, together with a thousand glorious objects, all intimate that mind of some refinement gave them birth. But what was the condition of the people? One passage from a description of the invasion will suffice: “The horrors were further heightened by the excesses practised by forty thousand slaves broken loose from their masters, retaliating upon them and their families the wrongs which themselves or their predecessors had suffered for ages.” Civilization! shall we seek thee in modern kingdoms? Do European governments pay homage and bow before thy genial influence? Will polished France proclaim herself thy guardian? Has she led thee by the hand when terror reigned, and human slaughter-houses daily resounded with the shrieks and groans of murdered victims? Was civilization’s heavenly influence presiding at the recent barricades, or did it give authority to bombard Rome, regardless of the smiling infant or the tottering grandsire? Do the recent scenes in India, or the contests with China, proclaim this the age of brotherhood? Does England enjoy its blessings, or Ireland bask in its sunshine?
But, descended from Noah we have another race, more noble, more renowned for deeds of virtue and true devotion. Abraham, as the father of the faithful, ranked among them. Their institutions were divine; their laws from heaven; the year of jubilee restored the land, and set the captive free. Every title of their code had heaven’s sanction; now, surely, we shall reach the altitude of perfect civilization. But no!
“For what the law could not do, being weak through the flesh, God did, by sending His own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh.”
And, when the Sun of Righteousness arose with healing in His wings, did He acknowledge the adaptation of the law to regulate the world when bound in brotherhood? hear ye Him! - “You have heard that it has been said, thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy, but I say unto you love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them who hate you.”
Did His apostles teach the sufficiency of the law? Far from it. Paul showed that God, finding fault, made a new covenant to write His laws on the hearts of men.
The insufficiency, not only of the Jewish, but also of pagan systems, was manifested by the recorded universal expectation of a new and brighter age. The Saviour came not an unwished for guest, but as “the desire of nations.” The Jews were expecting their Messiah, and longing for their King, who, sitting on the throne of David, was, in their opinion, to restore their power and dominion. The Pagan oracles from them received their burden, and joined, not in an exact estimate of this character, but in the formation of his advent songs. Virgil, about the time of Herod the Great, exclaims:
“The last great age, decreed by faith is come;
And a new frame of all things doth begin,
A holy progeny from heaven descends.
Auspicious be His birth! which puts an end
To the iron age! and from whence shall rise,
A golden state far glorious through the earth!
By Thee, what footsteps of our sins remain
Are blotted out, and the whole world set free
From her perpetual bondage, and her fear.”

And then, as if acquainted with the Jewish Scriptures, he stated that these times of glory shall not immediately follow the birth of the anticipated one:-
“Yet some remains shall still be left
Of ancient fraud; and wars shall still go on.”

Tacitus, speaking of the wonders which preceded the destruction of Jerusalem, says that - “Many understood them as forerunners of that extra-ordinary person whom the ancient books of the priests did foretell should come about that time from Judea and obtain the dominion.”
He came and established His kingdom, or gave His apostles power to do so, and the facts upon which upon which this empire is founded, with its laws and ordinances form God’s power - heaven’s lever - to raise man from earth to glory. We must now, very briefly, examine the Christian system, but before doing so, we shall glance at some things absolutely requisite to the complete civilization of man. It is much to be regretted, that a very low and insufficient conception as to the design of Christianity almost universally prevails. Men speak and act as if its only work was to take the individual, and retaining him in his isolated standing, act upon his heart, and fit him for glory; hence you see as little actual unity in a country called Christian, as among the untutored savages. But in order to constitute men brethren, and present them to the world as such, to destroy the incivility of their nature and make them visibly one, we must have them conceive themselves members of a perfect kingdom. Jesus as their Sovereign; the New Testament as their statute-book; the Apostles as their legislature, having completed and absolutely perfected the work, and left it sealed by Jehovah’s signet. The Christian system, then, aims not merely at the conversion of the man, but designs the regeneration of society; the fusing of the human family into one vast brotherhood; where each shall look, not on his own things only, but also upon the things of others; where each shall consent to make his abundance supply his brother’s want, and find it his high felicity, to weep with those who weep, and to rejoice with the rejoicing. Where each esteems the other better than himself, and would grieve to possess a joy which his brethren could not share. To accomplish this grand work two things were absolutely necessary, and for want of these, Moses, Plato, Socrates, all, have failed, not as regards the production of much good, but, as far as the formation of such an era is concerned, they have laboured in vain. And now the new dispensation has been introduced, well may it be termed the “reign of heaven.” Two things are requisite. A “motive power” to lead the alienated heart back to God and to our fellow-man, instead of allowing it to be fixed on self; and then a SYSTEM, a CONSTITUTION of such a society of ransomed ones, fitted to keep alive and expand their regenerated affections. That such a condition of civilization as that presented by us is most desirable all will admit: but only a few possess a sufficient inclination to lay self upon the altar, renounce the world, and dwell in love. It is, then, requisite for the Christian System to be able to produce this inclination, and now comes the question: what effect will faith in Christ have upon the disposition?
Man, in order to do rightly, required a perfect teacher, one who stands free from error, and it is necessary for him so to estimate his preceptor in order to place unlimited confidence in him. The teachings of Jesus are not only faultless but all-sufficient. And he who believes Him to be the Son of God, at once feels that he may follow Him in every point without the least reserve. But, in order to be effectual, he must become an exemplar; precept without practice would have little influence, and men most frequently require to see a thing done, or to know it has been accomplished, before they form correct conceptions on the subject. Jesus is our great exemplar, and he that has faith in Him as the Christ, knows that he may imitate His every act. Again, good men have presented many perfect precepts, and reduced them to practice, and yet have not been imitated; therefore it is requisite that the exemplar should gain the love and gratitude of those he seeks to influence. To accomplish this, Jesus is crowned with thorns, scourged, bears His cross, and dies on Calvary. The man who received Jesus as the Messiah must have his love enkindled and his gratitude expanded; and they, like pointed nails, while still the flesh may struggle for the mastery, will fasten the old Adam to the tree, and transform him to the new. Well might the apostle say “the GOSPEL is the power of God unto salvation.” Such, then, is Jehovah’s mode of preparing man for His kingdom. Show me one soul prepared by faith in Christ, and I will point you to a civilized being, one prepared for brotherhood. He will need two things. First, the means to keep in active exercise his newly-begotten love, and secondly, the instrumentality for planting it in the hearts of others. You will be ready to answer, “the latter is easily accomplished, preach the gospel, send missionaries, subscribe to Bible Societies, establish Sunday Schools.” Stay, we must point you to a more excellent way. “Impossible,” do you answer?
Listen to the words of the Saviour:
“Father, I pray not for these (mine apostles) alone, but for all who shall believe on me through their word, (every believer), that they may be one, that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me.”
In other words, “I pray that civilization, brotherhood, and unity may so appear, as to convince the beholder of the divine origin of my philosophy.” The great thing for Christians to accomplish, is to show to the world their brotherhood, by exhibiting the body of Christ as an unbroken community, where none consents to call anything they possess their own, while another’s wants require its expenditure.
But this brings us, in the last place, to notice the system, or constitution, given by divine authority, by which these believing ones are to be preserved, and their standing made to act for the ingathering of the world. Man having shewn himself in every age incapable of constituting such a society, it behoves us, with Berean assiduity, to regard every tittle of the divine plan, bearing in mind that when the prophet burst forth in that celestial song, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given,” he also added, “and the government shall be upon His shoulders” - not upon any modern sect-builders; but the Messiah, the Wonderful Counsellor, he alone must rule. When the Word made flesh appeared, He did not set up His kingdom; He told them it was at hand, and taught His disciples to pay for it. Unto Peter He gave the keys, and ascended to His Father’s throne before the kingdom of heaven was opened. Previous to His departure he commissioned His apostles, saying - “As My Father sent Me so send I you - whoso heareth you heareth Me, and whoso heareth Me, heareth Him who sent Me;” or in other terms - “Go you and establish My kingdom, I am about to be crowned in the heavens, and will send you the Comforter which shall teach you all things; what you command, My church must obey, what you do, or sanction, shall be binding on My followers. The supernatural gifts which I will send you, shall remain until you have developed all the ordinances and practices of a perfectly civilized society.” Here we have before us the great work marked out for the apostles, viz., to establish and organize the “society of Jesus.”
Their operations commenced on the day of Pentecost, when three thousand Jews, believing on the Messiah, were pricked to the heart and cried, “What shall we do (to be saved)?” Peter gave the answer, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins;” they were that day added to the one hundred and twenty, then was formed the first Christian Church! The first perfectly civilized society the world had seen since Adam left his blest abode. Their love was in deed and in truth. Selling their possessions they parted to every one as they had need, none among them lacking. The apostles were with them, directing their movements, fixing their institutions, and the Gentile Churches became followers of those who were first in Christ in Judea; therefore they all continued “steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine, the fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers.” Daily they were to exhort each other; on the first day of the week when they came together, they all might speak one by one, THAT ALL MIGHT LEARN, THAT ALL MIGHT BE COMFORTED. The Fellowship embraced contribution on the first day of every week for the needing saints, and the proclamation of the gospel. No appeals to the world for help, one simple contribution, each one giving as the Lord had prospered him, and this more than sufficed to meet every need. The breaking of the loaf every first day of the week to remind them of Jesus, to call them to deep self-examination, to show them His broken body, in order to keep alive their faith and love; the mutual fervent prayers of the brethren are all divine ordinances, fixed for ever in the Redeemer’s kingdom. But they have been dispensed with, and what is the consequence? A barbarian world lies before us, and at the present hour, while we estimate the world’s inhabitants at 800,000,000, only about 70,000,000 are professed Protestants, and how few of these can claim the name of Christ.
Let us then return to the good old way, abandon every humanism, and with all our powers, struggle for the restoration of original Christianity, the only efficient instrumentality for the thorough civilization of our now but partially civilized race.
Does an Infidel reply, “You appeal to Europe and call it barbarous, while the European kingdoms are, and long have been Christian, and therefore, fair as your scheme may appear on paper, it is proven useless and utterly inadequate to produce the effect you plead for.” The answer shall be short, to use many words would be to waste them. Europe is not Christian. European churches are the churches of anti-Christ, and form the very apostacy foretold by the inspired writers of the New Testament. They have forsaken the fountains of living waters, and hewn out for themselves cisterns that can hold no water. Only here and there can we find an association such as that of which we have given the outlines, and these few are, in most cases, suffering more or less of persecution from the “great mother of harlots,” the self-styled Christian churches of our quarter of the globe. Let all who would become philanthropists indeed, determine to restore original Christianity, to walk in the good old paths, and consent only to call that system Christian which bears the stamp of Christ’s own authority. The King Messiah.
“The Lord (Jehovah) is King for ever and ever.” - Psalm x:16. “Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory and the victory, and the majesty; for all that is in the heaven, and in the earth is Thine; Thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and Thou art exalted as head above all. - I. Chron. xxix:11.
“The Kingdom is the Lord’s; and He is the governor among the nations.” - Psalm xxii:28. “The LORD hath prepared His throne in the heavens; and His kingdom ruleth over all .... Bless the LORD, all His works, in all places of His dominions. - Psalm ciii: 19-22. “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory, for ever and ever. Amen!” - I Tim. i:17.
Jehovah, the only wise God, King over all “ages without end,” will not give His glory to another. To the King Messiah is given all authority in heaven, and on earth. Angels, principalities, and powers are subjected to Him. He is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and consequently God.
Anciently, Jehovah established a Kingdom among the kingdoms of men, declaring Himself, in a special sense, its King. Hence a prophet of the chosen nation exclaims - “The LORD is our Judge, the LORD is our Lawgiver, the LORD is our King. He will save us.” - Isaiah xxxiii:22. But the chosen nation had turned from the LORD and demanded a King, like the Kings of the nations. The faithful Samuel’s reproachful address indicates the result - “And when he saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, ‘Nay, but a King shall reign over us,’ when the Lord your God was your King. Now, therefore, behold the King whom ye have chosen, and whom ye have desired. And behold the Lord hath set a King over you.” - I Samuel xii:12-13.
Thus granting their request, could in no way detract from the ever-abiding sovereignty of Jehovah; as “by Him Kings rule.” - He setteth up one, and pulleth down another, according to the good pleasure of His will, so that the Kings of Israel, and all the Monarchs of the nations, might have been addressed in the words of Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar - “The God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom.” But the kings of Jehovah’s chosen nation, together with the people, departed from His law and broke His covenant, thus over-throwing the divinely delegated sovereignty. As with Saul - the first in the line of kings, so with Zedekiah, the last - both filled their measure of iniquity and the rod of Jehovah fell heavily upon them. Ezekiel, foretelling the over-throw of Zedekiah, by the sword of Jehovah, in the hand of the King of Babylon, clearly intimated the subsequent restoration of the people under a righteous King. Thus - “And thou, O deadly wounded wicked one, the prince of Israel, whose day is come, in the time of the iniquity (or punishment) of the end, thus saith the Lord God: Remove the mitre, and take off the crown: this shall be no more the same; exalt that which is low, and abase that which is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it; this also shall be no more until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.” - Ezekiel xxi:25-27. R.V.
Zedekiah stood as the representative of the nation, about to suffer by the word of the Lord, resulting in the captivity.
The High-priestly glory and the glory of the King were brought down to the dust. Hence both mitre and crown are removed, involving complete abrogation of the prerogatives of the chosen nation.
But restoration of royal and priestly dignity is clearly promised. The overturned condition continues only “till he come whose right it is,” and to him Jehovah will restore both mitre and crown - Priest and King in one person; a Priest for ever, whose kingdom shall know no end. Zechariah also looked forward to this abiding double restoration. The Word of the Lord came to him, saying: “Take of them of the captivity, even of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah, which are come from Babylon and come thou the same day, and go into the house of Josiah, the son of Zephaniah. Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua, the son of Josedech, the high priest.” - Zech. vi:10-11.
In this we have a symbolic action; immediately followed by its interpretations, thus - “And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of Hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is the BRANCH: and he shall grow up out of his place and he shall build the temple of the Lord; ... and he shall bear the glory, (or majesty) and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both. - Zech. vi:12-13.
Here then the Branch (better rendered Sprout) out of the root of David, crowned with majesty, sits as a Priest, and builds Jehovah’s temple of living stones; himself both builder and foundation.
“In whom all the building, fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord. In whom ye [Ephesian Christians] also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” - Ephesians ii:21, 22.
The term Messiah occurs in the Old Testament, only in Daniel ix:25-26; in the Revised Version not at all, anointed being substituted. In the New Testament, Messiah is found only in the fourth Gospel - “He (Andrew) first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, we have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ” - John i:41, “The woman saith unto Him, I know that Messiah cometh, which is called Christ: when He is come, He will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he” - John iv:25.
Messiah and Christ are here given as equivalent, the one from the Hebrew, and the other from the Greek, both expressive of the idea conveyed by the word anointed.
Turning to Daniel ix., we see that from the going forth of the commandment [rather word or degree], to rebuild Jerusalem [Jehovah’s words echoed by the Persian Monarch], unto the Messiah, the Prince, “shall be seven weeks and three score and two weeks.” Also after that period, “shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.” A full examination of this prophecy, and relative historical facts indicate that the end of the seventy weeks brings us to the justification of God (the everlasting righteousness), and the plenary remission of sins, the expiry of the sixty-nine weeks comes down to the appearance of Messiah, the Prince; who, midway in the seventieth week, is cut off, as a criminal, by a violent death, nor for His own sins, but for the sins of the world. The full establishment of the new covenant closed the last of the seventy weeks, filling the prophecy of Daniel as to “an Anointed One, a Prince.” That the R.V. substitutes anointed for Messiah amounts to nothing, as the Jewish mind would at once refer the phrase to their expected and promised deliverer as, distinctively, he must be a Prince and an anointed one (Messiah). It would be in their minds that in their dispensation only kings and priests were anointed. Saul was designated not merely an anointed, but “the LORD’S anointed.” (I Sam. xii:3,5; xxvi:9.) David, also, is “the LORD’S anointed.” (2 Sam. xxii:51; xxiii:1; 2 Chron. vi:42; Psalm xviii:50.) The anointing of Saul, David, and the kings accepted of God, did more than merely constitute them ordinary kings: they were thus set apart as theocratic rulers; representatives of Jehovah; and nothing less could the Jews of Daniel’s day expect, as to the foretold Anointed Prince. King Messiah.
“And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name JESUS: for it is he that shall save His people from their sins.” - (The Angel to Joseph, Matt. i:21.)
“And He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God shall give Him the throne of His father, David: and he shall reign over the house of Israel for ever, and of His Kingdom there shall be no end.” - (The Angel to Mary, Luke i:32-33.)
“And He said unto them - These are My words, which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, how that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the Psalms concerning me.” - (Jesus to the Apostles, Luke xxiv:44.)
“To Him bear all the Prophets witness.” - (Peter, Acts x:43.)
“The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” - (Rev. xix:10.)
“O JESUS! King most wonderful!
Thou conqueror renowned!
Thou sweetness most ineffable!
In whom all joys are found.

O JESUS! Light of all below!
Thou fount of life and fire!
Surpassing all the joys we know,
All that we can desire.”

That Messiah, the King, is both SON OF MAN and SON OF GOD, is affirmed with all possible emphasis, by Himself and by His apostles. Hence the confession of Peter - “Thou art THE Christ, THE Son of THE living God,” and the reply “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.” This confession was in answer to his own previous enquiry - “Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” and immediately, He claimed that Peter’s confession of Him, as the Son of God, came not from man, but directly from the heavenly Father. The Apostle to the Gentiles wrote - “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a called Apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God, which he promised afore by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David, according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” - Rom. i:1-4.
Or, better, as translated by M.E. Lard, “concerning his Son, who as to His flesh was born of the seed of David, but as to His pure spirit was determined by power to be the Son of God.” - Rom. i:1-4.
“THE SON OF THE MAN.” A self-chosen designation, was applied, by the Saviour to Himself, some eighty times, in each instance in the most emphatic form, as - “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of the Man hath not where to lay his head” - Matt. viii:20 - “But that ye may know, that the Son of Man hath power to forgive sins, (He saith to the sick of the palsy), I say unto thee, Arise,” - Mark ii:10. “Ye shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.” John i:51.
“Who is this Son of Man?” was asked by some who hear his speak of His approaching death. “We have heard,” they said, “out of the law - that Christ abideth for ever, and how sayest thou - The Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?” Their enquiry clearly indicated expectation of a Christ, who would never see death, and, therefore, one more than mortal. Jesus, however, did not answer their question, but the information, that they, unbelieving, asked for, was subsequently given by John, in order to the faith of those who seek truth. After recording their enquiry he adds - “But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him: that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? - John xii:37-38.
This quotation directly points to Isaiah liii: containing, it may be presumed, the most definite, complete, and ample description of the Son of Man (as the suffering Servant of Jehovah,) contained within the covers of the Bible. There the Evangelical Prophet, speaking as in the Gospel age, tells of the unbelief of the people; of their rejection of the “Report” of Him for whom they were looking, described Him as the root [or sprout] out of dry ground, the rejected of men, a man of sorrows, an acquaintance of grief, despised, bearing our griefs, carrying our sorrows, esteemed stricken of God, and afflicted, wounded for our transgressions, healing us by His stripes, brought as a lamb to the slaughter, His condemnation extorted, cut off by a violent death, making His grave with the wicked and with the rich, His soul having been made an offering for sin. Yet, [evidently and of necessity by resurrection to life, power and glory] seeing His seed [His saved race] prolonging His days, the pleasure of Jehovah prospering in His hands, satisfied in seeing of the travail of His soul, justifying may by His knowledge, having His portion with the great, and dividing the spoil with the strong, because He poured out His soul unto death, was numbered with transgressors, bore the sins of the many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Thus is answered the question - “Who is this Son of Man?” He is Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God, who died for our sins and rose again in order to our justification, who by this designation identifies Himself with MANKIND, as of our nature and race, verily and perfectly Man, (but not, therefore merely Man), the embodiment of humanity, its representative, the second Adam, the Lord from Heaven?
“The Christ, the Son of God.”
Paul, (taking the more exact rendering of Moses E. Lard) wrote - “Who, as to His flesh was born of the seed of David, but as to His pure spirit was determined by power to be the Son of God, by the resurrection of the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.” - Rom. i:3-4.
To this the translator adds - “To render with severe closeness, ‘Who came into being, as to His flesh, out of David’s seed.’ The verb ginomai denotes, not unoriginated being, as does eimi, but originated being. It denotes the act of becoming, or coming into existence. Ginomai is the word here used, hence the being or existence which it denotes is originated being. But this being, is predicated of Christ’s flesh only It is not affirmed of Him in His totality, or as to both His natures. As to His flesh only had he an origin.” - Commentary on Romans.
“The Son of God” is emphatic. In a lower sense, God has many sons. Here, however, we have not a son, but the Son - Son in the sense in which there is none other. Adam is called “Son of God;” there are sons of God by adoption; others to whom the word of God came, have been called sons of God. But if the Saviour, as shewn by the Apostle Paul, partook of the nature of his Father, as we partake of the nature of ours, then the phrase “Son of God” is applicable to Him, in a sense peculiar, and natural, involving Deity. It is to be remembered that the Saviour addressed Himself to those well qualified to understand Him and that they (the Jews), understood that by the phrase, “the Son of God,” He claimed equality with Jehovah. Hence, “They sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.” - John v:18.
But had their estimate of the import of this phrase, as applied to, and by Him, been wrong, how necessary and easy for Him to have corrected it. But not only did He not do so, but at once confirmed it, adding: “The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do, for what things soever He doeth these also doeth the Son likewise ... for as the Father raiseth the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom He will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father.”
Man, however exalted, cannot claim any such degree of honour. How could the creature be equal in honour to the Creator? Impossible for the merely human to be honoured as the Deity?
Again (John x.), the controversy is renewed. Here we learn that no man can pluck His sheep out of His Father’s hand, who is greater than all. But he adds, “Neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand. ... I and the Father are ONE.” Then the Jews would stone Him for blasphemy, saying - “Because that Thou, being a Man, maketh Thyself God.”
It is impossible, then, to doubt the meaning by them attached to the phrase “Son of God,” and certainly He did not repudiate that meaning. But when before Pilate how different! His words were wrongly applied, making His kingdom a rival to that of Cæsar. When questioned he at once repudiated the idea of a kingdom in opposition to Cæsar, declaring His kingdom not of this world, and so satisfying Pilate that the charge of treason could not be entertained. When brought before the High-priest, note the difference. When interrogated on His claim to Deity; His life hanging upon the reply; everything tended to make it proper and needful, if misunderstood, to correct the error. But His answer was a direct endorsement, and His death the result of His avowal of Divinity.
Having, by brief appeal to the New Testament, found One who is both “The Son of Man” and “The Son of God” - human and divine - and remembering that He had said that “All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me,” let us return to the Scriptures of the Old Institution to note a few of the “All things” concerning Him.
The Messianic idea was gradually unfolded. In the earliest time all was enwrapped in the “Seed of the Woman,” which should bruise the Serpent’s head. These blessings are promised for all nations, to be realized in the seed of Abraham. Later, a future Prophet and Lawgiver, “like unto Moses,” comes into view. Then, in the days of the Monarchy, a King, whose throne is glorious, whose dominion is world-wide and everlasting, becomes the great expectation of the nation. Nathan, addressing David, by command of Jehovah, said - “And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee [Me]: thy throne shall be established for ever.” - 2 Sam. vii:16. The promise led David, when nearing his dying hour, to exclaim - “The God of Israel said: The Rock of Israel spake to me: ‘There shall be One that ruleth over men righteously, that ruleth in the fear of God. He shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, a morning without clouds: when the tender grass springeth out of the earth, through clear shining after rain.’ Verily my house is not so with God: Yet He hath made me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure: for it is all my salvation and all my desire, although he maketh it not to grow.” - 2 Sam. xxiii: 3-5. R.V.
After David has fallen asleep, and Solomon had been gathered to his Fathers, when the Ezrahite sang of the covenant with David, at a time when the nation was severely chastised by their enemies, and seemingly likely to be overthrown. Taking up the promises of Jehovah, he speaks as from Him - “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant; thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations ... his seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven. ... Once have I sworn by my holiness, that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before men.” - Psalm lxxxix:4, 29, 35, 36. R.V.
Thus did Ethan rejoice in the glorious future at a time when he was compelled to add - “But thou hast cast off and rejected, thou hast been wroth with thine anointed. Thou hast made void the covenants. Thou hast profaned his crown by casting it to the ground, thou hast brought his strongholds to ruin,” adding, “How long, Lord? Wilt Thou hide Thyself for ever?”
Certainly these cited promises could not be fulfilled in any merely human occupant of David’s throne, in the earthly Jerusalem. The Messianic Psalms so indicate, as reference to a few instances will show: Psalm II is a prophetic vision of Jehovah enthroned, and of Messiah called to Universal dominion.
The peoples, with their rulers and kings, rage and vainly contemplate His overthrow, setting themselves against “the Lord and His anointed.” Displeasure and wrath overtake them, and the word of Jehovah stands - “Yet have I set My King upon My Holy hill of Zion.” The Messiah speaks - “I will declare the decree [i.e. the eternal immutable decree of Jehovah] the LORD hath said unto Me, ‘Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I shall give thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possessions.”
The Messianic application of this Psalm was common among the Jews, and sustained by quotations of inspired men. 1. In reference to the combined opposition of Jew and Gentile rulers to the cause of Christ. 2. In Paul’s address at Antioch. 3. In the introductory section of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Peter, on the first Pentecost after the death of the Saviour, addressed the assembled Jews, saying: “Ye men of Israel hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God among you to miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know; Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and fore-knowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death; because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.” - Acts ii:22-25.
David is then quoted, as telling his hope and joy, because, as he puts it, Jehovah “will not leave my soul in hell [hades] nor suffer thine holy one to see corruption.” Following this Peter continues, “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the Patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens; but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made this same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” - Acts ii:29-36.
Peter, addressing the lame man at the gate called Beautiful, who had asked alms of him and John, said - “Silver and gold have I none: but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk. ... Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk? The God of Abraham, and Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified His son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied Him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; .. and His name through faith in His name, hath made this man strong.” - Acts iii:
When brought before Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, they were asked - By what power, or by what name they had cured the lame man? “Peter filled with the Holy Ghost saith unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel ... Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone, which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved. .... What shall we do to these men? for that indeed, a notable miracle, hath been done by them is manifest to all them who dwell in Jerusalem: and we cannot deny it. ... And they commanded them not to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus. - Acts iv:
Paul and Barnabas, in their travels reached Antioch, and going into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, were asked to exhort the people. Paul accepted the invitation, and recalled the dealing of God with the people of Israel, their sojourn in the wilderness, His yielding to their request for a King by giving them Saul, after whose removal David became King - “Of this man’s seed hath God according to His promise raised unto Israel, a Saviour Jesus ... And though they found no cause of death in Him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain, and when they had fulfilled all that was written of Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a sepulchre. But God raised him from the dead: and He was seen many days of the, who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise, which was made unto the fathers God hath fulfilled the same unto us, their children, in that He hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art My Son, this day Have I begotten Thee. and as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, no more to return to corruption, He said on this wise. I will give you the sure mercies of David. wherefore, He saith also in another Psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy one to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep and was laid unto his fathers and saw corruption: But He whom God raised again, saw no corruption.” - Acts xiii:23-37.
Turning to the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is one specially addressed to Jews, dwelling upon the Priesthood of Christ, and drawing attention to the utterances of the Old Testament, we read, that God hath spoken in these days - “By His Son whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds: who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when he had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said He at any time, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee? ... But unto the Son He Saith, Thy throne, O God is for ever and ever! a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom.” - Hebrews i:2-8.
Thus, then, we have Jesus, the Son of God, raised from the dead, constituted both Lord (King) and Christ (Messiah, the Anointed), exalted to the right hand of the Father, a Prince and a Saviour; “that repentance and remission of sins should be preached to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem!” The grand Messianic Psalm closes with an urgent appeal, both to kings, judges, and the people - “Be wise now therefore, .. be instructed, .. serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and ye perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him!”

The King.
FROM AN UNPUBLISHED WORK.
LOOKING forward to, and placing himself as it were in the new and glorious, but then future age, when every trophy of war, and violence should become fuel for the fire, Isaiah, with his usual sublimity, exclaimed, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.” In relation to the same Royal Governor, the prophet says, “He shall not fail, nor be discouraged, till he has set judgment in the earth, and the isles shall wait for His law.” It is also written, “The Lord cometh with a strong hand, and His arm shall rule for Him,” - “Behold, His reward is with Him and his whole work is before Him,” - “I have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion,” - “Ask of Me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession,” - “Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool.”
To identify the Lord of lords and mark the period of His enthronement, is our present design. His person has been unmistakably pointed to by the Ancient of Days, not only on one occasion, but on many. “Fear not, Mary, you have found favour with God; and behold you shall conceive, and bear a son, whom you shall name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest, and the Lord will give Him the throne of David His father, and He shall reign over the house of Israel for ever - His reign shall never end.” Upon Mary urging an objection, the heavenly messenger continued - “The Holy Spirit will descend upon you and the power of the highest will overshadow you; therefore, the holy progeny shall be called the Son of God.” The Harbinger of the reign of heaven, having called attention to its immediate approach, introduced to the Jewish people their Messiah, and to humanity, the to-be-enthroned Son of God, and son of man. “Jesus, being baptized, no sooner arose out of the water, than the heavens opened to Him, and the Spirit of God appeared, descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him, while a voice from heaven proclaimed, ‘This is My Son the beloved, in whom I delight.” Entering at this time upon the work of selecting and instructing a little band, who, after His glorification, were to be seated on the legislative thrones of His kingdom, to fix, and to announce, its laws and ordinances, He conversed with one of them thus:- “Whom say ye, that I, the Son of Man, am? Peter answering, replied, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’” Jesus replying, said, “Flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, by my Father who is in heaven.” Passing numerous confirmatory events, manifestations of divine power, and cruel oppressions of self-loving rulers, we read that the assembly conducted Him to Pilate, “and accused Him, saying, We found this man perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, calling Himself Messiah the King.” The Pilate asking Him said, “Art thou the king of the Jews?” when Jesus answered, “You say right.” When they came to the place called Calvary, there they nailed him to a cross, and the malefactors also; one at His right hand, the other at His left. “And Jesus cried, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. They parted His garments by lot. While the people stood gazing, even their rulers joined them in ridiculing Him, and saying, This man saved others; let Him save Himself, if he be the Messiah, the elect of God. The soldiers likewise mocked Him, coming with vinegar and saying, If you be the King of the Jews save yourself. There was also an inscription placed over His head, in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. - ‘This is the King of the Jews.’ But the first day of the week, they went by day-break to the sepulchre, and found the stone rolled away, and the body of Jesus not there. While they were in perplexity on this account, behold two men stood by them in robes of dazzling brightness, and said, ‘Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen. Remember how He spoke to you before He left Galilee, saying, the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinners, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.’ After manifesting Himself subsequently to His resurrection, during forty days, not openly, but to his disciples, and having commanded them to remain in Jerusalem till he should endow them with power from on high. While they beheld, he was lifted up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. “Lift up your heads, O ye gates, even lift them up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in. Who is the King of Glory? The Lord of Hosts (the risen Jesus), He is the King of Glory!”
Having these and many other manifestations of the Messiah’s person, and numerous intimations of His exalted rule, as the occupant of David’s throne, we proceed in our search for equally clear information as to His glorification, or exaltation to The Throne of the Kingdom.
David, King of Israel, reigned over the seed of Abraham, according to the flesh, and established his throne in Jerusalem; and were it true that the fleshly Israel could now stand before God, as His exclusively accepted people, a throne in Jerusalem would certainly be that seat of authority, from which the rule over them continued to be exercised. The Israel of God, however, are no longer the children of the flesh - or, as Paul states it, “They, are not all Israel, who are of Israel - neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children.” And “they which are the children of the flesh, are not the children of God;” “For he is not a Jew, who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart - in the spirit, and not of the letter.” “For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh, but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem, which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem, which is above, is free, which is the mother of us all.” “Now, we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise. But, as then, he that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what saith the Scriptures? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman, shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” - Gal. iv:22-31. “For as many of you, as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male or female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” The time has come when men may worship God, not in Jerusalem only, but everywhere in spirit and in truth; and such worshippers from pole to pole, are the children of God. “Translated out of the kingdom of darkness, into that of God’s dear Son,” they, His subjects, He their King, the government is upon His shoulder, and all that David was to Israel of old, Jesus is to the Israel of faith - He bears rule over His “holy nation” and in this particular, is the antitype of David and occupies His throne.
The Jews rejected the Messiah on this very ground - He was to reign over a spiritual seed: they would have a King to lead to conquest after conquest, and the establishment of a worldly empire, which should outrival that of Rome in power and magnificence. The Apostle Peter, filled with the newly bestowed Spirit poured out as the Redeemer’s coronation gift, in His first sermon, proceeds to correct this error, and to announce the exaltation of Jesus to the throne of David.
“Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the Patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens; but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made this same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” - Acts ii:29-36.
Lord and King anointed - explicitly setting forth, by referring to the event as the fulfilment of the prediction, that the prophecy by David had then its full accomplishment, and that Messiah had, as His first exercise of regal authority from the throne of Israel, poured upon them the Holy Spirit. In accordance with which, Paul, in contrasting the law and the Gospel, wrote - “Now you are not come to a tangible mountain, which burned with fire, and to darkness, and to tempest, and to the sound of a trumpet, and to the voice of words. The hearers thereof, entreating that a word more might not be addressed to them; for they could not bear this threat, ‘Even if a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned! And so terrible was the appearance, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and tremble?’ But you are come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of messengers, to the general assembly and congregation of the first-born, who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the new institution, and the blood of sprinkling, which speaks better things than that of Abel. Take care that you refuse not Him who speaks, for if they did not escape who refused Him, who spake on earth, much more we shall not escape, who turn away from Him that speaks from heaven: whose voice then shook the earth, but now He has promised, saying, ‘Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also the heavens.’ Now this speech, ‘Yet once more,’ signifies the removing of the things, as of things which were constituted, that the things not shaken may remain. Wherefore, we having received a kingdom not shaken, let us have gratitude by which we may serve God acceptably, with reverence and religious fear.” The “once more” not being future when Paul penned those lines, but a quotation from Haggai, referring to the removal of the old dispensation - future when uttered by the prophet, but accomplished when cited by the apostle, and with the former text, fully setting forth, that, as Christians, we have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, having a King upon David’s throne to dispense richer blessings than ever flowed from his predecessor, and upon whose shoulder Isaiah predicted the government should be placed, and who is represented to us by John, as “He that hath THE KEY OF DAVID - He that openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth,” a symbol implying government, or kindly authority, as exhibited by Isaiah in relation to the removal of Shebna, “and it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah. And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder, so he shall open and none shall shut, and shut and none shall open.” Thus when Christ claims to have the key of the house of David, He has the same ruling power in David’s house, which the robe and key of Eliakim set forth. On this point, the inspired application of the second Psalm is also conclusive. The enemies of God are predicted in this Psalm, as setting themselves in opposition to the Lord’s Anointed, and the persecution of the Apostles is claimed as the fulfilment of the prediction; and the apostolic application sets forth Jesus as the anointed of God, seated upon His holy hill of Zion, the throne of David. The apostolic record reads, “And being dismissed, they came to their own company, and related all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them. And they when they heard it, lifted up their voice with one accord to God and said, ‘Lord, Thou art the God who didst make heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: who, by the mouth of Thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His anointed. For of a truth, against Thy Holy Son Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, have combined to do what Thy hand, and Thy counsel had before marked out.” In complete accordance is the apostolic view of the 110th Psalm - “The LORD said to my Lord, sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thy enemies Thy footstool.” Here Messiah is to sit at the right hand of the Father until His enemies are made His footstool, which the Apostle Paul defines as His reign.
To the Hebrews he wrote, “This Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool.” To the Corinthians he shows that the Redeemer now reigns, and will do so until his coming, when the dead shall be raised, and Messiah DELIVER UP the kingdom to the Father. “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order - Christ the first-fruits, afterwards they that are Christ’s at His coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power. For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.”
In answering the question, “When did Messiah begin to sway the sceptre of his kingdom?” we accept the language of a contemporary. “When the LORD called Him to His right hand, there to sit till He should make His enemies His footstool.” In fact, what the Psalmist expresses by “sitting” at God’s right hand, the apostle reads as if it had been reign there (just translating the one term by the other, as its proper equivalent,) and reigning not in another’s right, but in His own - not on another’s throne, but His own; for the enemies to be put down are represented as His enemies, and as such, are to be “put under His feet,” or “made His footstool,” which would be quite unnatural, if the throne on which He was sitting, and the kingdom over which he was set, were not strictly His own. In the Psalm, the Father engages to do it for Him; while, from the Apostle’s point of view, Christ is seen doing it for Himself from His proper throne. The sense, however, is the same; for the power by which the thing is done, and the seat of authority from which it is done, are at once the Father’s and the Son’s. They are God’s in respect of their source and character, and they are the Mediator’s in respect of possession and administration. The faithfulness of God to David is manifest. The perpetuity of His seed to reign over Israel was promised, and just before the fall of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, the sins of Judah had filled their measure. Zedekiah was then on the throne of David, and the Lord said unto him by Ezekiel, “Thou profane wicked Prince of Israel, whose day is come, iniquity shall have an end. Thus saith the Lord God, Remove the diadem and take off the crown; this (Zedekiah) shall not be the same (son of David promised). Exalt Him that is low (Jesus), and abase him that is high (dethrone Zedekiah): I will overturn, overturn, overturn it (the crown or throne of David), and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is, and I will give it him.” - Ezekiel xxi:26-27.
Accordingly Zedekiah was cast down, Jerusalem became as a ploughed field, and the people were carried into captivity. Jesus came to His own people, and they received Him not; but God graciously constituted the believers in Him the seed of Abraham, and He “whose right it is” having thus come, He was exalted to the throne of David - that is, to the seat of rule over David’s newly constituted seed - a Prince and a Saviour, to bestow repentance and remission of sins.
That the seat of the Redeemer’s elevation should be at once the throne of God, of Jesus, and of David, is in no wise objectionable, as seen by the above examination, and also by other portions of the Word. It is the throne of GOD in respect of source and character - the throne of MESSIAH as respects possession and administration, (differing in the nature and objects of the rule, which from thence He exercises) - a mediatorial exaltation to the headship of His redeemed, - and the throne of DAVID, as the seat of rule over the Israel of God, the one throne of the eternal state being also exhibited in Revelation xxii. as the throne of God and the Lamb. Glory, honour, praise and power, be unto the Lamb for ever!

What think ye of Christ?
EVANGELIST: - Well, gentlemen, seeing you are numerous, I can only hear you severally, and briefly reply to each.
MR. REASON: - As I have often said, there are two Christs - the one meek, kind, and good - the other with qualities the very reverse. As we know nothing of the true history of any Christ, or whether one ever existed, I take the New Testament to be a made up affair, and the contrariety in the character of Christ, as a sufficient reason for rejecting it, and for depriving Him of all value as a model man.
EVANGELIST: - You must remember, Sir, that Christ is reported to us as one “who needed not that any should testify of man, for He knew what was in man,” and that He could and did speak in strains of deep sympathy or stern reproof, as circumstances demanded. Not an instance can be found in which Christ condemned a virtuous action, repressed a work of goodness, prohibited a noble aspiration, or failed in a proper case, to manifest compassion. At all times he was the unyielding foe of lust and oppression. Christ was ever gentle to the humble whether virtuous or erring; and ever indignant with the hypocrite. This, sir, we take as a manifestation of the perfection of His character.
MR. NEOL: - Not to say anything upon the point to which you have replied, I must observe that the existence of Christ is not proved. I see in His character an embodiment of the good for which humanity pants, and I presume the gospel history to have been written in order to present in the most powerful manner, a model life. the deeds of goodness I accept - the miraculous and fabulous I refuse.
EVANGELIST: - The position just submitted would demand considerable notice, but for the fact that it has often been demolished. Mr. Neol must be acquainted with the refutation, and passed it without notice. In a word, the vast and early progress of Christianity is the refutation. There is abounding evidence, “that many professing to be witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in dangers and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of them, and from the same motives submitted to new rules of conduct. These miracles were sensible, public, numerous - none could be mistaken in regard to them. Those who affirm themselves witnesses were truly so, or they intended to deceive. The latter could not have been, as the obvious consequence of their affirmation was worldly loss in every respect, often not excepting even life. If intentionally deceivers, they could not have been sustained by any hope of future glory. Supported by a knowledge of the miracles of Jesus, including the resurrection, all was easy otherwise impossible.”
REV. MR. FORST: - As pastor of a Free Christian Church, I do not profess to hold with the gentleman who has just spoken; I cannot accept the Jewish fancies of the Apostles. I have no sympathy with orthodox interpretations, because they “give to the church a second God - advance a mere man, chosen to be a divine messenger, to a participation in the nature, attributes, and worship of the only true God. I hold Christ to have been gifted with the Spirit without measure, and consequently take Him with full confidence as my teacher, repudiating the miraculous conception, and such like errors.
EVANGELIST: - This gentleman who presents himself as a supporter of Christianity, is not less its enemy than the former speakers. He professes to receive Christ as His teacher, and repudiates the only authorities through whom he can know anything of His teaching - he rejects the Apostles, and has not a word from Christ, which does not come from them - he claims to submit to Jesus, and though Jesus commissioned the Apostles, saying, “Whoso heareth you, heareth Me,” he rejects both Jesus and the Apostles, by designating their teachings, “Jewish fancies.” On a former occasion, our Rev. Friend cited the testimony of Matthew, as would the Secularists, saying “As Matthew, or some one else said for him,” and finished his avowal of “Free Christianity”, which means Infidelity, by denying the miraculous conception, and affirming Christ a mere man: and this while professing to take Him as a perfect teacher, knowing that He had said, “I came down from heaven,” and asked to be glorified with the glory He had with the Father before the world was! I protest against such profession of Christianity - let such men go to their own company. In the mean time we say –
MR. ORTHO: - Before you say more, let me speak. I admit I am out of order - but I cannot longer contain myself - I have not patience with such people, and I am bound in honesty to say that I do not consider you, Mr. Evangelist, much better. I happen, Sir, to know you - have heard you preach - read your writings - seen the books you value - and in fact, Sir, denounce you as heterodox. You repudiate the Trinity, deny the eternal Sonship and Godhead of Jesus, object to the divinity of the Saviour, and cast aside, as the language of Ashdod, the good old phrases in which the things of God have been expressed by the orthodox in every age. I, Sir, - but I cannot say more, for my feelings overcome me.
EVANGELIST: - Mr. Ortho having brought himself to a stand, I may be permitted to finish my reply to Mr. Forst, and having new points raised by the remarks just concluded, I will endeavour to please both gentlemen by the New Testament answer to the question, “What think ye of Christ?” admitting that I do reject much of the venerated terminology of the schools and that simply because the Apostles used more correct language. The great truth of the Christian religion announced from the Excellent Glory, confessed by Peter, accepted by the Messiah, is that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” When, however, we are required to define or express this proposition in the language of Mr. Ortho, or to accept Mr. Forst’s definition as sufficient, we decline, simply because the apostles repudiate both. Jesus is the Son of God - not a son, as is the Christian by adoption - but “the only begotten Son” of the Father, full of grace and truth. Not the son of Joseph, but born of the Virgin - the Son of the Living God.
MR. SOCIN: - Let me congratulate you, Sir, on your manly rejection of the barbarous terminology of Mr. Ortho; also upon your rejection of Mr. Forst’s theory, which rejects the miraculous conception, and in fact, dishonours Mary, inasmuch as Joseph plainly denied all knowledge in regard to her condition, and was minded to put her away. The truth is, Sir, as you say - Jesus is the son of the living God - not of Joseph, or of any other person - not by adoption, but by miraculous conception. In thus speaking, you will not understand me as going to the extravagant length of asserting any previous connection between the Eternal God and His ever glorious Son, to whom He has given a name above every name.
EVANGELIST: - Mr. Socin closed in upon me too quickly, as I had not completed my notice of the two former gentlemen. I may, however, now add, that his attempt to glorify the Saviour is mere sound, and that in fact he makes him less the Son of God than was our common father Adam; for if the birth of Jesus, irrespective of the agency of a human father, but from the womb of the Virgin, entitles him to be called the Son of God, merely on account of the miracle, much more would be the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth, by the same Almighty power, and without either father or mother, entitle him to be called the Son of God pre-eminently. While, however, Luke writes “Cainan, son of Enos, son of Seth, son of Adam, son of God.” Paul designates the first Adam, as “of the earth, earthy, and the second Adam, the Lord from heaven.” While, then, we speak not of an Eternal Son, but of Jesus as the Son of God, we believe that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. And the Word was God.” “All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.” “In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.” “And the Word was made flesh and sojourned among us, and we beheld His glory, as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” - John i:14. Hence we are commanded to let that mind be in us, “which was in Christ Jesus, who though He was in the form of God, did not affect to appear in divine majesty, but divested Himself, taking upon Himself the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, humbled Himself, and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross.”
Gentlemen! I will only add, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men - after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, for in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead bodily, and (the church) is complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.” - Col. ii.
This title was sometimes objected to as calculated to diminish the abhorrence with which sin should ever be regarded. On this account, emendation of the title was suggested. But as the title exactly expressed the lecturer’s meaning, he preferred it to any other. Whatever might be the impression made on the mind by the title alone; or only accompanied by a brief and inaccurate report of the address, whoever reads the lecture as here fully set forth may have his sense of the unqualified malignity of sin increased, but cannot have it diminished; for Mr. King was at great pains to safeguard his statement, and to show that his teaching did not in any degree involve an apology for sin. The object of this note, is to warn the reader not to draw conclusions from the title, but to read the lecture carefully throughout, and in thus setting up an additional safeguard, we believe we are doing what would have had Mr. King’s complete approval.

God and Evil, or the Ultimate Utility of Sin.*
WHEREIN in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the Prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience; among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love, wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved); and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. That in the ages to come He might shew the exceeding riches of His grace, in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.” - Ephesians ii:2-7. “Nevertheless, we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” - 2 Peter iii:13. THE title of this lecture was not at all intended for sensation, but as announcing a topic the non-understanding of which lies at the root of most of the honest scepticism of the day. A friend, after preaching, was waited upon by one of his hearers, a conscientious sceptic, who asked him, - “Why, if God is infinitely good, wise, and powerful, did He not so create and place man as to avoid the long dark age of moral evil?” The answer given to the enquirer was, that the preacher would tell him something far better - that was, how he and all sinners might be saved from the consequences of sin. That was not a satisfactory answer; the question was a reasonable one, and the answer was clearly to be found in the Bible.
The question thus presented, led to the consideration of the subject more fully; and in endeavouring to answer it, I will state a few propositions as briefly as possible: -
1. Sin, or moral evil, exists over the known world.
2. Sin is not a lesser good, but a malignant and deadly thing, which God and good men hate.
3. Sin was not always, and will not continue for ever.
4. Sin was not of God’s creating, was never sanctioned by Him, but was a result of man’s free agency - God did not create a sinner.
5. Sin was not an unprovided for result, therefore not unexpected, as the Bible shows that the scheme of redemption was planned from the foundation of the world.
6. God has suffered sin for a good purpose - though God has not sanctioned sin, He has suffered it, having foreseen it; consequently, He must have suffered it for a good purpose, for a bad purpose, or without any purpose at all.
The last is impossible, for, as even among men to act without a purpose is considered a sign of mental weakness, the Infinite Intelligence could not act thus. He could not have acted from a bad purpose, as, in that case, He would have been a demon and not God, evil and not good. It therefore only remains, that His plan admitted of a period of moral evil for some good purpose. Thus we are enabled to hold the Ultimate Utility of Sin.
7. God’s good purpose will ultimately be attained.
8. God’s provision for the attainment of His gracious end, is indispensable.
9. The good to be brought out of sin, does not lessen its criminality and hateful character.
10. The Bible describes the good result to be secured through God permitting and overruling sin.
11. The suffering is light in comparison with the glory to be realized.
12. Why this good result was not introduced at once:
(1) because man being a free-agent must be permitted to sin if he desired, and the good result must be attained without destroying his free-agency;
(2) because man could not be rendered secure against sin, except by gaining such knowledge of sin and God as experience of sin, and of redemption alone could give him.
This is the outline of the argument; we may now more closely examine each proposition.
1. Our first proposition (not to be disputed) is, that there is no country, no clime, where man is, but you find what is variously named wrong, sin, moral evil.
We have been told that human nature has in itself guarantees of morality. But I presume that we shall at once consent to the statement that sin, or moral evil, exists over the entire world. The guarantees, then, that exist in human nature are worthless.
How did evil enter the mind and degrade the character of the first man? If there were guarantees of morality in human nature and intelligence, how comes it that they failed - that vice and impurity ever deformed or ruined humanity? We have to deal with the plain fact, that evil is present in the world. “Human nature and intelligence” have been long enough in the world to test their capabilities, yet the world is groaning under its load of oppression, wickedness and ruin.
2. Sin is not a lesser good, but a malignant and deadly thing, which God and good men hate.
There are some who have said that moral evil is not bad in itself, that it is only a lesser good. Now this must at once be dismissed as utterly groundless. We wish you to bear in mind, that we declare sin to be, not a lesser good, but a NO good at all, a malignant and deadly thing, which God and good men hate. Thus then we are not about to tolerate, or apologize for sin, or to represent it as being in itself a good, but to place the stamp of deepest reprobation upon it.
3. Sin was not always, and will not continue for ever.
In the third place, we have to notice, that sin was not always. I am speaking of man, of our earth, our world, I need not go beyond that. I think I have the universal assent of my hearers, because it is admitted that man was not always here. The earth was not fitted to accommodate him, it was in such a state that man could not exist upon it. Therefore there was a beginning - a first sin, the being must have been in the world before the sinner. Man must have existed without sin, because he must have lived before he acted. It is certain that there was a period - whether of years, months, weeks or days - when sin was not; a period when man did not violate the laws of God. Sin was not always, and it will not always continue. I speak of sin as it is presented to us in the Bible; according to God’s scheme, sin simply endures for a time, being permitted by God for a good purpose. God’s wisdom will triumph over the bad purpose of transgressors, and the time will come, when sin will cease, and we shall have a glorified race without sin, sorrow, suffering, or death. Sin had its birth, it will also have its funeral.
4. Sin was not of God’s creating, was never sanctioned by Him, but was a result of man’s free agency - God did not create a sinner.
God created man, and man became a sinner. God made man upright - able to stand, but free to fall. He looked on all His work of creation, and saw that it was very good. Man could obey; or he could disobey, and take the consequences of his disobedience. God never sanctioned sin. He merely suffered it. There is a broad distinction between these two. Had God sanctioned sin, He would share the responsibility and the blame. But though he disapproved of sin, He suffered it; to have prevented it, He must have destroyed man’s free-agency. Sin came; suffering and death resulted from man’s free-agency.
Had God made a machine instead of a man; had He constituted man as we construct a watch or a steam-engine, then sin would have been prevented. Your locomotives and watches do not sin against you. These perform their varied requirements according to their construction. Consequently you never praise your watch because it keeps good time; that is to say, you never speak of it, as if it had a will in the matter. There are some persons who say that man just did what he was compelled to do; that he is wholly a creature of circumstances; that he could not do other than he did. This amounts to a declaration that he is not amenable to praise or blame, even if he were a liar, a thief, or a murderer; but we do not find these persons acting upon the conclusion, which logically follows from that argument; they do praise and blame.
We are reminded of one of Zeno’s slaves. Zeno was a necessitarian, and his slaves knew that their master taught that all human actions were compulsory. A slave caught stealing some of his master’s property, pleaded that he could not help it, he was predestined to steal the things. “You were,” said Zeno, “but I was predestined to have you flogged for doing it.” The philosophy of those people breaks down when they come to apply it. They do not attempt to carry out their principles, they teach that nobody is a free agent, no one is subject to praise and blame, thus destroying all distinction between vice and virtue. You cannot blame or punish a person for doing what he could not help doing. Hence were these principles carried out, all the checks to vice would be removed, lawlessness would reign supreme, and the foundations of all government and society would be taken away. Such a logical issue shows the falsity of the theory.
5. Sin, we have said, was not of God’s creating; but a result of man’s free agency; yet it was not an unprovided for result.
Some who do not believe the Bible, may think this statement of the relation of God and evil not complete, if we did not admit that, though God did not create sin, He knew that sin would ensue, He created man, understanding the results which have been realized. We readily admit this. The perfection of God’s knowledge implies that He must have foreseen sin. There is nothing in such foreknowledge of sin, that is inconsistent with disapproval and hatred of it.
The breaking out of sin in the world, was not a failure in the working out of God’s plan. The Bible speaks of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world; and declares Him to have been slain from the foundation of the world; that is to say, - in the Divine intention, the sacrifice for sin was provided before man was created, though not so slain till the days of the Roman Cæsar. We are then to understand by the statement - “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,” that such was the purpose and plan of God from the creation period. And that purposed fact stands out as the centre of the glorious scheme of Redemption. Therefore we say that sin was not created by God, has not been sanctioned by Him, yet was not an unprovided-for result.
6. God has suffered sin for a good purpose.
I may now advance to an important and very reasonable enquiry, pressed upon us by sceptical friends, in this way - they say, “God is represented by Christians, as infinitely good, and infinitely powerful. If that be true, he would have created man unable to sin, and thus have saved the world from these ages of sin, suffering, and death; for, if thus WISE, He would have been able to devise the plan; if thus GOOD, He would have desired it; and if thus OMNIPOTENT, He would have been able to put into execution the plan His wisdom devised, and His goodness must approve. We then demand to know - why God has suffered sins or moral evil to prevail?
This question I answer directly under 12; but we must first attend to some helpful truths, bearing only less fully on the enquiry.
7. God’s good purpose will ultimately be realized.
We cannot think that God suffered sin without a reason, good or bad, nor for a bad purpose. If God suffered sin for a good purpose, depend upon it that purpose will be realized. God can afford to wait. It took a long time for the acorn to become an oak. It tool a long time to bring this earth into that condition in which it was when man first trod its surface. Those creative days were vast epochs and the age of man on earth, was as nothing compared with them. Between the writing of the earliest book of the Old Testament, to the last of the New Testament, a vast period of time elapsed. It took a very long time to prepare that one Book, which was to work out the salvation of our race. God was not in a hurry, it was not needful that He should be; and although it might please Him, for a gracious and wise purpose, to allow a night of evil, long and dark, depend upon it, that purpose will be fully realized, and God will have the victory over evil.
8. God’s provision for the attainment of His purpose, is indispensable. We say, then, that God has suffered sin, with a view to its ultimate Utility, and in this has manifested the greatness of His love by suffering that to exist, without which the gift of Christ would not have been necessary. It was in view of His determination to suffer sin to exist, that the plan of Redemption was wrought out.
Wherever Christ’s religion has been fully understood, and consistently reduced to practice, it has reformed and blessed humanity; despotism has been discrowned in its presence; hypocrisy and deceit have been unmasked and chastised. Be it remembered, too, that Christianity found evil in the world; its mission, therefore, has been destructive as well as constructive. Human nature did not find evil in the world; it were absurd to say that it did. Since its advent, human nature has brought into being the very evil which Secularists declare it has the power of removing! This is equal to saying to the suicide, thou hast slain thyself and must restore thyself to life, or be for ever dead; instead of saying that the restorative power must come from without, even from the supernatural - the divine.
Secularists are left to show that the self-destroyed can be self-saved; to prove that as human nature induced evil, so human nature has within itself, the power to heal every moral malady, and to rectify its position in relation to the entire universe of the good and glorious. We confess our inability to see how moral self-destruction and self-salvation are reconcilable, either with Scripture or with Philosophy. To our ear, there is sublime music in the divine proclamation, “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in ME is thy help.” - Hosea xiii:2.
The words pierce the depths of our spiritual nature, and awaken the most grateful response. Moral help is purely objective, appealing, doubtless, to our own sense of subjective insufficiency, and claiming experience, as its tester and judge.
9. The good to be brought out of sin, does not lessen its criminality and hateful character.
At this point, we may be met with the objection, that if God suffered sin, because He could and would bring some great and blessed results out of it, sin could not be the abominable thing, which it is said to be, and ought to be looked upon with some degree of toleration. I can at once anticipate a reply of this kind: - “Well, Sir, if God has suffered sin on the ground of Ultimate Utility, then, as a matter of course, since is not censurable, at least it may be looked upon with some degree of allowance, it is more respectable, than we were formerly induced to think.” Let us take an illustration, showing the fallacy of this reasoning. Suppose a man living in an ill-ventilated and badly-drained house, the result being a sickly wife, his dearly loved children dying around him year after year, and his own health greatly impaired and enfeebled. After a time, an enemy determines, on the ground of some fancied wrong, to destroy the premises by fire and does so. The owner and his wife escape; but some £800 worth of property is destroyed. Having gone into a new house, in first rate sanitary condition, they come in after years, to see that the loss of the former home and property, has led to the blessing of renewed health for themselves and their rising family, promising to bless their declining years; they freely express their sense of the good thus acquired. But later on the incendiary is discovered, tried, and found guilty. The judge asks why the sentence of the law should not be executed upon him. In reply, he objects to punishment on the ground that he has not done a bad thing, but a good thing, for the owner of the destroyed property had been heard to thank God for the blessings which had followed. Would the judge say, “Go your way?” What would the law say by the mouth of the Judge? Surely in substance thus: - “The prisoner at the bar has violated the law of his country, and committed a base and revengeful act. Good has been brought out of evil; but no thanks to him! The good was not of his intention, the sentence must be carried out.” I say such a conclusion is perfectly correct. No one would for a moment think that the crime was in any sense to be tolerated, because, contrary to his design, and beyond his contemplation, good was brought out of the evil. The analogy between the two cases is complete.
If God brought good out of evil, no man could sin to serve Him. Whatever ultimate glory to God and good to man, the Divine being may bring out of moral evil, those who violate the law of God, who are perpetrators of evil, cannot have it credited to their account. Their folly and wrong are not less malignant on that ground. God should have the glory of all the good His wisdom and goodness accomplished, but man stands just as guilty and as worthy of condemnation, as though God has never overruled evil for good at all.
10. The Bible describes, literally and figuratively, the good ultimately to be realized.
Now, as to the ultimate purpose of God in creation. We have read from the last chapter of Peter, that we expect a new heaven and a new earth in which righteousness shall dwell. That chapter informs us - “That the day of the Lord will come ... in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein shall be burned up, .. the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat. Nevertheless, we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”
When you look at the last two chapters in Revelation, you find a picture (symbolical of course) of the eternal state of glory. And you read - “Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”
Here then, we have God’s great purpose stretching from the creation to the new heavens and new earth, not stained with footprints of sin - the purpose to bring about a condition of the highest blessing possible, which should endure for ever.
11. The suffering is light in comparison with the glory - the good result - to which it is made to lead.
I would like you here to look into Paul’s state of mind when contemplating the tremendous afflictions he had passed through - stoned, and left for dead, in hunger and thirst, a life of suffering. What said he? When he weighed it up in comparison with the future which would result from his faithfulness to God, he concludes - “For our light affliction” - (what made it light, very light?) - “which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.” - 2 Cor. iv:17,18.
You are not prepared to do justice to this unless you can do so on the basis of belief in the Bible. If there is the future of which we have been speaking, an eternity of glory and happiness of which you may be the recipient in that state - (Mark you! enhanced by the right using of the cares and trials of this world!), what are the three-score years of man in compare with that eternal future? If by suffering here, you have a future never, never ending, which cannot be intensified in its bliss and glory - if you can have this, man’s little span of life will be looked back upon as dust in the balance.
12. Why this great good was not realized apart from sin and suffering. The question comes from the sceptical objector - “Well, after all, that is a very pleasing picture; but if God designed in the end, to bring about all this unmixed good, tell us why he did not create man unable to sin, which would have prevented this intervening period of evil, and placed him at once in the possession of the blessedness designed for him?”
(1) Man’s free-agency must not be destroyed. In answering this question, we say, first, that there is a line between God’s works and man’s, which it is very necessary to have marked out - a line not merely indicating difference of degree, but of kind. For instance, I have already referred to a locomotive engine - a noble invention. It runs from station to station. It answers admirably the purpose for which it was made. It goes fast or slow, just as required; but it does it exactly according to the will of another, not according to its own will - it is not voluntary service.
Now, God is a great Creator in that line: for instance, look at the solar system, the earth, and all the other planets, and the great sun - their centre. Just as the locomotive engine does, so do they. They work according to necessary laws. The sun never exercises a will, as to whether it shall shine. The heavenly bodies may be looked upon as the wheels of a watch, they move as some master mind determined they should - no voluntary service, no grateful action - doing nothing from love - nothing to call forth our gratitude. We are not grateful to the watch, to the steam-engine, to the sun, to the earth. If we are to express gratitude at all, it is to the maker of the watch; to the inventor of the engine; to the Creator of the universe, not to the objects made. We say, then, in this particular line, God is a great Creator! The steam-engine and the Solar system are alike in kind, but different in magnitude and degree.
When we speak of the Omnipotence of God, are we to be understood as meaning that God can do things which are absolutely contradictory?
Unquestionably not. God is a God of truth, and cannot lie. In physical things He cannot create two hills without a valley between. He cannot create a circle without a centre, circumference, diameter. He cannot move a table by argument or persuasion; it must cease to be wood or iron before it can be moved by an argument. This is not irreverent, but in harmony with the Bible. But the questioner still asks - “Why was not man made unable to sin?” Because, in that case, he would not have been man. If wood could be influenced by argument, it would have been of our nature, and not wood. The power to sin, or to forbear to sin, is essential to the very idea of man. Man is a free agent, and so long as God allowed him to exist, He must deal with him according to the nature that was given to him. In man we have a work of God’s, which differed from his other works in nature, not only in degree, but also in kind.
If God, then, would manifest all His power and glory, and create moral happiness in His universe, it was needful to create beings who could render Him voluntary service.
I see in that poor woman, who inhabits a miserable garret, and who is devoted to God, and truth, and virtue; and who, perhaps, is there with her bitter suffering, because she would not allow herself to be carried into the darkness of sin; who, in the midst of her privations can say with the Apostles - “I love Him, because He first loved me” - I see in this woman’s loving gratitude to God, a service of a higher kind than I see in the works of God in creation. She gives voluntary service, and we see in her what cannot be seen in the Solar system, or in all the creations of God in the universe. She is a free agent, a reasonable being, who might expect by-and-bye to be praised or blamed, rewarded or punished, according to her submission to the will of her Creator, according to her good or ill doing. It was, then, necessary that man should be created able to understand, to obey, or to disobey, the law of God. If man had been like a steam-engine, and put into a state of glory without any power of will, he could not have enjoyed what otherwise he would have enjoyed. Take a beggar from the street, bring him into a palace, and surround him with luxuries. No doubt he would enjoy the change. But let him distinctly know that he must stay there, and the palace would become to him a prison. Unquestionably his happiness would be destroyed, or considerably reduced.
We say, then, not only that God’s glory required a willing submission, but that man’s happiness also required it. Hence, man must be made free. If he desire to sin, he must be permitted to do so, his free-agency must not be destroyed. He must be allowed an experience of sin, and of God’s love in rescuing him from its consequences, until the time comes, however long it be in coming, that though still able to sin, he no longer desires to do so. Further, the full enjoyment and appreciation of the blessedness which God has provided, is dependent upon the knowledge of sin, pain, and death; dependent upon the knowledge of good and evil, upon knowing God. For instance, find me a man who has never experienced physical pain. Will that man appreciate his freedom from pain as completely as those who know what acute suffering is, when delivered therefrom? Unquestionably not. I stood by the bedside of a poor man, dying; a family unprovided for. He was not at all a selfish man. He described the agony he endured, night and day. He said - “If I had just £500 in the world (being to such a man a fortune), I would freely give it for a single hour of quiet ease.”
The future, in its absence of pain, then, will be to us not a mere enjoyment of life, but enjoyment intensified by the knowledge of what has been passed through.
(2) I remark also that the completeness of the bliss, especially the certainty that, though free, we shall not end it by sinning, depends upon our knowing God, and knowing Good and Evil, through the history and experience of sin and redemption.
God created our first parents, and placed them in a garden of delight. Everything they could enjoy was there; but they had not the knowledge of good and evil. You may ask - how it was that they violated the divine law? It was because they knew not God. Not know God! Why you Christian people do not know God so well as Adam did; you have never seen Him. Did He not talk to Adam in the garden? Did not Adam hear His voice? Yes. But Adam knew not God. I met a man in the street here, I shook hands with him, but I do not know him. I saw an outward form, but I know not the man. To know him, I must know his character. Would I take that man into my house and make him my intimate friend? There may be very strong objections to his character. I do not know him.
Suppose I take a perishing child out of the street, and that I am owner of a vast estate. I make this child my heir. He is very grateful and obedient. But some person gets hold of that child and says - “You think the person, who is bringing you up, is a very good man! Yes. Do you know that the estate is not really his? You do not happen to know that he is keeping you out of what you are truly entitled to; that he is pretending to do you good. If you had your right, you would be just what he is.”
The result would be that the love of the child for his benefactor is gone, his gratitude is annihilated. He does not know me sufficiently to refuse belief in the tale. He will not regard me as he used, he will rebel against the laws of my establishment whenever he pleases.
This is the form the temptation took with the first human pair. I care not to what source you ascribe that temptation; as coming from a being who had previously fallen, or from man himself.
“We shall die if we eat.” “Die!” the answer is - “You shall not die. That is a lie on the part of God. Not only shall you not die, but the fruit is alone necessary to make you like God. Eat, then, and become as gods!! He is keeping you from sharing His own glory. He is not your friend, but your enemy. He is not blessing you with bounty, but robbing you.” The command is disregarded, and the first law of God is broken. Then, mark you - man came to know evil as well as good, consequent upon rebellion against God. Whom does man now find as his friend?
For him God gave forth a promise of mercy; for him God suffered in the person of His Son; for him was God robbed of His glory; and for him God took upon Himself the form of a servant that He might reconcile man to God; thus God becomes the friend of man. Thus is the loving heart always open to His creatures! And so, when finally delivered from suffering and death, the reconciled stand on the morning of the resurrection, having entered into the glories of the heavenly Jerusalem, where sin and misery can have no place; what, then, will be the security that the regenerated will maintain that position? Here it is - “This is eternal life to know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.”
What will bind them there?

The Knowledge of God.
The first pair sinned in Eden because they knew not God. The old temptation would not avail when God was known, hence God will realize His purpose, and bring out of man’s evil and sin an ultimate good, and by His overruling grace and power secure the Ultimate Utility of Sin, without lessening man’s guilt.
To perpetuate his blessedness in the highest degree, it was necessary that God should suffer His Son to go forth, revealing mercy in the unspeakableness of His love, pointing man to holiness, to virtue, and to God.
Man, saved through Christ, would still and for ever be able to stand, yet free to fall. He would not fall in the great eternity, not because he could not sin, but because he would not. His service would be freely, willingly, lovingly, rendered. And so God would display divine love, conquer sin, destroy evil, and establish the new heavens and the new earth, in which “righteousness shall dwell for evermore.”
Oh! God, Thou source of all; Thou Creator of all; we thank Thee that Thou didst create man, knowing the course that he would take, and that Thou didst suffer evil, that the issue might be the highest possible blessedness to the largest possible number, ages without end! Glory to God in the Highest!
By way of change, after the mental effort called for by general views and principles, a few pieces are here inserted of a different kind. When addressing the church on a Lord’s-day-morning, or at the week-night meeting, Mr. King often dwelt in an expository and meditative way on a portion of Scripture. On such occasions, there was a delicacy of touch and an expression of feeling and sentiment, which his more intellectual efforts did not permit.

The Beauty of the Lord.*
“Let the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us.” - Psalm xc:17.
THE “Beauty of the Lord” is a phrase comparatively unused in our Scriptures. Indeed, I only remember some two occurrences of it. In the verse quoted it most likely occurs in a restricted acceptation, which the context may suggest. Into that, however, we need not now enquire, let us endeavour rather to think of the beauty of Jehovah in its all-comprehensiveness.
We speak much of the Grace of God, and in so speaking do well, for we can indeed exclaim -
“Who is a pardoning God like thee,
And who hath grace so rich and free?”

We speak of the Love of God, and that, also, is well, for
“God is Love - His mercy brightens
All the path in which we roam.”

The Righteousness of God, also, calls forth our loud acclaim. But it appears to me, that the Grace, the Love, the Righteousness of God, are but parts of His perfectness, and may all be included in the brief phrase - “The Beauty of the Lord” - the Loveliness of our God. The Beauty of Jehovah is perfect, and all real beauty, in beings and things, is derived from Him, and is but the seen, partial reflection of the unseen and absolute perfection. How varied and wonderful are the beauties of Art! But every beautiful work existed first in thought. The artist, or the designer, saw it when, as yet, it was not. But how surpassing are the beauties of Nature! Not only those that are open to the unaided eye, but all that telescope, microscope, and other appliances reveal. These, too, all existed first in thought; in the mind and purpose of the Creator - including every beauty of form and colour, and all combinations thereof. All the beautiful in Nature, is but an outward manifestation of the Beauty of the Lord.
Then there is beauty in the region of morals, and that, too, appertains to the Beauty of our God. If we would have moral beauty, the Bible must be our standard of morals. Go where the Bible has not gone, and you find the moral code much lower than that of the Blessed Book. Go, even to people who profess to hold to the Bible, but who put other books on the same level, and you meet a lower moral standard. The Latter Day Saints add the Book of Mormon and other books, and a vile polygamy is the result. The so-called “New Church” people elevate to the level of Bible authority, certain of the works of Swedenborg, and concubinage ensues. But the Bible gives the progressive revelation of morals, reaching the perfection of moral beauty, in the life and doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ; wherein we behold, in that domain, the Beauty of the Jehovah - God manifest in the flesh. David says - “One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the House of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to enquire in His temple.” - Psalm xxvii:4.
This verse and the one first quoted bring out the two leading ideas, which present themselves to my mind in contemplating this theme. (1) Beholding the beauty of the Lord; (2) Having that beauty upon us.
But many are ready to say - “Don’t spend your Sunday in Church or Chapel, but hie away to meadow, park, or forest; feast upon the beauties of hill, dale, and stream; look through Nature up to Nature’s God, and thus behold the beauty of the Lord.” Such a looking up to God, through His works, in indeed good, but only so in its proper time and place. Put it into the time that the Lord has set apart for another purpose, and it becomes evil. At right times use it, but even then, remember that thus you can behold only the minor beauties of the Lord. You may be thus refreshed to look still higher, from another elevation, and that is all.
The Shepherd-King of Israel had the beauties of nature spread around him in amplitude and variety. Even as now seen, one writes - “The meadows were aglow with wheat and barley. Myriads of green figs, red pomegranates, and golden citrons. High up the slopes, vintages of purple grapes. Beneath the mulberry-trees and figs, shone daisies, poppies, lilies, tulips, anemones, endless in profusion, brilliant in dress.” The gorgeous display of nature’s profusion of beauty surrounding him was such as in this country our eyes can never behold. But did he exclaim, “One thing I desire, that I may gaze upon the face of Nature for ever, and behold the beauty of the Lord?” Not he! He knew better! His soul rose to the higher beauties, and he knew where to seek them. His expressed desire was that he might dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of his life, that thus, by enquiring in His temple, he might see more and more of the Divine beauty. And what was there to be seen? The Ark, the Mercy-seat, the Glory manifested, the High Priest, the Priesthood, the Lampstand, the Table, the Golden Altar, the varied sacrifices and offerings. Things of material beauty were there in abundance. But David’s longing would not be for continuous beholding of the externals, but, by contemplation, to penetrate to the inner realities, and to behold more and more of the beauty of the Lord, as unfolded in the types and shadows of redemption’s wondrous plan. He understood, that by enquiring in the temple, or tabernacle, the beauty he longed more fully to behold, would be opened to his view, and he desired there to abide all the days of his life. But the temple is gone, the types are withdrawn, and what have we? We have the Church of Christ - a holy temple, a habitation of God, through the Spirit. We have antitypes where David had but types; the substance where he had but the shadows. If we will look aright, we may behold the beauty of the Lord, in a blaze of glory he could never look upon. Let then his longing, to abide in the house of the Lord, be ours. Let us inquire continually in the temple of our God.
But to behold is not enough. The Psalmist said, “Let the Beauty of the Lord be upon us.” We have to wear it, to reflect it, that others may behold something of it, even without seeking, and be led to enter His temple for fuller insight. In the Christ the supreme glory is beheld, and Christians are persons who have put on Christ. “For ye are all the children of God by the faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. iii.) And to those who have thus put Him on, there is ever a call to a fuller covering; hence to the church it is said - “Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ”; also, “And we all with open face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord.”
Here, then, we have the ordinances of Divine appointment, through which, in special manner, the Holy Spirit helps us to behold the beauty of the Lord, that that beauty may be upon us, more and more, as days increase and as we are assimilated to the likeness of the Saviour.
Be it ours, then, to abide in the house of the Lord, all the days of our lives, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to enquire in His temple. Amen!

The Divine Beautifier.
“The Lord taketh pleasure in His people: He will beautify the meek with salvation.” - Psalm cxlix:4.
THE Psalm from which these words are taken is (in the Hebrew) without title and anonymous. Its brevity is favourable to a brief survey in order - 1. To note its original application, and - 2. To enquire as to the adaptability of the fourth verse to the Lord’s people of our own day.
Evidently the Psalm is one of triumph, consequent upon, or in anticipation of some great victory over the enemies of the Lord’s chosen people. It begins - “Praise ye the LORD [JEHOVAH]. Sing unto the LORD a new song, and His praise in the congregation of saints.”
Here it may be well to ask, “Who are these saints? Many answer - “The Saints are the Church of Christ, and the Psalm is Messianic.” Of this, however, there is no proof; nor does this “Congregation of Saints” point in any way to the disciples of the Lord Jesus.
Certain churches (Rome and our State Church), which have used the sword of the Civil Power in persecuting the true church, indicate a liking for the “two-edged sword,” in the hands of the Saints, called for in this Psalm. It is also a favourite text with Christadelphians, who teach that the time will come before long, “when the sword put into their hands will be used with no more compunction than Samuel had in hewing political Agags to pieces.” The Messianic interpretation is gladly adopted, as supporting the use of the sword by the Church of Christ. But most certainly, the followers of Christ are not called to work of this kind; neither in this Psalm, nor in any other portion of the Book of God.
The question, Who are the Saints of this Psalm? is answered in the second verse - “Let Israel rejoice in Him that made him: let the children of Zion be joyful in their King.”
The Israel of the Old Covenant were “made” or constituted the people of Jehovah, being sanctified or set apart for Him, and consequently are here referred to as “The Congregation of Saints.” See also the closing verse of the previous Psalm - “He also exalted the horn of His people, the praise of all His saints; even of the children of Israel, a people near unto Him.”
And in like manner in various places, as in 2 Chron. vi:41.
“And now arise, O Lord God, into Thy resting place, Thou, and the ark of Thy strength. Let Thy priests, O Lord God, be clothed with salvation, and let Thy Saints rejoice in goodness.” Psalm xii “Help Lord; for the godly man ceaseth;” (the same word in the Hebrew translated saints). Psalm xxxi:23, “O love the Lord, all ye His saints,” and lastly Psalm lxxix. “O God, the heathen are come into Thine inheritance; Thy holy temple they have defiled; they have laid Jerusalem on heaps. The dead bodies of thy servants, have they given to be meat unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of Thy saints unto the beasts of the earth.” In all these and similar instances, the Lord’s saints are those of the Old covenant; there being not even a distant allusion to the Church of Christ. The Old Testament saints were men of war, chosen on the ground of fleshly relationship to Abraham, and in the closing verse of our Psalm, called to execute vengeance upon the heathen and judgment upon the rebellious of the people. Such conquests as are foretold in the Psalm were realized after the restoration. According to Josephus the conquests under John Hyrcanus alone fill the outline. He extended the boundaries of the country as far as Syria, Phœnicia, and Arabia, demolished the temple on Mount Gerizim, conquered Samaria and compelled the Idumeans to receive the rite of circumcision.
Of these Saints of the Old Institution, the Psalmist, lower down in the Psalm, says - “Let them praise His name in the dance [margin - With the pipe]; let them sing praises unto Him, with the timbrel and harp. For the LORD taketh pleasure in His people; he will beautify the meek with salvation. Let the Saints be joyful in glory, let them sing aloud upon their beds, [couches, on which they recline in festal gatherings]. Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand: to execute vengeance upon the heathen and punishments upon the people.” By the Captivity, the horn (power) of this sanctified people was depressed, or broken. The return to their land, and worship, was a re-exaltation of their horn, and hence the call to Praise the LORD. In His chosen people, Jehovah took pleasure.
When meek and lowly, He beautified or glorified them with salvation - deliverance from their and His enemies. They were joyful on account of the glory, with which he beautified them.
This Jewish application of the Psalm, so far as we see, exhausts its meaning. We find in it neither Christ, nor His Church. Its saints were chosen in the flesh, and their weapons included the sword; vengeance and blood-shed were in their commission; but the saints under Christ, have other trusts and weapons. They wield the Sword of the Spirit, whose wounds are healing and life-giving. Praise ye the Lord!
Leaving the Psalm, as a whole for your subsequent meditation, we turn from its Jewish and legitimate application in order to an adaptation of the fourth verse to present circumstances; in which verse there is nothing said of Christ and His Church. But, then, in this instance, and in many Bible statements, as in thousands of every day utterances, the things said would be equally true if applied to persons and conditions, not included. Jehovah was then the God of the Jews. He is now, not less, the God and Father of all who put their trust in Jesus. The Old Covenant people were then the Lord’s; but the people of the New Institution are not less so, being redeemed by the blood of His well-beloved Son. As the heavenly Father took pleasure in His ancient people; so now, he delights in His twice-born children, the Church of Christ. As then, His pleasure in the people was in proportion as they were meek, and obedient; so now His delight is intensified in the meek and lowly followers of Christ. As deliverance was gifted to them as a robe of beauty, so now he clothes the humble with salvation - with a deliverance higher and richer than the conquests of Israel over the nations around. It is, then (though not so taught in the Psalm), unquestionably and preciously true of the New Covenant Saints that “the LORD taketh pleasure in His people,” and “Will beautify the meek with salvation.”
This conclusion brings into view -

A precious fact.
A joyful promise.
The character which entitles to the promise.
The Promiser.

I. THE PRECIOUS FACT OR TRUTH - “The Lord taketh pleasure in His people.” Good and wise parents take pleasure in their children, when those children partake of the spiritual as well as the physical nature of their parents. Parental pleasure is not merely inoperative gladness, but a force producing endless devotion to their children’s interest. This pleasure, with all its outcome of blessedness, is itself a result of love. We take pleasure in those we love, if not repelled by unbecoming conduct. Human love is restricted in its means for imparting blessing. The Lord, who loves His people, knows no restriction. The love of the Infinite God is infinite. To the full extent of the receptivity of His people, His pleasure is to bless.
Well, then may his people sing -
O God! Thy boundless love we praise;
How bright on high its glories blaze!
How sweetly bloom below!
It streams from Thine eternal throne;
Through heaven its joys for ever run
And o’er the earth they flow.

Here, however, a glance at the condition of vast masses of the unregenerate of the human family may aid our appreciation of what is to follow. Man, fallen from God and purity, soon marred and stained his life - the first murderer slew his own brother, only because that brother was righteous, and he was wicked - Cain is a picture of the unbeautiful, sin-stained and contaminated. Very soon, too, we read that - “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that the whole imagination of the thoughts of his heart, was only evil continually.” and hence the destruction of the race, with the exception of one family. When men had again multiplied, the wickedness of the Cities of the plain, brought down the deluge of fire.
Then God’s chosen and favoured people go from bad to worse, till swept from national existence. In due time our sin-polluted race is described by the inspired Apostle in terms indicating the deepest moral deformity. The Saviour describes the unregenerate thus - “Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witnesses, blasphemies.”
The heart is also described in Holy-writ, as - Proud, Deceitful, Gross, Foolish, Froward, Polluted, Covetous, Wicked and Stony.
Now the beautifying of the Saints, is in order to eternal fellowship with the pure and spotless Son of God, and with the infinitely holy Father in heaven. Consequently the depraved heart must be changed, or that fellowship cannot be had; for what communion has light with darkness, contamination with purity, sin with holiness?
We may now bring under notice:
II. A JOYFUL PROMISE - “He will beautify the meek with salvation.” The term translated beautify is also translated glorify. In Psalm xxix: the saints are called to “Worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness,” understood to refer to vestments, suited to holy service; the Priests and Levites, for temple duties being attired in special garments. But our business is with the saints of this day, whom the Lord beautifies with salvation. The term salvation always carries the idea of deliverance.
In this assembly there are, most likely, two classes - 1. Those in whom the process of salvation is going on, whom we are authorized to call saints. 2. Those who have no experience of the Spirit and truth of God, so that His beautifying process is not commenced. Now the present enquiry is important to both these classes, inasmuch as there are none here in whom the process is yet completed. Sinners are called, in mercy, to be beautiful with salvation, and saints are called to a higher development than at present attained. Let us contemplate fallen sinful man in this process of beautification by salvation.
Deliverance from sin - from the love of sin, from its guilt and condemnation. to effect this “the Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation.” Sinners saved are begotten again by this gospel - be believing in the death of Christ for our sins, according to the Scriptures - so believing, that the alienated heart turns to the Lord in loving gratitude. Thus is the love of sin broken, and the beautifying and glorifying process commenced. What a difference! The heart turned to God and His Christ, and the things once loved, now hated, and the things formerly hated, now loved. Yet the past accumulation of sin and transgression awaits removal. The Divine Word asks, “Why tarriest thou? Arise, and be immersed, and wash away thy sins.” The obedient response results in further beautification, - the damning stains of sin are covered by the blood of Christ. The transgressions of the past are forgiven, and iniquity is not imputed. Now, indeed, admiring angels may rejoice as the process of transformation advances. Deliverance from the Power of Sin.
Pardon and Justification, do not land the subjects thereof where internal conflict is at an end. Look at the struggle depicted by the Apostle Paul - the flesh lusting against the Spirit. But in all this, conquest is secured to all who fight the good fight of faith. Growth in the divine life, progressive holiness, the more complete putting off of the Old man, and the fuller putting on of the New, are secured results of a right dwelling in the Holy Temple of the Lord, of communion with the Holy Spirit, of prayerful study of the Word, and abiding feasting upon Christ, the true bread which came down from heaven. Thus, further and continuously, the Divine beautifying proceeds.
The Painter’s art has given us, on speaking canvas, wonderful portraitures of the sublime and beautiful, in depicting the features of our Saviour as the “Light of the World” and in other masterpieces of Art; so that we could linger, gazing and wishing to receive its impress. Still, as one has recently written,
“But better far, on wings of faith upborne,
To seek the living self, and, finding, gaze
In silent rapture, and intense amaze,
Upon those mystic beauties which adorn
The Father’s glorious Son. And, gazing so,
Our soul erewhile so earthworn, and so low,
Shall, by the subtle alchemy of love,
Be changed to such a sweet similitude,
That, like the Moon by solar beams imbued,
We body forth a glory from above.”

In order that we may thus reflect the glory of the Lord, as in a mirror, being transformed into His image, from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit, there are numerous providential dispensations, including poverty and riches, health and sickness, the kindliness of friends, and the animosity of enemies. Many and heavy are the afflictions, through which the Lord’s people are at times led by His Fatherly hand. The “thorn in the flesh,” though more than thrice they ask relief, still remains, but then there is sufficient grace. The thorn, however severely trying, is permitted only for good. The Refiner watches the process, that only dross may be consumed, while the true metal is refined.
“Why do I suffer thus: why this agony of pain, this weakness of body, this poverty, or other of a hundred seeming ills?” may sometimes be asked by God’s suffering saints. The answer is - These afflictions, of short duration, shall work out for the suffering ones a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, if only they look not merely at the seen, but also and chiefly at the unseen, that the purifying may be carried on; the fire being needful to highest results, the enhancing of the moral and spiritual beauty of the sufferers.
The Beautiful! Who does not love the Beautiful? ‘Tis said, “A thing of beauty is a joy for ever.” But, alas, beauty is evanescent. The floral beauty so richly displayed on bridal and other occasions, quickly fades, and is for ever gone. The beauty of human form, lasts at longest but a few years; the ample auburn locks, and the jet black, crowning the head of youth, soon pass away indicating the winter of our days. The splendid Monuments of Art begin to decline ere yet complete, and beauty whether personal, or in our handicraft, seems born but to die. As the leaf fades, so with all merely external beauty. Why, even, God’s saints pass away to the realm of corruption, whither we are hastening, and shall shortly arrive. But God’s beautifying is unlike all this. He makes BEAUTIFUL FOR EVER, with a beauty that cannot fade. The grave may enclose us, worms feed upon us, but neither can affect the beautiful spirit, and the time hastens when the redeemed, beatified with Salvation, shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God; when the body of our humiliation shall be no more, and our reserved spirits shall be clothed with a body of glory, like unto that of our Lord. This is the consummation of Salvation, and of the divine beautifying.
III. THE JOYFUL PROMISE is exclusively to the MEEK. But the meek are not as some suppose - puling non-resisters of evil. They are God’s heroes, who, for the truth’s sake, firmly withstand the fire of persecution. Imprisonment and death do not compel them to yield. If needful, they go rejoicing to the stake. The prospect of early and violent termination of life changes not their resolve. Their faith and hope shine in determined resistance of unjust rulers, at the risk of their lives they answer, “Whether it be right in the sight of God, to hearken unto you, more than unto God, judge ye,” and from the dungeon, expecting execution, as in the case of the apostle Paul, comes the jubilant note.
“I am ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith, henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord shall give me at that day, and not to me only, but to all them also that love His appearing.”
In a word, the meek are those who know themselves as needing salvation, and as unable to save themselves, and who desire to submit to the Lord, to learn His will, and, by His help, comply therewith in all things. Those who are thus humble before God, will not be wanting in meekness in their transactions with men. The meek, HE will beautify with Salvation! IV. THE PROMISER. The LORD will beautify the meek. But little need be added under this head; because Jehovah, as the divine beautifier, has been before us all through the discourse. Every step in man’s salvation, is from Him, and each step leads into still higher glory.
But we must forbear, and merely add - Remember, Jehovah is infinite in power and goodness, willing to do for us all that is good, and able to do all He wills. There can be no failure on His part in the progressive beautifying of His sanctified ones. So long as they truly number with the meek, all is well for time and eternity.
In conclusion. Where, as to this promise to beautify with salvation, are we individually standing? In some present, it may not have commenced. But the New Heaven and Earth and the beautiful City of the Bride are for a people beautified in this life, by the divine process indicated in this discourse. Sad indeed, is the condition of those in whom it is not commenced! Others of this assembly are subjects of this process. It is for such meekly to co-act with God, that its consummation may be reached; when, having been beautified with a meek and quiet spirit, a heart contrite, new and clean, a blotting out of the stains of sin, and a progressive assimilation to the beauty of the Saviour; we shall be clothed with a body of glory like to His own. Let us then press on to the mark for the prize of the high calling in Christ Jesus the Lord, and “Let the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us.” Amen.

Words from the Cross.
LUKE xxiii: 13-56.
WE all know the deep concern most people manifest as to the last words of their dying friends. Perhaps in many instances too much attention is paid thereto, especially when, as is often the case, the after-condition of the departed is supposed to be evidenced by their latest utterances. The ground of our expectation as to the fate of our loved ones, whom death has taken from us, should be, rather the life lived than the manner of the death. We may be entirely certain as to the possibility of one of the Lord’s adopted children, after an approved life, in the dying hour, failing, through the operation of physical causes, to express that sense of rest, hope, and triumph, which we should desire in our own case, and not less in that of our brethren in Christ. In such instances our confidence as to the future blessedness, should be in no degree shaken. Then, on the other hand, there are many, self-deceived, who imagine their eternal salvation sure, who have not acceded to the claims of Christ, nor possessed the righteousness which is of God, nor lived as becometh saints; of whose future we can have no ground of hope, yet who, nevertheless, think and talk of passing from the bed of death to the realms of glory; their confidence cannot be participated in by those well read in the Word of God.
What we should all seek for, is, to live aright, and to die, so far as our utterances are concerned, in perfect accord with our living. Pretenders can go along, seemingly, with much ease when in health, but when they come to stare death in the face, then the pretension is sorely shaken. The real man need fear no defect in his dying utterances, but the half-and-half man, the hypocritical man, has everything to fear from that severe test. Still, we, no doubt, all greatly desire, for ourselves and for our loved ones, that the life of consistent devotion to the Lord should, at its close, be crowned with grateful testimony to the love of God, to trust in Christ, and joyful expectation of a resurrection to life eternal. May our departure be thus blessed!
The desire thus expressed, seems to lead us on to the contemplation of some who have gone before; as the first Christian Martyr, Stephen, concerning whose triumphant exit we read - “When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. They cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus receive my spirit, and he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep” - Acts vii:54-60.
The Apostle Peter, too, by revelation, knew his approaching end, but without fear or dread, hence he wrote - “Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; knowing that shortly I must put off this, my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. Moreover, I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things in remembrance.” - 2 Peter i:13-15.
Then the beloved Paul, writing from his Roman prison, says - “For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge shall give me at that day: And not to me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing.” - 2 Tim. iv:6-8.
Thus the utterances of the Lord’s people in approaching death, when physically in a position to realize their approaching blessedness, are big with import and really glorious.
But there is one greater than Stephen, Peter, or Paul, whose last words, or series of words, we may well contemplate! - those of Jesus, the Christ, our Saviour. It would have been sad for us, if the record of the life of Christ, in our Gospels, had been allowed to terminate with a statement of His crucifixion, minus the words from the cross.
The claims of the Lord Jesus were of extraordinary magnitude, as constantly put forth by Himself, during the whole course of His life on earth. He claimed to be the Son of the Living God, who had come down from heaven, not merely “a son,” (using the term in some sense of accommodation), but truly, The Son of the Living God! for whom a body was prepared; because a sacrifice was needed to accomplish that for which the sacrifices of the Old Institution could never suffice. He claimed to have come to establish a Kingdom, to be its King; to found a kingdom, the subjects of which should be Royal Priests. In a word, he put in His claim to be, in the fullest sense, the long foretold - the promised Messiah!
He came to His own, and His own received Him not. Here, on a page open before me, I behold Him, before Pilate, who, finding no fault in Him proposes to release Him. But the rulers of the Jews oppose this act of justice, and cry “not this man, but Barabbas.” They would rather have Barabbas, the robber, released than Jesus the Christ!
“Away with Him, not fit to live;
Crucify Him, but unto us Barabbas give!”

The scenes that followed, we could not picture without breaking down in tears. The going forth from the judgment seat; the solemn procession, Jesus bearing, as long as He could, the burden of His cross; the accompanying robbers; the stretching upon the cross; the nailing; the uplifting; the superscription over the cross, “THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS” in three languages - in that of the Empire, in that of the Greeks, and in that of the Hebrew people; very offensive to them was that superscription, but it was verily true, for His was the throne of David.
Now we behold the victim –
“On the Cross, On the Cross;
Behold His arms extended wide
On the cross, on the cross,
Behold His bleeding hands and side
On the cross, on the cross.”

The trying hour has come. Lookers on might well have said: “If He be what He professed to be, we shall certainly in this last trying scene, have unmistakable reiteration of His claim.” To fail in that, would be to throw a doubt upon the evidence His whole life had afforded in support of His exalted claim.
But, does He speak? O! most certainly. And what says He? There are, at least, some seven definite utterances from the cross. Taking the testimony of Luke, we read: “And there were also two others, malefactors, led with Him to be put to death, and when they were come to the place which is called Calvary (the skull), there they crucified Him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left” - Luke xxiii:32-33.
Now, just turn your faith backward and behold these three crosses; the Roman soldiery; the robbers and their antagonism; the Just One, uplifted there! Oh, what a scene! The Son of God uplifted, with limbs exposed and bare, or only covered with His blood! But hark! He speaks. Listen to His first words from the cross: - Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Why, they put Him to death, as they said, because He being man, made Himself equal to God, by claiming God to be His Father. But now, upon the cross, His first utterance is a distinct reiteration of that claim. The word “Father” indicates this, and the whole utterance affirms that His crucifiers were wrong. Truly he was the Son of David according to the flesh, but, as to His holy spiritual nature, the Son of God. That He affirmed during His life, and that His first words from the cross re-affirmed: - “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!” The Lord used this word (Father) on various occasions when instructing His disciples, but in so doing, never said, “Our Father.” Understand me at this point. He taught the disciples to pray - “Our Father” - i.e., their Father. When we pray, we say, “Our Father,” looking to God as the Father of us, and of all His children adopted in Christ. But the Saviour never included Himself with His disciples in that way. He says, My Father and your Father” - Mine, in a sense in which He is not yours; yours, in a sense in which he is not mine. My Father in a sense in which He never can be yours - a sense which involves not merely sonship, but a participation in the nature of Deity, so that the Father, and the Son stand together as one God.
The first utterance then from the cross is a reiteration of His Deity and Sonship; and beside all this, the prayer He breathed was a very fitting cry for the first utterance of the uplifted Son of God: - “Father, forgive them; they know not what they do.” The love Jesus manifested in this life, did not fail Him in the hour and article of death. That first interceding cry seems, as it were, to prefigure His great work of intercession as our High Priest above.
Passing on to His next word, found in the same chapter of Luke’s testimony, we see that both the robbers reviled Him, that then one of them, under the higher and better influence, which even on the cross, Jesus exerted, came to a right condition of mind, to acceptable repentance, expressing disapproval of the reviling, which his fellow sufferer still continued and then, looking to Jesus, said - “Lord, remember me, when Thou comest into Thy kingdom.” He thus recognizes the Saviour’s claim to Kingship, and we see here in connection with the uplifting, the beginning of repentance, and coming for salvation to the crucified Saviour. How does the Saviour receive this suppliant? “Jesus said unto him, ‘Verily, I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with Me in paradise.’” This is the first promise from the cross; the second utterance, the first promise. Yes, here again we have Him reiterating His claim. All authority in heaven and on earth had been given to Him, and therefore He had power to determine and announce the fate as to future life, of that dying robber; this he graciously did, in the words “Verily, I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise.” Did He mean to take the robber’s body to paradise? No. We know that his legs were broken on the cross, and that afterwards his body was taken down, and no doubt disposed of that very day in some ignominious manner. But there was that of the robber, which that very day was to be with the Lord Christ in Paradise. Some persons, to break the force of this testimony to the separate existence of the spirit, have altered the punctuation, and read - “Verily, I say unto thee today,* thou shalt be with Me in paradise.” But no! Had that been the idea, it would have been expressed in different language altogether, or in these words differently combined. But what was, and what we have, is, “Verily, I say unto thee, today thou shalt be with Me in paradise.” It was a dispensation of mercy, giving an assurance to the dying malefactor of an immediate rest in Paradise.
[* The word semeron (today) is here obviously emphatic and Greek usage fixes the place of the emphatic word, at or near the beginning of he clause to which it belongs. Hence we learn that semeron belongs to the second clause.
“Today thou shalt be with Me in paradise.” - as in numerous instances, including - 1. “Today is this scripture fulfilled in your ear.” - Luke iv:21. 2. “Today I must abide at thy house.” - Luke xix:5. 3. “Today have I begotten Thee.” - Acts xii:38. 4. “Today if ye will hear His voice.” - Hebrews iv:9.]
Let us now turn from the second utterance on the cross, to one contained in the record by John; which we take as the third of Lord’s sayings from the cross. In John xix:25, we read - “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple standing by whom He loved, He saith unto His mother, Woman behold thy son! Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.”
The disciple here referred to, there can be no question, was the beloved John. We have here a lesson; a reminder of the brotherhood which the Saviour establishes between men. “Behold thy son.” No doubt there was an indicating look. He could, by expression, indicate to whom the term was applied, no doubt it was given. We, perhaps, may differ as to whether - “Behold thy son,” was said in directing the attention of Mary to John, or to Himself, her own son, suspended between earth and heaven upon the cross. Take it that the latter alternative would be its significance, though some think that he intended to direct the mother’s attention to John, and interpret the saying as meaning - “Just look to him (John) for that aid and protection which you would expect from a son of your own.” Let it rather be taken as pointing to Himself. He would first direct the attention of Mary to Himself in the words “Behold thy son;” as much as to say: - “I am going away, I can no longer perform a son’s part toward you,” then turning His gaze to John, adding - “Behold thy mother.” Well, you know that the Saviour had said: - “There is no man that hath left home, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake and the gospel’s, but he shall receive an hundred-fold now in this time, houses and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions.”
And so it has been - the widow has found her husband, or her children, in the kindly sympathy of those who are united with her in the Christ. John at once takes the afflicted and bereaved mother to his care, and thus we have from the cross a recognition, at once, of earthly relationship, and an anticipation of that brotherhood, which is found in the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
We come now to another of His sayings, to His most solemn word, found in the Record by Matthew (xxvii:46.)
“And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
Therein is a depth of sorrow we cannot fathom. It is not desirable, in contemplating these sayings, to forget the physical cause of His death. He did not die by crucifixion. He would have lived on for hours may be for days, if He had died from no other cause than the immediate physical results of the cross. The robbers, you remember were not dead, but to hasten death their legs were broken. But a bone of Him was not broken, because they found Him dead already. The immediate cause of His death was a broken heart. The walls of that sympathetic heart were rent by suffering, as evidenced by the fact that when the spear pierced His side, there came forth “blood and water.” Yes, as indicated prophetically, in the Psalms, His sorrows broke His heart. And in approaching the period when His life would terminate in that way, he exclaims, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” We know how that question is to be answered. It was because God had laid upon Him the iniquity of us all, that by His stripes we might be healed; because He was delivered up in order to be a sacrifice, in the body prepared for Him, to be that sacrifice which the lost condition of our race required. There was a necessity for this sacrifice, and consequently, He is to be left to suffer with the realization of the withdrawal of the Divine presence. Intense suffering, as our sin-bearer broke His heart, drawing from Him the piercing cry - “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me?” From Matthew, we turn to the 19th chapter of the Record by John, 28th verse, and hear His voice again - “After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.”
It is not to be thought for a single moment, that was merely a cry of human distress, intended to obtain relief from the administration of some thirst-allying fluid. We may be satisfied that He would make no such appeal under the circumstances, and certainly not to the people then present. But even then, on the cross, as all through life, His mind was fixed upon the complete fulfilment of the Divine prediction concerning Him; and as one of these read - “They gave Me gall for My meat, and in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink,” that this also might be fulfilled He cried, “I thirst,” and what He thus designed was done, for we read.
“Now there was a vessel full of vinegar, and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to His mouth.”
The next verse contains another of His solemn utterances: - “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, He said, It is finished: and He bowed His head, and gave up the ghost.”
What was finished? Not all the Saviour’s work, but all His work of sacrifice. He had said “I thirst,” that even the last tittle of the prophetic word might be accomplished, and now He declares the work of the cross complete. The sacrifice provided was now offered, and the way opened for the redemption of the lost and ruined family of Adam, through the blood of God’s well-beloved Son.
Then we come to the last utterance, which we have in the xxiii, chapter of the gospel by Luke - “When Jesus had cried with a loud voice, He said, Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit: and having said thus, He gave up the ghost.” Ghost of course should be spirit. He rendered up His spirit into the keeping of the Heavenly Father. The spirit was as much a verity as the body. The body went into the tomb, the spirit did not, and could not. “He said, Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit, and having said thus, He yielded up the spirit.”
People talk about the “finished work of Christ.” Well, Christ has a finished work; but the finished work of Christ is not the finish of our work. He has opened wide the way for all who will come unto the Father by Him, but there is the coming for us to attend to. He has died for us; He has not believed for us.
He expired upon the cross as a sin-offering - “Him, who knew no sin, God made to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
By a gracious reckoning, His death is for is, and all His merit for our benefit. But He has not believed, nor repented for us. We have to believe, to repent, to be buried by baptism into His death, in which act we rise into a newness of life. These He has not done for us; but He has done for us, what we could not do for ourselves, and thus become the basis of our justification, adoption, and sanctification. But we must accept this basis. “God has given unto us eternal life, and this life is IN His Son.” Those who do not obey Christ, remain unsaved. Those to whom the Son of God has been proclaimed, and who reject Him, refuse or neglect the great salvation.
Those of us then, who have accepted His salvation, are looking forward to the complete redemption, when we shall see Him as He is. Let us then give attention to live as He would have us live, that we may die the death of the righteous, and be privileged to enter into the glory He has gone to prepare.

A Church of the Right Kind.
Some one - we know not who, and it matters not - has directed the types, to admonish us concerning the church.
In order to meet the necessities of the age, a church must be thoroughly evangelical. Its mission is not to make men philosophers, although it teaches the best philosophy; nor to make scientific explorations, although it is the best friend to science; nor to organize governments, and write constitutions, although its inculcations lead to the wisest political economy. But to baulk profligacy, to dethrone superstition, to emancipate from spiritual bondage, to break in twain the prison bolts, to soothe human pain, to turn the human race on to the high pathway to heaven - this is the church’s mission, and failing in this, it fails in all. It may be a brazen candlestick, or a bronze candlestick, but not a golden candlestick. But mere outward proprieties will not make a useful church. There are scores of churches where there is no discord in music, and no breach of taste in the preaching, and where the congregation, like the Amalekites that Gideon saw, sleep in the valley like grasshoppers for multitude. Splendidly executed anthem and solo roll over the cultured taste of gaily apparelled auditor, and the preaching may be like the pathos of Summerfield, or the thunderclap of a George Whitfield. Upholstery may bedeck to utter gorgeousness, and chandeliers flash upon a fashionable congregation, in which you see not one poor man’s threadbare coat, and yet that church may be a ghastly sepulchre, full of dead men’s bones - an ecclesiastical icehouse. I arraign and implead formality and coldness, and death, as the worst of heterodoxy. Again, religious enterprise must be a characteristic of every church that would do its duty in our day. Invention and discovery have quickened the world’s pace. The age, no more afoot, is on wheels and wings. Quiet villages have been roused by the hum of machinery, the clang of foundries, and the shriek of steam whistles. We rise after a short night’s sleep, and find that the world has advanced mighty leagues, the pulse of the world beats stronger, the arm of industrious achievement strikes harder, and eye of human ingenuity sees further, the heart of Christian philanthropy throbs warmer. The earth shakes under the quick tread of scientific, moral, and religious enterprise. In such a time, a torpid, lethargic, timid church, is both a farce and a folly. If it march not when God commands it to strike, if, when the mountains round about are full of horses, and chariots of fire, it shrinks back from the conflict, God will mark it for ruin. One enterprizing church! How many tracts it might scatter! How many hungry mouths it might fill! How many poor churches it might help! How many lights it might kindle! How many songs it might inspire! How many criminals it might reclaim! How many souls it might save!
Oh, my brethren, the field is white to the harvest! Then, with sickles, come on and lay to the work. In this age of the world, with so many advantages, and so many incentives to work, a dead church ought to be indicted as a nuisance. There is a great work to do! In God’s name do it. “Why stand ye here all the day idle?”

The Old Church.
EIGHTEEN hundred years ago, the Old Church - which is the Church of Christ, and the only Church approved of God - was planted in Jerusalem. Without the pomp and power of the State - without priests, altars, or vestments - by the Jew charged with blasphemy, and by the Greek counted atheistic; with its members few, poor, and despised, what could this Church accomplish? In the simple majesty of truth it went on from conquest unto conquest, and though opposed by prisons, tortures and death, everywhere it won its way, till in the remote places it was said, “Those who have turned the world upside down, have come hither also.”
But in our day, even in this, so-called Christian England, the Church and cause of Christ do not thus advance - do not even keep pace with the increase in population.* How is this? The Faith and Order of the Old Church have been departed from, and numerous churches of human origin, regulated by laws of their own, have taken the place of the One Body of Christ! Now, surely, it is not too much to say, knowing the vast triumphs of the Church, so long as it adhered to the Apostolic Faith and order, that present want of success, demands enquiry and radical reform. Nor do we, after years of investigation, hesitate to say, that the only effectual and permanent remedy, is an unqualified return to the Old Ways and Right Statutes, marked out, once for all, by the Apostles of Christ We, therefore, submit for careful consideration:-
I. That the rise and progress of the Apostacies, Sectarianism, and Disunion, result from the abandonment of that one Perfect Faith and Order, given to the Primitive Church, by the Apostles of Jesus.
II. The Union of Believers in one body, and the full efficiency of the Church cannot be realized without a complete return to that Faith and Order.
III. That strict adherence to the things taught, instituted, and commanded by the Apostles is fully sufficient to secure that complete return.
IV. That the writings of the Apostles and Evangelists, contained in the New Testament are clear, ample, and the only requisites to a right understanding of the things commanded and instituted by the Apostles.
To the Bible, then, without any merely human law or creed, let us give ourselves up. That which cannot be proved from Scripture let us abandon - that which can be thus proved, let us retain, or, if departed from, restore. Let us seek the “Old Paths where the Good Way is,” knowing that there are the approbation of God, rest to our souls, and blessings for humanity at large. Let our aim be to go on to perfection, and under the Divine blessing, to make Christians - not Episcopalians, Independents, Presbyterians, Wesleyans, but Christians. Reader, take upon you the name of Christ (if you have not yet done so.) Be a Christian in name and in life. Unite with those who congregate, not as a Church of human origin, bearing a name of man’s devise, but as a Church of Christ, having no Scriptures but the Bible, no Plan of Salvation but that preached by the Apostles, no Order of Worship but that known to the first Churches, no Government but that instituted by Christ, and no Aristocracy but that of Christian Excellence. Such is the Church of God, and such is the Church for the People, and such, the Lord being our helper, we determine to be. That we may edify each other in our most holy faith and proclaim to sinners, the Only name by which a sinner can be saved, we attend every Lord’s Day to “the Apostle’s doctrine, the Fellowship, the Breaking of the Bread, and the Prayers,” and proclaim the Gospel and way of Salvation, as of old, making no charge for seats, nor appeals to the world for Church funds. From those who are not yet with Christ and the Church, it is our duty to ask nothing, but freely to give, even as we have freely received from Him, who freely gave Himself for us. Believers in Jesus! Ponder, we intreat you, this proposal to return to the ancient ways, and see whether it is not “The Second Reformation,” declared by the esteemed Leifchild, “much needed” - whether it will not bring about “The changes that must come,” as foreseen by the thoughtful Binney - whether it will not bring us to the “Simple Principles of Church Polity” “overlooked by the Continental Reformers,” as acknowledged by the honoured Waddington - whether, it will not give another character to Lord’s Day Meetings, which, according to the Baptist Organ, “Do not attain the end we seek” - whether, if fairly adopted, it would not enable the “Rev.” C. Vince to give a better account of the Churches of our large towns, than that they are smaller in relation to the world than at any former period - whether it would not introduce “the new and glorious combination - where there shall be no more division,” foretold by Dr. Cumming - whether it would not give that “Apostolical Fellowship in the Gospel,” the craving for which, according to the Bishop of Adelaide, the present Evangelical Alliance cannot satisfy - whether it would not bring us to “the simplicity of early Christians,” which Earl Russell perceives is wanted in order to attract the millions - whether it would not produce better results in the families of Christians, than those intimated by the Hon. and Rev. B. Noel, and - whether it would not prove precisely that “Something which (according to the lamented John A. James) must be done” to prevent a “general increase of popery, infidelity, and atheism.”
Rest assured God’s plans are the best. Failure must attend all substitutes.
“Will-Worship,” (a self-chosen order of worship) is an offence. The Saviour’s “In vain do ye worship” stands over against it. “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” Let us then cease from man and turn to God. Let THE BIBLE be substituted for all human creeds - FACTS for definitions - THINGS for words - FAITH for speculation - UNITY OF FAITH for unity of opinion - THE POSITIVE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD for human legislation and tradition - PIETY for ceremony - MORALITY for partizan zeal THE PRACTICE OF RELIGION for the profession of it,” then, in rich abundance, will the Love of God, the grace of the Lord Jesus, and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with us.
This inefficiency and want of success is fully recognised by the Denominations generally. A volume of acknowledgements might be cited, of which he following are a sample:- “A Second Reformation is much needed.” - The late Dr. Leifchild.
“Unquestionably, the great thing is for changes to come, because they must, - for the old to give place, because they are done with - are out-grown - dead or dying, and cannot resist the rise and revelation of worthier successors ... My own hopes are stronger than my fears. Not that I expect great things from any denomination, as such, or as a whole. Most denominations seem almost to have done their work - to have lived their laborious manhood, and as bodies to be getting old.” - “Rev” T. Binney (as Chairman of the Congregational Union).
“The Reformation of the 16th Century, notwithstanding its lasting benefits, was marked by defects which arrested its progress and entailed evils that are still felt. The errors of the Romish Church were exposed in the searching light of Scripture, and the power of the Papacy was broken; but in the ardour of their conflict with the Man of Sin, the Continental Reformers overlooked the simple principles of Church Polity contained in the New Testament. - J. Waddington, D.D. (Prize Essay.)
“There is not one Apostolic Church in Great Britain. - Each party has contributed to prevent its existence.” - Christian Spectator. (Organ of Advanced Independents.)
“It will, we think, be generally acknowledged, that neither our Lord’s Day Services, nor such church meetings as are most common among us, attain the end we seek.” The Freeman. (Baptist Organ).
“All churches are about to be equally dissolved, Methodism is fast breaking up. Independency is to be scattered. The Baptists will not be spared. This great disorganization of existing institutions is the disintegration of the component elements, in order to form a new and glorious combination - a church where there shall be no more division, where there shall be neither Churchmen, nor Dissenters, but Christ and Christians.” - “Rev.” John Cumming, D.D.
“Instead of going beyond we have not kept up with the ordinary increase in the number of the people. It is a fact, that the Church is smaller in relation to the world, than ever it was since Birmingham was a town. This is also true of Liverpool, Manchester, and London. By the Church is meant all denominations of Christians.” - “Rev.” C. Vince.
“Must we be content with that poor substitute for Apostolical fellowship in the Gospel, ‘let us agree to differ;’ or an Evangelical alliance, which, transient and incomplete, betrays a sense of want without satisfying the craving?” - Bishop of Adelaide.
“The Poor are not found in great numbers in those places of worship, and I have often discussed with Ministers of the Established Church and members of Dissenting bodies as to the reason. It is, I think, unfortunate that we cannot, in these days of luxury and civilization, resort to the simplicity of the early Christians.” - Earl Russell.
“The average increase for the year in the Baptist Churches is under two to each Church and we do not suppose that our Churches are behind other Denominations. If, then, the children of our members, who are of proper age, were alone converted, they would give a greater increase.” - “Hon. and Rev.” B.W. Noel.
“Something must be done, or Popery, Infidelity, and general Atheism will yet awfully increase.” - Late “Rev.” John Angell James.
Nor do the most recently ascertained facts shew better results. The Church of England (so called) cannot retain, even as formal worshippers, a majority of the people. The Independents build fine chapels and increase in respectability, but decrease in converting power. The 1270 Associated Baptist Churches during the last year, have only increased at the rate of little more than one member to each church. The Methodist New Connexion having, in this country, over 23,000 members and 1,200 preachers, has during he same year decreased in membership, and the like is true of the Wesleyans of the old society, who, with over 347,000 members are fewer now than a year ago.

The Confession and Initiation.
“With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” - Rom. x:10.
BUT what is he called upon to confess, and in what way can he be translated into the Church? Must be declare himself an Unitarian, a Swedenborgian, or a Trinitarian? Nothing of the sort - as such he cannot be received. The required declaration is one of faith in Jesus, that he is the Christ, the Son of the Living god; and those only can make it who look to Him for pardon and everlasting life - who believe Him to have been exalted to bestow repentance and remission of sins, and to have received all authority in heaven and on earth.
But should not the Church embody, as a creed, some judicious explanation of this great truth, so that persons may not confess to the mere words, while they do not hold the ideas those words were given to convey? No - for the judicious explanation required is already given. The apostles fully explain this great cardinal truth of Christianity. True, but must we not express in definite terms the inferences which can be justly drawn from the explanation? This really means, are we not called upon to explain the explanation given by the apostles? Certainly not. When one comes to Jesus seeking forgiveness and immortality, and confessing Him to be the Christ, the Son of the living God, he may be required to make the confession in the light of all that the apostles have written upon that glorious topic - he may be required not to deny any one of their declarations in regard to it - but he must not be called upon to subscribe to human inferences drawn from these statements, or, in other words, to our opinions concerning them. The creed of the Church of Christ has but one article, and is fully and clearly interpreted for us by the inspired expositors. Peter received it from the Father, and proclaimed it when the Redeemer inquired. “Whom say ye that I am?” and upon it He declared His church should be built. “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” After His resurrection the apostles gave the fullest importance to this truth.
“If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Rom. x:9) was on all occasions announced - and when confessed, the door of the kingdom stood open without further question. This symbol of salvation, this basis of the Church, this creed of heaven, has an importance which no other truth can claim. Its proclamation was not entrusted to prophet, martyr, apostle, nor to the highest angel, but the MOST HIGH, in propria persona, revealed it. As Jesus “went up straightway out of the water: and lo the heavens were opened unto Him ... and lo a voice firm heaven, saying, This is My beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.” - Matt. iii.
This announced, the Almighty Father delivered nothing more. He afterwards spoke through His Son and the apostles. It is the peculiar grandeur of the Christian creed, that God Himself gave it by the voice of divine majesty, and not as other truths were delivered - not once only, but again on the mount of transfiguration.
“A bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said: This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye Him.” - Matt. xvii.
When the sinner comes to Jesus, his faith finding utterance in this confession, love to God and the Saviour beaming in his eye, repentance struggling and hastening to produce the consequent reformation of life, in what way is the Church authorized to receive him - in what way is the Church authorized to receive him - in what does the divinely-appointed initiation consist?
“With the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Belief and confession of the creed-truth, being requisite, in order to church membership, infants and unbelievers are ineligible. As life is begotten before a birth into the world can take place, a new life, a new spirit, consequent upon a hearty reception of the glorious gospel, producing the declarations, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” “Lord, what would’st Thou have me to do?” is indispensable to reception into the Church of God. Persons thus prepared for introduction, the Church is authorized to receive. It has no choice as to the ceremonial of reception - it has not to settle whether it shall be by taking the Lord’s Supper, by announcement to the members, or by other modes. The Supreme Lawgiver has ordained, that the name of Christ shall be given in a bath of water, from which the penitent believer (but no other) rises into the Kingdom, a citizen fully entitled to all its privileges. With a view to this initiation, the Redeemer commissioned His disciples “to preach the gospel to every creature” - Adding, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”
Peter said to thousands of believers, “Repent and be baptized every open of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins,” - Acts ii:38.
Ananias commanded Saul to “Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” - Acts xxii. and Paul wrote. “So many of us as were baptized INTO Jesus Christ, were baptized INTO His death.” - Rom. vi. “Buried with Him in baptism, WHEREIN also ye are risen with Him.” - Col. ii. “Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” - Eph. v.
Many other portions of divine truth might be cited, in order to prove baptism to be the action designed for translating the believing penitent out of the kingdom of Satan, into that of God’s dear Son; and no other way of entry has ever been opened.

Church Membership.
HAVING BEEN IMMERSED, UPON WHAT CONDITIONS MAY I CONTINUE IN FELLOWSHIP WITH THE CHURCH OF GOD?
IN answering the inquiry often presented in words nearly as above, it may be observed that the laxity of churches renders it necessary to give prominence to the conditions upon which a continuation of membership depends. Attention to the laws and ordinances of God, would be a short and accurate answer; but as ordinances are only means to an end, and not the end itself, we require reminding that disciples have to show forth the praises of Him who has called them out of darkness into His marvellous light - who in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God; to whom the Apostle says: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Phil. ii:5-8.)
They are addressed, not as soldiers who have gained the victory, but as those who are called to “put on the whole armour of God,” that they may “be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all to stand - to have their loins girt about with truth - their breasts with righteousness their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace - to take the helmet of salvation, the shield of faith, and the sword of the Spirit, praying without ceasing, and watching with all perseverance.”
The mind, spirit, or disposition of Christ dwelling in each, is the condition of continued communion with the church: “For if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. And if Christ be in you, the body indeed is dead, with respect to sin; but the Spirit is life with respect to righteousness. For, if the Spirit of Him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He who raised up Christ from the dead, will make even your mortal bodies alive, through His Spirit which dwells in you. Well, then, Brethren, we are not debtors to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. Wherefore, if you live according to the flesh, you shall die; but if through the Spirit, you put to death the deeds of the body you shall live. Because, as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.” (Rom. viii:10-14.) Continued association with the Church certainly depends upon life, not upon baptism, not upon an ordinary amount of morality, not upon the absence of great sins - drunkenness, lying, fornication, and others, all of which exclude until repented of, but upon life. They have great and precious promises, that by these they might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. Some may say “Life, - what is it? Who is to judge of its existence? Can man read the heart? Where is the standard? What definition have you?” When the spirit is alive “in respect to righteousness,” there are present three manifestations - not one of them can be absent; and where life is not, they cannot be present.
The Christian system, at its introduction, was rich in miraculous evidence, yet the time was to come, and has come, when these manifestations peculiar to the first days of the Church, should pass away, and there should remain, “Faith, Hope, and Love” - these three; and they are life. The new life consists of faith, hope, love. For some this will not be enough. Who is to judge of their existence? will still be the question. Faith is a conviction, hope a state of mind, and love a condition of the affections - all are internal, and who can judge? Each of these three has marked manifestations, and can no more exist without their development, than fire without heat, or God without love. Of FAITH, Paul, writing to the Romans, says, “I thank God that your faith is spoken of throughout all the world.” And to the Colossians, “We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints, for the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the world of the truth of the gospel; which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth.” (Col. i:3-6.) Coming still closer to individual manifestation, another of the Lord’s apostles asks, “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so, faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.” (James ii:14-18).
HOPE is possessed of manifesting power not less forcible. “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope: and hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” (Rom. v:1-5.) Here hope stands as one of the causes of “glorying in tribulation” - producing patience and confidence - and to crown it, John writes, “Whoso hath this hope in him, purifies himself even as he (Jesus) is pure.”
The manifestations of LOVE are everywhere known. - consecration to the Lord, to His truth, and to His brethren; and where these are not, profession is proved false, and the professor as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. Where there is indifference to the advance of truth, disregard for the ordinances of the kingdom, neglect of assembling with the brethren, carelessness in relation to the salvation of sinners, and these characteristic, there is not life. Every branch in him that bringeth not forth fruit should be taken away, and idlers should be separated; healthy and strict discipline should be enforced against all careless and ungodly professors.

God’s Thoughts and Man’s After-thoughts Concerning the Church.
THE newspapers have given an outline of a sermon by Dean Stanley, in Westminster Abbey, in aid of the Orphan Schools of the Clergy. He devoted his discourse to showing the status and duties of the clergy, and said that: “Christ did not institute the Christian Clergy; that it was not part of the original order of the Christian Church, but might be styled a ‘divine after-thought;’ that just as magistrates, judges, scholars, soldiers, etc. had grown out of civil and natural necessities, so the clergy had grown out of the spiritual necessities of the Church.”
The Dean went on to say that: - “the first officers appointed in the Christian Church were deacons and archdeacons, (where does the Dean find the latter?) and then elders (who were at first all called overseers), and these were in the Church during the first century; but that at the close of he first century, from among the elders arose chiefs, whom they distinctively regarded as overseers, and after them arose bishops, archbishops, and metropolitans, etc., etc.” These, of course, had their origin in God’s after-thoughts.
Whatever we speak of, or see around us, all had an existence in thought previously to actual existence - that is, in the mind of the mechanic, the architect, etc., etc. So, also, had all we see in nature; the flowers in all their beauty and fragrance, the waving grain, these existed as thoughts of God, previously to the powerful word going forth to accomplish the work of creation. It is also true of all societies; benevolent, trade, moral and political. They all existed first in thought; some person, or persons, saw the desirability of organizing them: and the same principle applies equally to the Church of God. He saw the church, in its constitution and mission, as He purposed and designed it to be in manifestation; and in order to bring the Church organization into existence, the Lord Himself selected men for the purpose; the Lord Himself selected men for the purpose; He made them the companions of His earthly life; He discoursed to them His mind and will; thus educating them, He prepared them by a baptism in the Holy Spirit, that would bring to their remembrance all he had taught them, and also put them fully and accurately into possession of God’s thoughts concerning His Church; and they were providentially preserved in the world, through many dangers, and persecutions, and privations, until God’s Church was perfectly organized according to His thought and intentions - in fact, “until that which was perfect had come.” Now, Dean Stanley, looking upon the Church thus planted by apostles, says - “In that Church there was no clergy, but after a century or so, the institution of the clergy grew out of the Church’s necessity, as a Divine after-thought.”
We submit that God has no after-thoughts. He who knows the end from the beginning, and speaks of those things that are not as though they were, did not need to plant His Church in the world in an imperfect state of organization, and thus place it on trial, as an experiment, that He might patch it up with after-thoughts. Suppose we admit that bishops were a divine “after-thought;” we might ask are curates, rectors, canons, minor canons, deans, patriarchs, cardinals, and popes all included? They are all included in clerical orders, and if archbishops, bishops, curates, deans, canons, etc., are what they are because of a “Divine after-thought,” we must go on, until we stand side by side with an infallible Pope, and there see in him the consummation of Divine thought. We wish, now, to bring under consideration the Church of Christ as it is. It is an institution revealed to us in the scriptures of the New Testament. There is no church revealed in the Old Testament. Some persons say there has been a Church ever since Abraham; and that the children of Jewish parents were inducted into it by circumcision, as the children of our day are inducted into Christ’s Church by baptism. Now, we submit that children of Jews never were inducted into a church by circumcision, because there never was a Church during that dispensation; there was a nation elected by God, and every child born of Jewish parents was born into the nation, and circumcision was a mark that demonstrated that he who bore it was of that nation, or people, and he who was not circumcised was to be cut off from among the people (not cast out of the Church).
The Church of Christ had no existence till after the earthly life, the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of the Saviour. The day of Pentecost was the birthday of the New Testament Church, when the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit came forth from the risen and glorified Lord; then, and not till then, was the Church of Christ set up on earth. You will remember that on one occasion the Saviour asked His disciples the question: - “Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” “Some say Thou art John the Baptist: some Elias, others Jeremiah, or one of the Prophets.” “But whom say ye that I am?” “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” was Peter’s reply, to which Jesus responded, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona; flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but My Father who is in heaven.” - Matt. xvi:13-17.
When God announced, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye Him,” then was this great truth revealed to Peter, which he here confessed, and upon his confession, the Saviour again said, “Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” - Matt. xvi:18.
On this confession, this great truth, rests the Church of Christ - the Church of God’s thought and design. The Saviour here speaks of His Church as future, and not as then in existence. “Upon this rock I will build My Church.” Where then, is a foundation placed? Is it put on the top of a house, or in the middle of the wall during the process of building? No, but on the solid rock. It could not, then, be laid in Abraham’s days, for Jesus strictly commanded His disciples that they should not make known to anyone, the great truth which had been confessed by Peter, which truth was the foundation of the Church. Its public declaration was to be reserved till the Pentecost.
In this response of the Saviour to Peter, the Church is mentioned for the first time in the New Testament, and in the succeeding verse is the statement, “I will give to thee (Peter) the keys of the Kingdom,” etc. Some tell us that the Kingdom of Heaven is not yet come, but is still in the future: here, however, is a Kingdom, the keys of which are given to Peter to use in opening it. Think now of John’s message, and the message that was given to the twelve, and to the seventy. “The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand,” or very near. Then let us think of Paul’s declaration regarding the Colossians, that they had been translated out of darkness into the Kingdom of God’s dear Son. True, there is a dispensation of the Kingdom yet to come, the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ; but it is not less true that there is a dispensation of the Kingdom now, into which the Colossians had been translated. The Saviour spoke to Nicodemus of a dispensation of the Kingdom, when He said, “Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” - be begotten again by the word of truth, and baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Here it is indicated that only those who are thus born enter into the Kingdom, and, therefore, it cannot refer to the future Kingdom of Glory, because Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and many other Old Testament worthies, we are told, will sit down in the future dispensation, who could not hear the gospel, or be baptized into the Divine name. There is now a Kingdom, and the Saviour is the King, and those who come in living, loving faith in Him, and are baptized into His name, are in this Kingdom. It matters not in what Church they may be found, thus coming to Christ, they are in the Kingdom. Now God has been pleased to connect with this Kingdom an institution called the Church. This is a local institution; we hear of an “invisible church,” but we never read anything about it in the New Testament; but we find the Church accessible for settling offences between brethren. We have now alluded to all the mentions of the Church by the Saviour. We hear of denominational churches, as Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc., but there are no denominational churches in the Scriptures. The Church made known in the New Testament is not an Invisible Church, not a Denominational Church, not a National Church.
The Church, then, is a local institution, and is composed of the citizens of Christ’s Kingdom in the place, or locality, in which it is gathered together for Church purposes. It is independent, and not controlled by kings, governments, legislatures, synods, conferences, or sister churches, but is only under the control of Christ, and the legislature appointed by Him, viz., the apostles - not living apostles, but those sent forth by Jesus at the first, who have left on record all that Christians need for guidance in all things. If you find a Church subject to the State, and which cannot make or offer its own prayers, appoint its bishops and ministers, but which has its laws given to it by Christians, sectaries, infidels, Jews, etc., in Parliament, this cannot in any sense be called a Church of Christ. It may have in it Christians, and good, pious people, but it is not the Church - so also with regard to any other church controlled by Synods, Presbyteries, etc.; they cannot be the Church of Christ, made known to us in the New Testament. Christ may have children amongst them, but His word to them is, to return to His ways. The Church may be called the executive of the Kingdom, and (though as a Church it may be, and is, in the sense indicated, independent) executes the laws and ordinances of Christ and His apostles, for all Christian churches the world over. for instance, when a church received the confession of a sinner, and baptizes him into the name of the Lord Jesus, the church does that for the whole kingdom, as the decision of our judges, in our civil and criminal courts, stands throughout the kingdom of Queen Victoria. Only, then, such as confess faith in Jesus Christ, and repent, and are baptized, can enter into the Church as citizens in Christ’s Kingdom. We hear of churches into which babes are introduced by sprinkling a few drops of water upon their faces; of others which receive into full membership (whatever that may mean) those who themselves allow are not saved persons - their membership resting on a term of six months’ probation. There are doubtlessly good people among them, but these are not churches according to the law of God.
Returning to Dean Stanley - he says, “The Church of Christ of the first century was without clergy.” It was without a priest, except Christ Himself, the Great High Priest of the Christian profession. In a metaphorical sense, every member of the Church of Christ belongs to God’s clergy - every man and every woman in the Church is included in the declaration, “Ye are a Royal Priesthood.” We do not find clergy in the English New Testament, but we find it in the Greek New Testament; but the term is not applied to any peculiar order in the Church, but to the whole Church - God’s lot or heritage - so that a poor honest sister, who devoutly attends to the ordinances and acts of worship, in the Church of Christ, though she earns her bread at the side of the washing-tub, is God’s clergywoman, as, likewise, the poorest brother is God’s clergyman. We are then supported by Dean Stanley, when we say, “A church that has a limited clergy or priesthood, is not of Christ’s appointment.”
It is an after-thought, but not a “Divine after-thought.” We have seen that the Church is a local institution, visible, and tangible. We have seen that it is independent, uncontrolled by kings, synods, parliaments, conferences, etc., while the Churches of after-thought are thus controlled by kings, etc., and are subversive of the well-being of the true Church. We have seen that the Church of God’s thought was composed of members who were all clergy, but modern churches, churches of after-thought, have orders of men set apart as a clergy, who have been largely the cause of the infidelity of the Christian era.
We are not surprised at such an apostacy from the Church of God’s thought and fashioning, because the apostles have clearly foretold such falling away. Thus the present state of the so-called churches of Christ is another infallible proof of the truth of the sacred scriptures.

The Church and the Apostles.
THOUGH the Saviour came to found a Church, He did not, Himself, make known the laws by which He would have it governed. For that important work He selected and qualified a faithful band. The announcement of the ordinances and discipline of His intended association of converted Jews and Gentiles was committed to those whom He selected, and whom the Father gave Him for that work - His apostles.
The laws of earthly kingdoms are mutable, ever requiring revision, seldom perfect when framed, and soon outgrown. Hence legislation is oft repeated and the short-sighted legislators of the last generation have their best performances remodelled by the men of the present, whose work, in like manner, will fail to meet the requirements of their children.
The works of God, like Himself, are perfect. The solar system requires no re-adjustment. Generation after generation, man rejoices in the same muscular, nervous, arterial, and respiratory systems, yet, after minute examination, with all the aids of science, not a shade of improvement can be desired.
In a kingdom which, though upon earth, is not of earth, and which has God for its Founder - in a remedial system designed to prepare man for immortality, to destroy the love and power of sin, and to infuse a new and Divine nature - in a system for which the previous ages and states of the earth have been preparatory, can it be supposed that infinite wisdom, power and goodness, would give deficient legislation, and leave to uninspired men the formation or alteration of ordinances and laws relating to such stupendous results, and that, too, after man had demonstrated his utter incapacity to frame a government for a single state, productive of holiness and happiness? Unquestionably not!
Legislation for the Church of God was perfected ere the apostles fell asleep in Jesus! He had prayed that they might not be taken out of the world, but preserved from its evil. The Churches they set in order were designed as models till the end of the age - not in the defects and sins of their members, but in the faith and polity established by the apostles. To this end they have left as imperishable documents, as the only standards of appeal. The voice from the excellent glory had proclaimed - “This is My beloved son; hear ye Him.” He had duly instructed His apostles, when just before the traitor-led throng hurried Him away, He lifted up His voice to heaven and said: - “As Thou has sent Me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.” - John xvii:18.
To them He said: - “As My Father sent Me, even so send I you; he that receiveth you receiveth Me, and he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me.” - John xx:21. Till the day of Pentecost, as He commanded, the apostles remained, waiting, praying, for the promised bestowal of power. But when thus endowed with the Spirit, they gave laws to the Israel of God. The three thousand sinners who yielded to Jesus and were born again, were organized, with others, as the Church in Jerusalem, the first planted of the Churches of Christ. Many Churches were subsequently planted, and were the one body, ordered and governed by the apostles. Thus their apostleship being not of men, neither by men, but by Jesus the Christ and God the Father, they could do nothing against the truth, but for the truth; speaking with the demonstration of the Spirit and in power, not in the words that man’s wisdom teaches, but in words by the Holy Spirit, they were enabled to say, “He that is of God heareth God’s words.” - “God beareth them witness both with signs and wonders and divers miracles and gifts.” - Heb. ii:4. Under the former dispensation the law was given in one short period. In the new and more glorious, the Divine government was developed as rendered requisite. The laws of God delivered on the last principle were, however, not less perfect and permanent. Perhaps the main, or only difference is, that while the Jew can find his law compacted in a few pages, the Christian is called upon to regard not only the commands of the apostles, but the approved examples of the Churches. Were all who call themselves by the name of Jesus prepared to do this, then would names, and sects, and parties fall, for the apostles taught the same things and established the same order in every church. Paul, to the Corinthians, observes: - “And so I ordain in all the Churches.” (I Cor. vii:17.)
Of Timothy, he says, who shall bring you in remembrance of my ways, as I teach everywhere, in every Church. The Churches planted in Judea were model churches. Hence to the Thessalonians the same apostle writes. “For ye, brethren, became imitators of the Churches of God, which in Judea are in Christ Jesus.” - I Thess. ii:14.)
It may be said, that if the apostles legislated for the Church as events rendered necessary, why not arrange, re-arrange, and adapt its polity to the circumstances of each generation? The answer is, that their acts were never reversed, they did not arrange and re-arrange. When, for instance, they were called to decide as to circumcision, and things strangled, and blood, they did so once for all. What they made law then, is law now. They continued with the Church till the completion of its legislature, and thus provided for future requirements. They affirm, in relation to their acts, that it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to them. Their conclusions were binding upon the Churches, and excommunication followed disobedience, unless avoided by repentance and reformation.
“Therefore brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (2 Thess. ii:15.) “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the traditions which he received of us.” (2 Thess. iii:6.) They have no successors. All subsequent claims to inspiration are worthless.
They have finished their work; yet, being dead, they continue to rule. As Moses was heard in the synagogue after his earthly career had terminated, they are now heard in every uncorrupt congregation, as the only propounders of the Divine Law. In view of such continued authority, Peter says: - “This second epistle I now write unto you, in which I stir up your sincere mind to remembrance to be mindful of the words spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the COMMANDMENTS OF US THE APOSTLES of the Lord and Saviour.” 2 Peter iii:1-2, - “that you may be able, after my decease, to have these things always in remembrance.” - 2 Peter i:15.
Thus having perpetuated their laws and commands, recorded their sayings and doings, binding them upon the Church, their rule ends not till the Lord shall come.
Miraculous attestation to their truthfulness and accuracy was secured to the Church during the entire legislative period, that is, during their sojourn on earth. This was no longer required when the presentation of new truths ceased, and, consequently, looking forward to a time when it would terminate, when they should know, even as they were known, the apostles clearly announced the discontinuance of spiritual gifts.
“And He gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work for the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ .... That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph. iv:11,12,14.)
These miraculously-endowed brethren were, then, given until the Church should obtain the unity or completeness of the faith; that “we should not be tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine,” and freak of will-worship. With this on his mind, Paul could freely say - “Charity never faileth; but whether there be prophecies they shall fail, whether there be tongues they shall cease, whether there be knowledge (communicated by the Spirit), it shall vanish away.” - 1 Cor. xiii:8. cease to be thus given.
The importance of this position is perceived only by those who understand that had it been duly regarded, the apostasy could not have taken place. Papal Rome never could have existed, the union of Church and State must have remained impossible, and sect and sectaries have continued unknown. After trial, under every variety of circumstance, man has shown himself unable to frame a system suitable to his condition. He has erected empires before which the world has been prostrate; yet they have dissolved from want of just government. Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome have dissolved as nations are now dissolving, from the same cause - proving that man, in his best state, is unable to govern himself, leading us to feel the need of a Divine legislature, and warning us to flee for safety to Him, “Of the increase of whose government and peace there shall be no end.” - Isaiah ix:7.
Jesus, the Head of the New Dispensation, developed through His apostles the principles of the Divine government, and, having all authority in heaven and on earth given unto Him, the family of Adam are commanded to put themselves under His government. In every instance of deviation from the Jerusalem model, even by Churches, fully sincere in their desires to bless humanity, failure has been the result - that is to say, inferior results only have been produced; and a sectarian and powerless church is the standing monument of folly surpassing that of the builders of Babel.
It is then our duty to hear the apostles - to regard their laws - to use their words - and thereby be enabled to say, “He that is of God heareth us.”
It is ours to reject all ordinances, bonds of union, creeds, and attempts to legislate for the Church, since the apostles fell asleep in Jesus, that it may be said of us, “I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou cast not bear them which are evil, and thou hast tried them who say they are apostles and are not, and hast found them liars.” - Rev. ii:2. The Church: Planting and Development.
We have seen that during the Saviour’s sojourn on earth the Church was only prospectively alluded to, and also that it was planted on the Pentecost following His resurrection. Then began the Church of Christ. We have also noted the calling and training of His apostles, their baptism in the Holy Spirit, and their entrance on the day of its planting upon the work of legislating for the Church. That the Church was not then, nor soon after, fully set in order. The apostles being kept in the world, and from its evils, till that legislation was complete - that is till the perfect had come. The Church was absolutely perfect before the death of the last of the apostles; not in the number and character of its members, but in organization, faith and polity. As the Gentile believers became followers of those who were first in Christ Jesus in Judea, so has it been the duty and privilege of believers, in every subsequent generation, to imitate, in like manner, the model Churches set in order by them, and to that end exhibited in the New Testament Scriptures. A “Thus saith the Lord,” in the form of apostolic command or approved precedent, should be produced for all we uphold, or impose, as appertaining to the Church of God. “Denominations” talk of “development”; and truly the institution made known to us as the Church of Christ reached its perfection by a gradual unfolding. That unfolding, however, was of God and by inspired men. In this respect, when the apostle John departed, he might have uttered as a last word, “IT IS FINISHED.” From the Day of Pentecost to that day, was the period during which the development of the faith and polity of the Church was possible. After that, development becomes perversion and apostasy. During that period it was Divine progression: after that period it was the outworking of the “Mystery of Iniquity.” We have thus in view the development OF Christianity, and a development OUT of Christianity. These are frequently confounded, and, as a result, the apostasy takes the place of the Church, the people are thereby deceived, and Christianity rejected. These developments present widely different results. Compare a few particulars:

APOSTOLIC DEVELOPMENT

Church members. - Only those who had avowed their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and their repentance toward God.
Immersion into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The baptism of avowed believers only.
The Bread and the Cup, on the first of the week, as showing forth the Body and Blood of Jesus.
Every Christian a priest to God. No priestly orders.
Liberty in ministry to all male members able to edify.
Permanent Church Officers - Deacons and Elders; a plurality in every Church.
The Fellowship. - The free-will offerings of the Lord’s people.
The Church a local institution, uncontrolled by Monarchs, Parliaments, Conferences, Synods; neither united with the State, nor portioned into denominations.
POST-APOSTOLIC DEVELOPMENT.

Church Members. - Babes and others who have never avowed faith in Christ.
"Ecclesiastical baptism.” - Consisting in pouring or sprinkling water, as a substitute for the immersion commanded by the Saviour.
The Baptism or sprinkling of Babes.
The “Sacrament of the Altar”; wherein, by “Transubstantiation,” the real body of Christ is repeatedly sacrificed.
A limited and sacrificing Priesthood, derived from the Jews and the heathen.
Restriction of ministry to priests and ordained ministers.
Ministers, Popes, Cardinals, Archbishops, Canons, Deans, and numerous others.
Compulsory Contributions to Church Funds, from Christians, Jews and Infidels.
Churches enslaved to Parliaments, Conferences, and other bodies unbeknown to the apostles.

It is not to be understood that this contrast brings out all the points of departure. The list would have to be much enlarged for that purpose the present suffices to show departures so wide as to indicate not merely variations in the Church of Christ, but changes that compel the recognition of churches essentially different from that of he apostolic age, and not entitled to rank as of the one body of the Lord. Let us also be kept in mind, that the allegation as to this development OUT of Apostolic Christianity, does not originate in then fancy of the writer. It would be an easy task to cite admissions from Calvin, Luther, Wesley, and numerous others of high repute, covering the whole ground, the Church of Rome and the early Christian writers giving similar testimony. Modern writers of note, also, are not less outspoken. Take merely a sample:
“The Christian clergy was not part of the original institution of the Church, but might be regarded, so to speak, as a Divine after-thought.” - DR. STANLEY, Dean of Westminster.
“Of an Episcopalian bishop we can find no trace in Apostolic times.” ...
“Baptism in the primitive church was evidently administered by immersion of the body in water, a mode which added to the significance of the rite, and gave peculiar force to some of the allusions to it.” ...
“It remains indisputable that infant baptism is not mentioned in the New Testament. No instance of it is recorded there; no allusion is made to its effects; no directions are given for its administration. However reasonably we may be convinced that we find in the Christian Scriptures the fundamental idea from which infant baptism was afterwards developed, and by which it may now be justified, it ought to be distinctly acknowledged that it is not an apostolic ordinance.” - “Rev.” G.A. JACOB, D.D., Late Head Master of Christ’s Hospital.
It is of the nature of Divine institutions that, for the time for which they were given, they cannot be improved. Development therefrom means corruption, and departure is apostasy. The Church is a Divine institution, and when the great Head of the Church, who has all wisdom and all authority, requires change, He will authorize it. Till then our duty is to walk in His ways, and observe the appointments of His apostles!
This series of articles will not be grudged the space they occupy if their value is rightly estimated! The subject is of quite perennial interest. A full view of New Testament teaching on this subject is of great moment to the well-being of churches of Christ. Mr. King’s articles will be found written after a careful and prolonged study of all the Scriptures relating to each office; the value of his expositions being increased by his practical knowledge of church life. It is therefore expected, that those articles will be a permanently useful part of this volume.

Ministry in the Church of Christ.
Introductory.
SACERDOTALISM culminates in an Œcumenical Council and an Infallible Pope. When the Apostle John saw a vision of the apostacy, he wondered with great astonishment. And well he might! But extremes beget extremes. Scylla and Charybdis are an every day experience. Scylla and Charybdis are an every day experience. Consequently Quakerism and its modification, Plymouth-brethrenism, have been played off against Greek, Roman, and Anglican priestliness. There the priest is all - here the Holy Spirit is the President of the worshipping assembly, and, theoretically, every believer takes that ministering place to which the Spirit moves him. But ministry in the Church of Christ, in view of these extremes, is distinctly central, and has nothing in common with either. The priest forbids his lay-brother to preach or to minister the ordinances. He sustains his prohibition by Scripture, misapplied, of course. He cites - “No man taketh this honour upon himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron.” Aaron was called by a prophet of God, and set apart for his office by solemn consecration. But Paul’s allusion to Aaron has no connection with preaching, none with the ordinances of the Church, and none with any work or service committed to the children of God, or to any class or section thereof. It refers solely, as the context proves, to the Priestly office of the Lord Jesus, and therefore, when applied, as it commonly is, by Romanists, Anglicans, and Mormons is, either from dishonesty or ignorance, wrested from its true and undeniable meaning, in defiance of scope and context.
The Churches in which we move are not much troubled with priestly claims and pretence. If here and there an Evangelist, Pastor, or Deacon does, or is supposed to, take upon himself more than he ought, it is not on account of an assumed priestly prerogative, but owing to misunderstanding on his part, or on that of the Church, as to the duties of his particular charge. Misunderstandings of this kind now and then arise. We shall be disappointed if our present effort does not prove effectual in rendering them less frequent.
In the other direction the Churches referred to, have, perhaps, more need of caution. The Plymouthian leaven, or some modification of it, is occasionally met with. “Ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be comforted,” is misapplied, and made to mean that every member of the Church may teach and exhort in the assembly. Then, too, it is assumed that office is to be taken as a result of faith in one’s own fitness, and that, as this faith is a gift of the Spirit, no one has a right to stand between God and the man who desires office, and has faith in his own fitness to fill it. Than this, nothing has less Scripture sanction, and nothing can be more absurd. The Church, while yet the Scriptures of the New Covenant did not exist, received from the Holy Spirit “diversities of gifts.” The natural endowments of men may be considered as gifts from God, for every good and perfect gift is from Him, but they are never attributed to the Holy Spirit, and certainly not included in the diversity of gifts referred to by the Apostle. The Spirit gifted to one Prophecy; to another, Tongues; to another, Interpretation; to another, Healing; to another, Knowledge; to another, Faith by which to work mighty deeds. But never do we read that to each member was gifted a faith which consisted in an exact measurement of its possessor’s fitness for the diverse offices of the Church. Nor is there anything in man which, in this particular, can be relied upon Whether Phrenology be based on truth or not, it is certain that some men have self-esteem far larger than their ability would warrant. Such men, in all good conscience, would put themselves in office for which they are not qualified. Others have self-esteem so small that they are never induced to undertake what, in every other respect, they are well fitted for.
A book largely characterized by precious truths clearly expressed, has done something to popularize this Plymouthian error - “The Messiah’s Ministry,” by the late most lamented and highly esteemed T.H. Milner, is alluded to. There is good reason for believing that, had he lived, the book would have been, in this particular, considerably modified. But he was not spared to us, and, therefore, this, and much more good service remains for other hands. In the volume in question we read: “It is thus for the brethren, recognizing that indebtedness to the favour of God for all the gifts they possess, to think of themselves with respect thereto, precisely according to the divinely implanted faith therein. When God bestows gifts, He gives faith in the possession of them, whereby the holder may know and feel his responsibility; and it is, therefore, the duty of the possessor to make that faith the rule of the use of His gift or gifts .... Are human tribunals to be established to determine liberties and abilities of men in the use of the gifts which God has given them? Or shall they not rather be taught, as the apostle teaches the disciples, their amenability to the Giver of the favours they are supposed to possess? The latter manifestly.
Now the sentiment of the foregoing extract is opposed to good order, destructive of edification, and without Scripture authority. The writer protests, as well he might, against a “monopoly of ministerialism.” But there is a distinct middle path. The man’s own judgment as the sole ground of his taking office, and the monopoly referred to, are both extremes, and alike bad. Either would sadly afflict the Church. The true and Scriptural rule will be adduced in a subsequent article of this series.
The ground intended to be gone over embraces Ministry, or Service in general Priesthood, Divine and human - the Minister - Apostles - Prophets - Evangelists - Bishops - Teachers - Deacons, and other Ministrants. Priesthood.
“And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the most high God.” - Gen. xiv:18.
Thus early in the Bible do we find the priest. He stands before us a priest by divine appointment - as the priest of the God of Heaven. Animal sacrifices were no doubt instituted immediately after he first transgression; and it is most likely that as the human race extended, the head of the family and the chief of the tribe were required to fill the priestly office. But be that as it may, Melchizedek was the king of Salem and the Priest of God. But men wandered from God, set up their own gods, ordained sacrifices for themselves, and made their own priests. Early in the Bible we find traces of this apostacy. On the one hand, we behold worship and priesthood of divine appointment; on the other, will-worship and the unauthorized priest. The true priest and the false priest thus stand face to face upon the sacred page.
When the Patriarchal dispensation gave place to that of Moses, the priesthood underwent considerable change. The head of the family and the chief of the tribe were no longer eligible for priestly functions, but God limited priesthood to one tribe, selecting Aaron and his sons to minister in this holy office. Hence we read, “No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron.” The priests were few, the people many, but the arrangements were of God, and death was decreed to the man who would deny the priesthood of God’s priests, by claiming their office for himself for others. The standing results of a priesthood are, that animal sacrifice is offered in order to approach God; man is not permitted to offer his own sacrifice; the priest stands between him and God, and only by the intervention of the appointed priest can he acceptably draw nigh. Now, though liberty for the sinner to approach by means of victim, altar, and priest is unquestionably a great blessing, it is, nevertheless, small in comparison with that of having at all times, by virtue of one who is both Priest and Sacrifice, and who has ascended to heaven, liberty to approach the throne of Divine majesty to obtain, without help or hindrance from any being on earth, all required mercy and grace - in other words, to be, each for himself, a priest to God - a nation of priests. Both these positions God has appointed - the limited first, the universal afterward. To the people of limited priesthood he gave a conditional promise to make them a kingdom of priests - that is, to take away all restriction, and constitute every subject of the kingdom a priest to God. This promise is found in Ex. xix.- “Therefore if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure to me above all people; for all the earth is Mine; and ye shall be to Me a KINGDOM OF PRIESTS and an HOLY NATION.” The record of the sin and death-punishment of Korah, Dathan, and Company, is found in Num. xvi. The sin consisted in an attempt to change the appointed priesthood - the Lord had instituted a priestly order, but Korah proclaimed the nation holy as to priesthood, i.e., universal priesthood. The sin consisted not in an attempt to introduce what was bad in itself, for the Lord had promised that very thing as a blessing, but in the effort to set aside God’s then present appointment by the introduction of another, before its time, and in the absence of required conditions. The result was death to the entire company.
The nation, however, was not obedient, did not keep the covenant, lost the blessing, and never became a Kingdom of Priests. But was God’s purpose frustrated? Not at all! He constituted another Israel, substituting the FAITH of Abraham for the FLESH of Abraham - not excluding the fleshly seed, but granting alike to Jew and Gentile entrance by the “door of faith” into the newly-constituted kingdom. Hence a new Covenant was made, a new Mediator given, a new Law promulgated, a new Sacrifice provided, and a new Priesthood instituted. That this change has been made is clearly intimated by the apostle Paul - “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical Priesthood, for under it the people received the law, what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek and not be called after the order of Aaron, for the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” - Heb. vii:11,12.
Christ then is our only and everliving High Priest, and in His Church all are alike priests, there being no priesthood but that which is common to every Christian. Hence it is written, - “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He has consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh; and having an high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” Heb. x:19-22.
Here, then, the Universality of the Priesthood under this Dispensation is clearly stated. As all the priests, and only the priests, under the law, had access to the tabernacle, and as they came by the blood and the altar to the brazen laver, and washed in the water thereof, so Paul calls upon all Christians to approach with boldness, having their hearts “sprinkled from an evil conscience and their bodies washed with pure water;” thus making the limited priesthood of the old covenant typical, not of an order of priests, as distinguished from the laity, but of the whole Church of Christ. So, too, in Rev. i:5,6, where the song of the redeemed declares the universal priesthood, “Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God.”
So we read in the authorised English Version; but according to the Vatican Manuscript the reading is still stronger - “Hath made us A KINGDOM even PRIESTS.”* [* See R.V. The Revisers adopted this reading.] It thus appears that the promise made conditionally to the ancient people, and not realized by them on account of disobedience, is fulfilled to the Spiritual Israel, so that now the priesthood is as wide as the kingdom - every subject is a priest - that which Korah sought to proclaim before its time, is now proclaimed and established by the Apostles of Jesus. The testimony of Peter is unmistakable - “As new-born babes, desire the sincere milk of the Word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be that ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming as to a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, ye also as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, AN HOLY PRIESTHOOD, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” .... “But ye are a chosen generation a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of God.” 1 Peter ii:2-9.
Thus are applied to the Church of Christ the very terms of the promise given to the people of the former covenant - Kingdom of Priests - Holy Nation - Peculiar People. There is, then, now no priesthood but that which is common to all Christians. In other words, literal and limited priesthood is abolished, and only spiritual priests and spiritual sacrifices remain.* [*What are these “spiritual sacrifices” that all the members of the Church of God can now offer without distinction of sex, or any restriction whatever? 1. They offer their “bodies” “living sacrifices” in contrast to the bodies of dead animals, offered by the Jewish priest. - 2. Their faith is a sacrifice. Paul wrote, “And if I be poured out upon the sacrifice and offering of your faith, I am glad.” Phil. ii:17. That is to say, Paul was willing that his blood be poured out, like the wine poured on the meat-offerings to render them acceptable to God, if by that means he could render the faith of the Gentiles more firm, and, therefore, more pleasing to the Lord. - 3. Contributions in support of needing preachers of the gospel. Phil. iv:18. - 4. Praise to God, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. Heb. xiii:15. - 5. The doing of good generally, and particularly by communicating or attending to the fellowship. Heb. xiii:16. It must be remembered that the whole of the offerings of God’s Spiritual Priests are of the nature of thank-offerings - none are for atonement. The one and sufficient offering of our Saviour, who is both priest and victim, has perfected for ever those who are sanctified and also, for ever, made an end of offerings for sin.]
Yet, plainly as these truths are set forth in the Bible, they are not understood by those who are taught by modern priests, because they seek not to obtain the truth directly from the Word of the Lord. They have a notion that the claims of these men are sustained in the New Testament. But surely, if in our approach to God we are now handed over to priests, as were the whole people under the former dispensation, the fact must appear somewhere in the New Testament. A fact so important must certainly stand out in all clearness. Let us see. In the New Testament the words high-priest and chief-priest, counted together, occur about one hundred and twenty-three times (mostly in the gospels): the whole, with the exception of some ten in the Epistle to the Hebrews, are historical allusions to the high-priest and chief-priests of the Jews. The ten excepted instances refer to the Lord Jesus, and present Him as the anti-type of the Jewish high-priest. There is not, then, in all the one hundred and twenty-three instances the slightest allusion to a priest in the Church of Christ, save and except the Lord Jesus Himself. The word priest occurs in the New Testament some thirty-three times, of which eighteen refer to Jewish priests, one to the priests of Jupiter, eight to Christ, three to Melchizedek, and three designate the entire body of Christ’s Church “priests unto God” - Rev. i:6; v:10; xx:6. The word priesthood occurs some six times; four times in Heb. vii, all of which refer to the Levitical priesthood or to that of the Lord Jesus Himself. The remaining two declare the whole Church the holy and royal priesthood of God - 1 Peter ii:5-9. Priest’s office occurs twice - Luke i:9, Heb. vii:5 - both referring to the Levitical priesthood. It thus appears that in the New Testament there is not even ONE allusion to the existence of a priest in the Church of Christ, other than those which refer to the Lord Himself as our High Priest, or those which designate the entire Church a Spiritual Priesthood to offer Spiritual Sacrifices unto God by Him.
Priesthood, then, as the Roman, Anglican, and other priests impose it upon their followers, has no Scripture warrant, and is but a worthless sham. The first Christians knew nothing of it; and their Pagan neighbours proclaimed the fact that the disciples of Christ had neither material altar, nor sacrifice, and were wholly without a priesthood. Impartial history thus records - “The Christians had neither sacrifices, nor altar, nor images, nor oracles, nor sacerdotal robes; and this was sufficient to bring upon them the reproaches of an ignorant multitude, who imagined there could be no religion without these. Thus they were looked upon as a sort of Atheists; and by the Roman law, those who were chargeable with Atheism, were declared the pest of human society. But this was not all. The sordid interests of a multitude of lazy and selfish priests were immediately connected with the ruin and oppression of the Christian cause. The public worship of such an immense number of deities was a source of subsistence, and even of riches, to the whole rabble of priests and augurs, and also to a multitude of merchants and artists. And the progress of the gospel threatened the ruin of this religious traffic. This raised up new enemies to the Christians, and armed the rage of a mercenary superstition against their lives and cause.” - Mosheim.
Surely the alarm of the Pagan Priests would have been avoided had the early Christians met them in their own line with a ritualistic worship. Take a few lines from Haweis’ Church History: - “Nothing could be more unadorned than the primitive worship. A plain man chosen from among his fellows, in his common garb, stood up to speak, or sat down to read the Scriptures to as many as chose to assemble in the house to hear. The idea of a priesthood had yet scarcely entered the Christian sanctuary, as there remained no more sacrifice for sin, and but one high-priest, Jesus Christ. But, on the dissolution of the whole Jewish economy under Adrian, when the power of the associated clergy began to put forth its bud, the ambitious suggested what many of the rest received in their simplicity, that the succession of these honours now devolved upon them, and that the bishop stood in the place of the high-priest; the presbyters were priests; and the deacons Levites; and so a train of consequences followed. Thus a new tribe arose, completely separated from their brethren, of clergy distinct from laity - men sacred by office, exclusive of a divine call and real worth. The altar, indeed, was not erected, nor the unbloody sacrifice of the eucharist perfected; but it approached by hasty strides to add greater sanctity to the priesthood, and the most unpleasant adjunct of the divine right of tithes to the divine right of episcopacy.
It then follows, that wherever the church consists of priestly and unpriestly members, apostasy prevails; that there you have a compound of Judaism and Heathenism; and there the Church of Christ is not.

The Clergy.
The word clergy comes to us from kleeros, lot or inheritance. The application of this term to the priesthood has Old Testament authority.
“The Priests, the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no lot nor inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and His inheritance. Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren.” - Deut. xviii.
Thus the tribe of Levi was called the inheritance (or clergy) of the Lord, while, reciprocally, He was called their inheritance. In every church in which a clergy is recognized, there, as a consequence, is the laity. The word laos is found in the New Testament over one hundred and thirty times, and is translated people. Were we now lifted out of the Dispensation of the Spirit, and carried back to that of the Law, nothing would be more appropriate than the terms clergy and laity; the one designating the priests, and the other the people and distinguished from the priesthood. But no trace of such distinction is found in the present economy - it belongs not to the Church of Christ. Not that laos is not used in the New Testament to denote the people, in contradistinction to the Church of God, which is the Royal Priesthood, and the only one now acknowledged. It is used (as we use the word people) to designate the nation under the law, the unconverted masses, and the Church of Christ. But whenever it is applied to the Church it expressed the whole body and never stands for an unpriestly or unclerical portion thereof - as, “An holy nation, a peculiar people” - “A peculiar people zealous of good works.” So, too, kleeros (which occurs in the New Testament some thirteen times) is never used to distinguish a section, or class, of God’s people from the many, or other portion of the Lord’s church. In Ephesians i:11, the whole church is said to “have obtained an inheritance” in Christ, or, expressed literally, “to have been taken as His inheritance,” lot or clergy. So that the Lord’s people are, as a whole, the Lord’s clergy, and the only clergy he has. Bishops, elders, pastors, are not designated clergy, otherwise than as the poorest and most illiterate of the flock are so designated; every one of whom is a clergyman, or a clergywoman, in the only sense in which the term can be applied to any. Peter wrote to the elders, saying, “Feed the flock of God, which is among you, taking the oversight, not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage.”
Here, heritage is a translation of kleeros, and the whole Church is designated God’s clergy, over which the elders are forbidden to constitute themselves lords. Every member of the people, or laity, of Acts xv:14, Rom. ix:26, 2 Cor. vi:16, is one of the clergy of 1 Peter v:3.
There is, then, no clerical caste, or order, in the Church of God - all the laity of God are the clergy of Christ; and by this standard we determine the Greek Church, the Roman Church, the Anglican Church, the Irvingite Church, the Mormon Church, etc., to appertain to the apostasy, and to have no claim to be received as that institution set up by the authority of Christ and designated the Church of God.

The Minister.
“Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed?” 1 Cor. iii:5.
Just as our attention was turned to writing this chapter, there came a circular, relating to an Annual Collection for the Birmingham Charities. The circular reads:- “Rev. Sir, - We are directed to inform you that a General Meeting of the Clergy and Ministers of Religion, together with selected representatives of the Laity, will be held in the Committee Room of the Town Hall, on Monday, the 31st January, at half-past three precisely, to appoint a committee, etc. ..... Each Minister having the care of a church or chapel will have the privilege of giving admission to four gentlemen who are Parochial or Congregational officers, or other lay friends.”
Now, had Paul come back to us upon a visit, and had this circular fallen into his hands, most certainly he would have been utterly unable to divine its meaning, until favoured with special revelation, either from heaven or from some one conversant with the ways of Babeldom. In the Church of Christ, by the Lord’s appointment, there are a variety of workers, some of whom have special designations; as Apostles, Bishops, Elders, etc.; but none of these have the title “Reverend,” to mark them off from some other class of workers and from the people of the Lord in general. In the New Testament we never read of the “Rev.” Simon Peter; nor of any other person, so distinguished. Some object to the term Reverend as applied to men, because it is, as they suppose, appropriated to Jehovah Himself; and they charge those who use it with applying to man a term only applicable to the Divine Being. But such persons misunderstand the nature of the case. The term is applied to God - “He sent redemption unto His people; he hath commanded His covenant for ever; holy and reverend is His name. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Ps. cxi:9.
But it is not otherwise applied to Him than is the term holy, in the same verse; yet Christians, individually, are called “holy” and, collectively, a “holy nation”. It then follows that the term “reverend” is not necessarily misapplied to man because applied to Jehovah. God is both holy and reverend, and His children are called to be, in these particulars, like their Father: and when they are so, they may very properly be so designated. The mistake has arisen from supposing that the term is to be appropriated exclusively to God. The same Hebrew term is applied both to things and places, and is generally translated dreadful, fearful, or terrible; and either of these words would have represented it in the Psalm just quoted. The Psalmist had been saying, “The works of His hands are verity and judgment;” and “Holy and reverend is His name” is immediately followed by the affirmation, that “the FEAR of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” In Gen. xxviii:17, it is applied to place, and rendered dreadful. In Ex. xv:11, it is associated with praises and translated fearful. In Deut. i:19, it describes a wilderness, and is represented by the word terrible.
Taking the term “Reverend,” as applied to the clergy of our time, we have, of course, to deal with it in its common signification, and then it stands as “venerable” - “one worthy of reverence.” It is not wrong to designate a person venerable who really is so; and it cannot be improper to apply the term reverend to any worthy Christian (man and woman) whose character really corresponds. But the use of the term, to designate the “clergy” as distinguished from the “laity,” is of the Apostasy; both unscriptural and anti-scriptural. It amounts to an exclusive application of a term which is applicable to every Christian, whose age and character correspond thereto, to a class which, as a class, is very far from manifesting special sanctity.
But, returning to our circular - There are invited to the meeting the Clergy, the Ministers, and the Laity. Two of these classes we completely disposed of in a former article - the clergy and the laity. Pray who are the ministers? Surely they must be neither clergy nor laity. As such they are pretty generally treated. Of course those are intended who minister to Nonconformist Churches, as do the clergy to the State Church. Each minister having charge of a church, or chapel, has the liberty to introduce four lay friends. Here the terms church and chapel evidently denote buildings devoted to preaching and worship. Now the minister who has charge of the chapel in which we worship never ministers in doctrine, but is a worthy shoemaker, living near at hand, who, not having too much work, increases his income by taking charge of the chapel, which he is expected to clean, open, and close, as needful. He, then, is most truly the minister in charge of the chapel. Yet we presume they will not allow him to introduce “four lay friends.” But, again - The Minister! Who and what is he? It is quite common to hear persons allude to the minister of the church to which they belong. Independents, Baptists, Presbyterians, and other Nonconformists, almost invariably use the term in the singular; as “the minister of our church.” We have, therefore, to ask from the New Testament an answer to the very reasonable question - What is that office in the Church of Christ which entitles the person who fills it to be termed THE MINISTER? The answer is short and simple - There is no such office; and, therefore, no such officer.
But Paul called Timothy “a minister of God,” and declared Epaphras “a faithful minister of Christ.” Col. i:7, 1 Thes. iii:2. What did he mean? Simply that they were faithful servants of God and Christ. The term diakonos, in those instances rendered “minister,” occurs in the New Testament about thirty times; and is translated minister twenty-one times, servant seven times, and deacon twice. Its meaning, according to the Lexicons, is - “one who serves; an attendant; a servant.” It is said to mean “a deputy; a preacher; a disciple;” and so on; but it no more does so than our word servant means “cook, housemaid, shopman, clerk,” and so forth. The word servant may be applied to any one whose service is rendered in the kitchen, shop, or counting house, but it never, in itself, expresses the kind of service: it merely marks off the person as one who serves. So also with diakonos - you may know that the person so designated serves by preaching, teaching, executing a commission, but the term expresses nothing of the preaching, teaching, or commission, but only declares the actor a servant. Accordingly we read in Matt. xx:26, “Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your servant (diakonos); and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your slave” (doulos). Here we have a very expressive distinction - Let him who would be great be the servant of all: but let him who would be chief (more than merely great) serve still more intently, even as a slave or bond-servant; for such is the signification of doulos. He then who would be great in the church is not to become “the minister,” in the sense in which the term is used by most churches, but a servant to his brethren in every good work. The same word is used to designate the servants of the king who were to bind the man who had not on a wedding garment (Matt. xxii:13); the servants at the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee (John ii:5); and it is applied to females, as in Rom. xvi:1. “Phœbe our sister, who is a servant,” of the church.
Ministry, Ministration, and Ministering, taken together, and as renderings of diakonos, are found between twenty and thirty times in the New Testament. Diakonia first occurs in Luke x:40 - “Martha was cumbered about much serving,” and there we have expressed its true signification - serving; the doing of any kind of service, the word never expressing the nature of the service. The same word is used in reference to Martha’s house service, the service of Paul, the service of relieving the saints, and the service of God’s people as a whole. In no instance does the word itself express the nature of the service, the act of serving being alone expressed. And so with diakoneo, which is found translated Ministered unto.” It is found in Luke xxii:27 - “I am among you as He that serveth;” also in John xii:2 - “Martha served,” and in verse 26, “If any man serve Me, let him follow Me;” and again, in Acts vi:2 - “It is not reason that we leave the word of God and serve tables.” One and the same word, then, is used in relation to service done by Martha, by Jesus, by disciples generally, and by the table-servers in Jerusalem.
Then there is leitourgos, a public servant, occurring five times in the New Testament, and rendered minister. It applies to rulers; to the higher powers of the State; to Paul, as the public servant of Christ to the Gentiles; to Epaphroditus, as the servant or messenger of the Church, to minister to the wants of the apostle; and to a flame of fire, as the servant of God. Rom. xiii:6, xv:16; Phil. ii:25; Heb. i:7. There is, therefore, nothing clerical in this word.
Clerical ministry is also imposed upon us in the New Testament by means of the word hupeeretees. In four instances it is translated in the interest of the clergy - “Who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word.” (Luke i:2); “And they had also John to their minister.” (Acts xiii:5); “I have appeared unto thee to make thee a minister and a witness.” (Acts xxvi:16); “Let a man so account of us as of ministers of Christ.” (1 Cor. iv:1). But hupeertees, in its primary meaning, is an “under rower” one who sat on the rower’s bench under a superior officer. In its secondary sense it denotes an inferior officer, chiefly of the civil courts. It also came to denote any kind of servant - official or domestic. It is translated officer in Matt. v:25, and in other texts. It is rendered servant in Mark xiv:54; and elsewhere. Here, too, we find no trace of clerical meaning. It thus appears that, in the New Testament, ministry is presented to us as service of any kind, rendered by disciples of Christ to God and His Church; and that, in the common English translation, the words rendered ministry, minister, etc., are occasionally weakened and perverted under the influence of clerical bias; that minister is never once used to denote a clerical functionary; and that there is no work or office in the Church of God, set apart for one individual, which entitles him to be designated THE MINISTER; also that there is no trace of a class of officers who are authorized specially and exclusively to designate themselves Ministers - in a word, that there is no more authority for one man to be regarded as the one minister of a Church, than there is for popes and cardinals. Not that the word minister is in itself inappropriate. It is derived from the Latin ministro, which signifies to serve, to wait on, etc. If the term, in Church usage, were applied to all departments of service, and to all who serve, there could be no objection to its use. Let it be deprived of its special parsonic application, and brought back to its proper and original use, and there will be no need to set it aside.
So far, we have been merely clearing the ground of the clerical rubbish, with which it was covered. “And you have cleared it,” says one. “You have swept away the priesthood, the clergy, the minister; and what have you left?” Patience, dear friend! We have very much left. Go with us carefully, and we hope to show you the entire apostolic structure. Our purpose is to bring into view ministry in the Church of Christ as ordained by the Lord, and as it was when the apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, completed the God-given order of things.
First, then, both in time and importance stand

Apostles.
“He called His disciples; and of them He chose twelve whom he named Apostles.” Luke vi:13.
The word apostolos (apostle); from apostelleo, to send forth, to dispatch; signifies one sent, a messenger, ambassador, envoy. It is said to be equivalent to angelos, angel, messenger; but there is, at least, difference enough to make the one in certain instances decidedly preferable. Apostolos seems to take the higher range, and to represent an ambassador, or envoy, with better grace and superior fitness than would angelos.
Apostolos occurs frequently in the New Testament, and is almost invariably translated apostle. In a few instances it is rendered messenger, and the result in some respects is concealment of truth. The New Testament reveals a threefold application of the term.

APOSTLES OF GOD - As, Jesus and Moses - Heb. iii:1.
APOSTLES OF CHRIST - As Peter, Andrew and James. - Matt. x.
APOSTLES OF THE CHURCHES - As Paul, Barnabas, and Epaphroditus. - Acts xiv:14; Phil. ii:25.

The Apostles of God received their respective commissions from Him: Apostles of the Christ received theirs solely from Him; the Apostles of Churches received theirs from those who sent them. These three classes of apostles are alike in name only. Jesus and Moses (Apostles of Jehovah), had not the same commission, nor at all similar work. The Apostles of Christ, and those of Churches were not at all equal. Those sent forth by Churches only, had no part in the great distinctive features of the work committed by the Saviour to His Apostles.
“From among His disciples the Lord chose twelve, whom He also named apostles.” He sent others forth on special missions, as the seventy; and thus sent they were, for the time, apostles. But no one can read the history without perceiving, that He appropriated this word to a college of men, to whom alone a special and extraordinary commission was to be entrusted, and who should, ever after, be known as the apostles of Christ. They were men of God’s chosen nation; their names are given in Matt. x.; one was unfaithful, and by transgression fell; they were educated for their mission during some three years by Himself; near the close of His life he addressed the Father concerning them, thus:-
“I have manifested Thy name to the men which Thou gavest me out of the world. Thine they were, and Thou gavest them Me; and they have kept Thy word. Now, they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given Me are of Thee. For I have given unto them the words which Thou gavest Me; and they have received them and have known surely that I came out from Thee, and they have believed that Thou didst send Me. I pray for them, I pray not for the world but for them which thou hast given Me; for they are Thine, and all Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to Thee. Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one as we are. While I was with them in the world I kept them in Thy name; those that thou gavest Me I have kept, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. And now I come to Thee, and these things I speak in the world, that they might have My joy fulfilled in themselves.” John xvii.
To this He added, - “As Thou has sent Me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.”
He had previously said, - “He that receiveth you receiveth Me, and he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me.”
The Saviour came in order to found His Church, but He ascended to Heaven and left His disciples without giving them even an outline. To His apostles its organization was committed. As His ambassadors they laid the foundation in Zion, and proceeded to build thereon. They were evangelists, pastors, bishops, prophets, and deacons; in part, at least, by virtue of their apostleship, but they were more than all these. Under the Christ they stood forth as the Heaven-given and Spirit-directed Legislature of the Church of God’s dear Son and of the Kingdom of Heaven (in its present manifestation). To them, as to stewards of God, the mysteries of the faith were revealed, that, as times and circumstances might require, they might make known the same, and thus they published the faith once for all made known unto the saints. They were kept in the world, according to the Saviour’s prayer, till the canon of Scripture had been completed, the Church in every particular set in order, and the legislation of the kingdom finished. In view of such a trust well might the Saviour say, “In the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel,” (Matt. xix.) and well may the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb appear upon the twelve foundations of the heavenly Jerusalem. - Rev. xxi.
The preparation necessary to the proper accomplishment of their stupendous work was unspeakably great. In earthly kingdoms legislation consists, mainly, in amending or reversing the acts of former legislators. But their legislation was to stand as long as the dispensation - never to be amended or reversed. They have no successors, and any attempt upon the part of church, conference, synod, or council, to change their enactments is an act of rebellion against the Lord. But the preparation needed, was not larger than the head of the Church supplied. As the Plenipotentiaries, on earth, of the Lord of both heaven and earth, they were invested with all authority and power necessary to the establishment, and right administration of the Kingdom of Heaven, and of the Church of Christ. Hence was said, - “Whatsoever Thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever Thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. xvi), and to this end plenary inspiration was needed and given. Not given when they were ordained, but promised before the death of the Lord, and given by the Pentecostal baptism in the Holy Spirit, of which they were the subjects.
What the Spirit did for them, may, in fact, be gathered from the Saviour’s teaching. To them He said - “The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you, ... He shall guide you into all truth ... and He will show you things to come.” John xiv - xvi.
Thus qualified for the unerring discharge of their duties, they were not less completely equipped for the demonstration of their authority. As ambassadors carry with them the unmistakable credentials of their Sovereign, they were ever able to demonstrate their right and title as apostles of Christ. One of them wrote, “For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God!” - “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you, in all patience, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds.” - Rom. xv; 2 Cor. xii. The signs of an apostle were not merely miracles, but, evidently miracles of the highest order; wonders most stupendous. Beside these there was the ministering of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. Many who were not apostles received the Holy Spirit and wrought miracles; but none of them could minister, or impart, the Spirit to others. This power was alone committed to them. It was this that Simon wanted to purchase; not the reception of the Spirit, for that was his, but the power to minister the Spirit to those upon whom he might put his hands; in a word, this peculiar gift, work, and sign of an apostle.
They were not only ambassadors from Christ, but witnesses that He had risen from the dead. It was, therefore, needful in every instance, that the apostle should have seen the Lord. This was understood by the eleven, who, when they set themselves to ordain one to fill the place vacant by the fall of Judas, said - “Wherefore of these men, which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us ... must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection.” Acts i.
So, too, in the case of Paul who, as an apostle, was born out of due time.
For this purpose the Lord appeared unto him.
He received his commission from the lips of the Lord Himself; and when his apostleship was denied, he appealed to that fact as proof that he was not wanting in this qualification. Where this truth is understood, there remains no ground to entertain Mormon and Irvingite claims to a restored apostleship. We are soon able to say, “We have tried those who say they are apostles, and are not, and have found them liars.”
Men so commissioned and sustained may be expected to speak with authority; and at every point the apostles maintained the dignity of their office; yet, at the same time, with all the humility of the true followers of Jesus. Hear Paul - “For this cause I have sent unto you Timothy ... who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ Jesus, as I teach everywhere, in every church. Now some are puffed up ... what will ye? Shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love and in the spirit of meekness?” - “And so ordain I in all the churches.” - “Now I praise you brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you.” - “The rest will I set in order when I come.” “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” - “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the church of Galatia, even so do ye.” - “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” 1 Cor. iv:17; vii:17; xi:2, 16, 37; xvi:1, 2; 2 Thes. ii:15.
No man now should dare to address a church thus. Paul commanded; we may but recommend. His word was one of authority, and his I, as an apostle of the Lord, was final; we can but quote the law as given by the Lord, or His ambassadors. We have still the apostles to regulate the church, as the Jews had Moses in the days of the Saviour. They being dead yet speak in their records, which were written to perpetuate their commands.
“This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you, in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance; that ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the COMMANDMENTS OF US, THE APOSTLES OF THE LORD AND SAVIOUR.” 2 Peter iii. “He, therefore, that DESPISETH, despiseth not MAN, but GOD, who hath also given unto US His Holy Spirit.” 1 Thes. iv:8.

Prophets.
“God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers.” - 1 Cor. xii:28.
In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul wrote, “Ye may all prophesy, one by one;” and modern teachers sometimes address the Church in the same words. There is, however, this difference - the persons referred to by Paul were prophets and, therefore, could prophesy, while those now addressed are not prophets, and, consequently, cannot. There is now no prophet, and, as a result, no prophesying.
The words prophet and prophesying are much misused. With many they relate only to foretelling future events; but in the Bible, whether we take their Hebrew or their Greek equivalents, their meaning is not thus restricted. The prophets of God did foretell things to come, and in so doing they prophesied; but they also very frequently prophesied when there was no allusion to the future. A prophet is one who speaks as he is moved by the Holy Spirit - whenever he prophesies he is inspired. He may or may not speak of the future, but whenever he speaks by inspiration he prophesies. The apostles of the Saviour were all prophets, but the prophets were not all apostles. The prophets were all teachers, but the teachers were not all prophets - hence it is written, that He gave not only apostles and prophets, but also teachers - and Paul asks, “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? 1 Cor. xii:28. There are those who say to the church, “Ye may all prophesy one by one” - meaning that all may teach and exhort - whereas it is not true that all may teach, for many are not able, and none are permitted to waste time in that which is not to edification. Neither is it true that an uninspired teacher, however competent to edify, is a prophet. Paul wrote, “Ye may all prophesy one by one,” but then he was speaking of those who had the prophetic gift.
“Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge. IF ANYTHING BE REVEALED to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace for ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted, and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.” - 1 Cor. xiv:31.
Inspired men are here clearly referred to - men possessing the word of wisdom and the word of knowledge - a manifestation of the Spirit. No amount of acquired knowledge, or wisdom, would bring its possessor within the prophetic circle - only an allotment of the Holy Spirit could place him there. But does not Paul teach that he who speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort, prophesieth? Certainly not! That “he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort” (1 Cor. xiv:3) is indeed affirmed by Paul, but widely different are the two affirmations. He who speaks, moved by the Holy Spirit, is a prophet, and will certainly speak to edification, but it by no means follows that every teacher who speaks to edification is a prophet, or moved by the Holy Spirit. The error is this - Paul, as the context shows, designed to set forth the effects of prophesying, in contrast with those resulting from speaking with tongues, whereas he is understood as giving a definition. While then prophecy carries with it edification, exhortation, and comfort, speaking to edification, exhortation, and comfort, is not necessarily prophecy.
Notice the words of Peter - “Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” 2 Peter i:21. Inspiration is here clearly included. Then, as we have seen, the prophets were to wait for revelation (1 Cor. xiv:30), and Paul adds, “If any think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” 1 Cor. xiv:37.
In this text, to be a prophet is equivalent to being spiritual or inspired. To the prophets God’s secrets, and those of the hearts of men, were revealed. Paul says, “Thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest, and so falling on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you.” 1 Cor. xiv:25. Thus it was when the Great Prophet conversed with the woman of Samaria. He told her inmost thoughts, and she responded, “Sir, I perceive that Thou art a prophet.”
But it is claimed that there is also a lower application of the words prophet and prophecy - that while all teachers were not prophets in the higher sense, yet in the “subordinate” sense they were; and, that now, it would be no stretch of language to speak of the critically exact expositor as a prophet. But this we must most absolutely deny. The prophets who edified the church by teaching did not obtain their information as do the “critically exact expositors” of our day. They possessed the “word of wisdom” and the “word of knowledge” as gifts direct from the Spirit; their words were the immediate result of inspiration, and it was on that account only that they stood as prophets. To assert a lower or subordinate application of the words is to take unscriptural ground.
Accordingly, in writing to the church in Rome, Paul says, - “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given unto us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teaches on teaching.”
Here prophesying and teaching are distinguished. So, then, we have now neither prophets nor prophesying. “The Lord gave some apostles, some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,” and the two former having done the work for which they were required, are no longer given - though, being dead, they yet speak to us in the Scriptures of truth.
Apostles and prophets are spoken of as gifts. Of the Saviour it is said that “He gave some apostles, and some prophets and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers.” In what sense were they given? In that of being miraculously qualified for their office - each received those supernatural gifts requisite to the right performance of the work committed to his charge. There are now pastors and teachers, but their qualifications are acquired by the ordinary process of learning and experience. It would be completely foreign to Scriptural style to speak of such as “gifts.” The apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers, thus said to be gifted to the church by the Lord, were given only for a time, and for the purpose of edifying the body of Christ. The time is specified thus - “Till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.”
Now that time has long since passed away - the church has come to the unity of the faith. When the last apostolic communication was given that unity was consummated; then the church stood forth a perfect man, having attained to the stature of the fulness of Christ. The perfection referred to is not that of number, not that of character, but that of faith, ordinances, and divinely appointed order; all of which were established ere the Lord suffered His apostles and prophets to leave the earth. That which is perfect having come, that which was in part was soon away, and Paul names prophecy as belonging to that which would thus be removed, that faith, hope and love might remain. Eph. iv; 1 Cor. xiii.
As, then, we have no apostles, so we have no prophets. Evangelists, pastors, and teachers there can be without supernatural gifts; they, therefore, remain. Apostles and prophets cannot be, unless qualified by the gifts of the Holy Spirit; which ceased when, or soon after, “that which was perfect had come.” There are those who teach that we have not now miraculous gifts, apostles and prophets, because of the unfaithfulness of the church. We shall not deny the unfaithfulness of the church, generally; but we must deny that the gifts were withdrawn on that account - on the contrary, they were given for a time, continued their full period, and then terminated because the end was answered for which they were given.
God’s prophets still speak to us through the records they were led by the Spirit to compile. It is ours to learn the things they have testified and to minister them to mutual edification, knowing that now we have neither apostle nor prophet.

Evangelists.
“Do the work of an Evangelist.” 2 Tim. iv:5.
Apostles and prophets have ceased, because the work for which they were given is finished, and because the Lord does not now, by supernatural gifts, qualify for the prophetic and apostolic offices. Without these gifts there can neither be prophet nor apostle: and, hence, we have them not, because, in the very nature of the case, they cannot be had. But with reference to evangelists, pastors, and teachers, it is otherwise. The Lord gave these at the first, and for a time, even as He gave apostles and prophets; that is, He qualified for the work, through the Holy Spirit, by direct impartation of fitness. There was this difference between the two classes - all that evangelists, pastors, and teachers were thus qualified to accomplish they could have attained in process of time by the exercise of powers natural to man; while time, application, and natural ability, without supernatural endowment and demonstration, could never develop apostles and prophets. But what is there appertaining to the office of apostle or prophet which could not be acquired by natural processes? Apostles must be witnesses of the resurrection of Christ, and demonstrate their apostleship by signs and wonders and mighty deeds. Paul could not have been an apostle had not the Lord appeared to him to make him a witness of the fact that He was verily living. Prophets speak by inspiration; and inspiration is not acquired, but given. Apostles and prophets, then, are considered as gifts, because supernaturally endowed. The same holds good in regard to evangelists, pastors, and teachers, when, by like endowment, they are fitted for their office: but not so when fitness results from natural processes, and is reached by learning, experience and devotion.
But some there are who insist that evangelists were extraordinary ministers, whose office was temporary. Dr. George Campbell so held. He wrote:
“Of this kind evidently was the office of evangelist, a title which, like apostle, fell with those who first enjoyed it. Such was Philip, such was Timothy, such was Titus. The last mentioned, I own, is nowhere expressly called so. But from a proper attention to what we learn concerning him and Timothy, both in the Acts of Apostles and Paul’s Epistles, we find their situations, services, and trusts so perfectly to correspond, that we cannot hesitate a moment in affirming that their functions were the same, and that they both served as assistants to the Apostle Paul.” The error of the learned Dr. consists in supposing, that, because certain evangelists were deputed by Paul to act for him in places where, by virtue of planting the church, the responsibility of setting in order devolved upon him, therefore, all evangelists were in this way deputies of the apostles. But in proof of this assumption there is neither fact nor precept in the whole Bible. Philip, at the time of the persecution, when all save the apostles were dispersed from Jerusalem, went down into Samaria and preached Christ. Men and women hearing and believing were baptized, and, as a matter of course, were formed into a church, or churches, as number and locality required. Philip was neither an apostle nor an apostle’s deputy. ALL the dispersed disciples went everywhere preaching the Gospel, and they did so on the warrant of their common discipleship. That warrant was enough for each, and nothing in the history suggests that Philip had, or needed any other. In going to Samaria he broke up entirely new ground. The Gospel had not been there preached, and he did the work of an evangelist, in preaching, baptizing, and setting in order the disciples, without being interfered with by any. To do this he was well qualified, inasmuch as he came from the church in Jerusalem, where he had filled the office of deacon and enjoyed the advantage of seeing the church set in order by the apostles. The apostles did not interfere with his labours, except to supplement them in one particular, in which none but an apostle could act - that of ministering the Holy Spirit, by the laying on of hands. Peter and John were sent down that the church in Samaria might, by the laying on of their hands receive spiritual gifts. Those apostles did not go to occupy the ground broken up by Philip; having ministered the spirit to the converts, they returned to Jerusalem, preaching on their way in many villages of the Samaritans. Philip was left to pursue his work in the district into which he had been led. Presently he was directed by the Spirit to go into the desert, and there was effected the conversion of the Ethiopian. From there he was caught away to Azotus, and, then, preaching in all the cities on the way, he came to Cæsarea. In all this there is no trace of his being the agent or representative of any apostle, nor of all the apostles. He was the servant of the Lord, doing the Lord’s work, and not the deputy of any man. Cæsarea seems to have become the centre of the district in which he laboured, for there he established his family, and there, in his own house, after, perhaps, twenty years, he entertained the Apostle Paul; in the account of which he is spoken of as “Philip the Evangelist.” - Acts xxi:8. Others have urged that we cannot now have evangelists, because at the first they were supernaturally gifted and, therefore, fitted to discharge their important functions without error, and because those gifts are not now given. True, the first evangelists were thus gifted; and so were the first deacons, the first pastors, and the first teachers. In this sense pastors and teachers were as much given (supernaturally endowed) as were evangelists. Yet teachers we must have, so long as it is needful to learn; pastors we must have, so long as there is a flock to feed; evangelists we must have so long as there are sinners to whom it is needful to preach the gospel. It is nowhere implied, that fitness to preach, baptize, teach, and set in order churches, cannot be obtained otherwise than by supernatural bestowments; not is it ever hinted that, obtaining the required fitness by miraculous agency was a pre-requisite to the work and designation. But to discuss whether evangelists continue is to dispute over words rather than things. The designation comes by the transference of a Greek term in place of translating it. Taking that term in the light of its relation to the family of words to which it belongs, nothing appears save that which all admit we have now, and must ever have. Euangelion and Euangelizo stand out for notice when we enquire concerning the signification of Euangelistees. Euangelion signifies good news or glad-tidings. It is found in the New Testament some seventy times; is translated gospel, and refers to the good news or glad-tidings of salvation by Christ Jesus.
Good news invites to proclamation - who would keep Glad-Tidings to himself? Hence also we find euangelizo used somewhat frequently by the writers of the New Testament. It signifies, to address with good tidings. Rev. x:17; xiv:6; to proclaim as good tidings, to announce good tidings of. Luke i:19. It occurs over fifty times and is generally represented by preach, preaching, preached. It is applied alike to persons sent forth to preach the gospel, and to those who proclaim it without special appointment. In Romans i:15, Paul uses it in declaring himself willing “to preach the gospel” at Rome; and in Acts viii:4, it expresses that preaching of the word which was participated in by the whole Church, excepting the apostles.
Euangelistees is used in the New Testament only in three instances - once applied to Philip and twice to Timothy. It signifies simply a bringer of good tidings, and, in its New Testament usage, one who proclaims, announces, or makes known, the gospel and teaches the things commanded by Christ, to the end that sinners may be converted and disciples congregated into churches and duly set in order. The word does not imply the possession of supernatural powers; nor does it, in the remotest degree, suggest a deputy. It matters not, then, about the name. Take it away, if you please, but the work remains and also the men who do it.
The installation of evangelists is not anywhere alluded to in Scripture. No mention is made of ordination to that office, because every disciple who does the work of an evangelist to an extent to warrant the appellation, is all the name imports; and every disciple who, by personal fitness and providential surrounding, is placed in position so to do, is in duty bound to respond. It is not said, that as every disciple at times announces the Gospel, therefore every disciple is an evangelist, for, as while some who occasionally baptize, receive not the appellation Baptist, John who was devoted to that work was called John the Baptist, so only those who do the work of an evangelist over and above every other work, or to the extent requisite to make disciples, set them in congregations, and teach them to observe all things commanded by the Lord, can be designated evangelists - as, in like manner, the person who occasionally makes a loaf, or repairs a garment, is not called a baker or a tailor, while those whose business it is largely, or chiefly, to make bread and garments are thus designated. The foregoing presents an antidote to priestly pretension. No man can constitute another an evangelist - he who has the gospel may proclaim it - in the workshop, in the parlour, by the roadside, in the public hall, before any company small or large, from any platform or pulpit, and in any way and manner he can command, due regard being paid to the solemnity of the theme and the honour of the Lord.
The apostles were the first evangelists; not however by virtue of apostleship, but on the ground of discipleship. They, therefore, never delivered one sentence limiting preaching, baptizing, planting, and setting churches in order, to apostles, or to persons chosen or ordained by apostles. Paul “conferred not with flesh and blood,” but went forth immediately and did the work of an evangelist, and, in addition, the work peculiar to an apostle. Philip, chosen by the church, was ordained to serve tables, that others might give themselves to the ministry of the word, but, being driven from Jerusalem by persecution, he was found with those who went everywhere preaching the gospel, and was, therefore, afterwards known as Philip the evangelist. Paul placed Timothy at Ephesus and Titus at Crete to do the work of evangelists, particularly such portion of it as remained to be done ere those churches could be placed in a state of complete organization. They were to set in order the things that were wanting, and ordain elders in every city.
But here it may be asked why Paul did not set those churches in order before he left them. The answer is, they were not ready. When he sent a brother to do the work of an evangelist, by setting in order the wanting things and ordaining elders, his doing that for which he was sent, depended upon conditions which he might not find in existence. He was to ordain only brethren possessing certain important qualifications, which cannot be manifested in a newly-planted congregation. Elders, it thus appears, are not essential to the being, but to the well-being, of a church, and, till they can be ordained, the over-sight of the church devolves upon the evangelist who planted it, or upon those to whom he may commit it.
Upon this principle it became the duty of Paul to provide for the church in Ephesus. Had that church been planted by Peter or Apollos, Paul would have had no right of appointment - as, also, Peter was without authority to enter the field of Paul’s labours. As apostles their authority was alike everywhere; for the same decrees were given to each church. As evangelists each possessed his own field, and overlooked, till its completion, his own work. It was, then, as an evangelist, and not as an apostle, that Paul sent Timothy to Ephesus - which sending, however, was not an ordination to evangelistic work - that work was the privilege and duty of Timothy in any and every field he could find unoccupied; and to all churches he might succeed in planting, he would stand as an evangelist, in the same relation that Paul stood to the church in Ephesus. As an apostle Paul would ever stand above him. The laws of the kingdom were given through the apostles, and to them all must be subservient - evangelists, bishops, and deacons as executive ministers, regulated by the decrees of the apostles, have their own fields of labour, and in their respective fields are equal. But, would you commit the ordination of elders to one man - should not the church take all responsibility in a matter so important? The church should take nothing which the Lord has not given to it.
“For this cause left I thee in Crete that THOU shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and ordain elders in every city as I had appointed thee” - thus it was in the churches of Crete. Paul and Barnabas laboured as evangelists in Lystra, Iconium, Antioch, and the region round about. Having planted churches, they left them not fully set in order, evidently because fitness for oversight had not thus early been manifested. After preaching the gospel in other places and teaching many, they returned and confirmed the souls of the disciples - that is to say strengthened them by suitable instruction and help.
“And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” Thus also it was in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, and in fact in every church; and, thus it should be with us.
But what is intended by ordination, and who are to be ordained? Exactly that which is brought before us in connection with the table-serving of the first church. The apostles were the first evangelists, and in Jerusalem was the first church planted by them. As instruments used and honoured of God in gathering that church, they had oversight in every department - they were virtually its first bishops and its first deacons, and the like position belongs to the evangelist in every church he plants. But this arrangement is only temporary. It arises out of the necessity of the case, for who could ordain men, as elders and deacons, who only yesterday confessed the faith? But the evangelist who seeks to retain charge in these departments, - who neglects to bring brethren forward so that the oversight which he possesses may be transferred to them is injurious to the church and unfaithful to the Lord. He who seeks to make his presence a necessity and to settle down as the ONE MAN over the church, subverts the order of the Lord’s house. Accordingly the apostles, who had in charge the contributions of the brethren, said unto the multitude, - “Look YE out from among yourselves seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom WE MAY APPOINT over this business, but we will give ourselves unto prayer and the ministry of the word.” Now the same word which Paul used when he commanded Titus to ordain elders is here translated appoint. The multitude look out or choose the men; the apostles appoint, set over, or ordain - that is, they commit, in formal and appropriate manner, to the disciples elected by the multitude, the charge till then held by themselves - and this is precisely the course now to be taken by the evangelist and the church he has been instrumental in planting.
What we have here said upon the ordination of deacons holds good in regard to bishops, with one exception. The number of deacons is limited by the requirement of the church. There may be twenty brethren qualified and you may require but seven, five, or three; and in that case only the wanted number should be elected. But for the bishop’s office, election, in the sense of choosing a number from a greater number of qualified brethren, has no existence. The oversight is committed to all the elder brethren who possess certain qualifications and are willing to labour in the important work. They are not, as has been supposed, to put themselves into office on the ground of their own conviction of fitness, but their qualifications having been discerned and declared, they will be ordained or set over the church by the evangelist; who, by that ordination, imparts to them the charge which till then has been in his keeping.
The evangelist may “live of the gospel,” for, even so hath the Lord ordained that they who preach the gospel may live of it. But he who, like Paul, finds it desirable to labour with his own hands, is not on that account less an evangelist. In this great and honourable work those who contribute, and those who receive, are alike brethren - stewards, helpers in the Lord’s enterprise. They never stand in the relation of employer and employed. There is no hirelingism in Christianity. Fellow-helpers in the one great enterprise are all the saints. And just because there is no hirelingism in Christianity - no market for talent - the evangelist has no claim for compensation, according to the income he might derive from law, medicine, or trade, relinquished that he might do evangelistic work. He may “live of the Gospel” - he may have that which the circumstances in which he moves fairly require, and no more. Let him remember that if he surrender earthly riches, home comfort, and many things generally prized, his reward is double honour to be esteemed highly for his work’s sake - and, that those who turn many to righteousness will shine, like the stars in the firmament, ages without end.
Upon whom does the support of evangelists devolve? Upon the brethren. John, writing to his well-beloved Gaius, says:
“Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers; which have borne witness of thy charity before the church; whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shalt do well; because that for His name’s sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles. We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellow-helpers to the truth.” 3 John 5-8.
Here, then, responsibility rests upon every church and upon every disciple. Not that an evangelist has power to demand, he has only the right to receive. Those who should bestow are the Lord’s stewards, not his, and to their own Master they must give an account. If they please to neglect His labour they have the power so to do, but it will not be in their power to escape the reckoning. Questions have been presented concerning collecting and distributing funds for the support of evangelists. Primitive example supplies all that is necessary and leaves every individual a full measure of liberty.
A brother addicted to the work of evangelization journeys from place to place, the churches help him by contributions, derived through the fellowship, or otherwise, as they determine - or this is done by individuals according to ability and readiness of mind. In another instance, a brother labours in a given locality - a church there, or not far distant, may be able and willing to supply his need, or to do so with the help of distant brethren. In such case, churches and disciples are at liberty to respond either to the church or to the evangelist. Or it may be that, after conference with brethren, an evangelist concludes to labour for the purpose of breaking up new ground. His brethren say - “Give yourself wholly to the work, and the Lord will supply you by our hands.” In such case individuals and churches can communicate to the evangelist, or, they may (which in many cases is preferable) appoint messengers to receive contributions; visit the evangelist, or forward from time to time the needed help. In a word - the manner of collecting and distributing is not fixed by divine law, and, therefore, any convenient method may be adopted, provided that the liberty of the disciple and that of the church be not interfered with, and the church’s privilege of supporting the evangelists be not transferred to the world.
And now may the Lord of the harvest send forth labourers into His harvest!
Surely the fields are white and ready!
QUERIES AND OBJECTIONS.
I. You seem wise above what is recorded. You say that Jesus did not give the apostles an outline. In what then consisted the preparation which you intimate they were subjected to?
A. SUBSCRIBER.
ANSWER.
We intimated that there was not given, during the sojourn of Jesus on earth, such an outline of the order and government of the church as enabled the apostles at its commencement to understand that order and government in their entirety. The Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth, in these and other particulars; and that guiding was not begun and finished in a day. It was vouchsafed as needed. It was seven years before the apostles understood that the Gentiles were to be received into the church in the same way as, and on a perfect footing with, the Jews, and it was still longer before they fully comprehended the requirements concerning circumcision, things strangled, etc. The Saviour, in person, taught them many things concerning the church, and thus greatly prepared them for their work, but no such outline was given as enabled them at the first to understand the order and discipline of the church as they did when their labours were brought to a close.
II. Perhaps you will oblige several brethren by placing in a clearer light than your space, perhaps, permitted you to do in your concise paper upon “Apostles,” the meaning of the Holy Spirit as to that equivocal expression, “Some apostles, and some prophets,” Eph. iv:2. Are we to understand “some men”, i.e. a few of a kind were given; “some churches” only received them, or, that the ability to be evangelistic, etc., was bestowed upon certain individuals for the common good?
A. LEARNER.
ANSWER.
Paul asked in another place, Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? The answer implied is, “No, only some are apostles; only some are prophets, etc.” Jesus gave not apostles to some churches or Christians, and prophets to some others, but he gave “some apostles” and “some prophets;” that is a few of the former, and larger number of the latter, and also a number of evangelists and pastors. We have shown that the giving consisted in supernaturally qualifying for the respective offices named. They were thus given (few comparatively) for the benefit of the whole of the churches; and the blessed results of those excellent gifts reach down to us notwithstanding that (as that which is perfect has long since come) the gifts, which were in part, have been done away, and therefore the Lord does not now give prophets, pastors, etc.

Deacons.
“To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” - Phil. i:1.
The word deacon is found in the New Testament only in Phil. i. and 1 Tim. iii: five occurrences in all. It comes from the Greek diakonos an attendant, servant, or minister. The verb diakoneo signifies to wait upon, to serve. A deacon, then, is one who serves, a servant.
Though in the English New Testament we have deacon only five times, there are some thirty occurrences of diakonos in the original. There is no good reason for rendering the few texts in question differently from the larger number. The term is applied - 1. To the Saviour Himself - Rom. xv:8; Gal. ii:17. 2. To the apostles - Matt. xx:26; 1 Cor. iii:5: 2 Cor. iii:6; vi:4. 3. To Evangelists - Eph. vi:21: Col. i:17; 1 Tim. iv:6. 4. To any faithful servant of the Lord - John xii:26. 5. To magistrates - Rom. xiii:4. 6. To servants at feasts, etc. - Matt. xxi:13; John ii:5, 9.
In its generic sense, then, it represents a servant, without regard to rank or quality of service. Jesus, Paul, and Phœbe are designated by the one term; which applies alike to preachers, magistrates, and waiters.
But, in addition to the foregoing numerous applications of diakonos in its primary signification, it is, most certainly, used in an appropriated and more limited sense, and thus designates a particular class of ministrants appertaining to the Church of Christ. This is clear from the following texts -
“Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Phillipi, with the bishops and deacons.” Phil. i:1.
“Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 1 Tim.iii:8-13.
“And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the Word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.” Acts vi:1-6.
From the first of these three passages we learn that the deacons of the Philippian Church were distinguished from the members in general, and also from the bishops, and that, therefore, the word is not there used in its wide or generic sense, but is appropriated to designate certain persons to whom there had been committed some special service. The second passage shows that there was an office in the church filled by persons to whom this term, in its appropriated and limited sense, was applied, and for that said office certain qualifications and testing were imperatively demanded. The third cited portion indicates the duties they were required to engage in. They were to wait upon the secular affairs of the Church. Nothing of preaching or teaching appertained to their office. They were not to be excluded from ministering in word and doctrine, nor did their office disqualify them for the eldership; but in teaching, preaching, or ruling, they could not act by virtue of their standing as deacons. We also see, that they were specially elected for their work, and duly ordained to the same.
But “Extremes beget extremes!” Hence while, on the one hand, some have perverted a few texts, to make the deacon a clergyman - a priest in embryo - others deny the office altogether. Plymouth-brethrenism rushes off to the last extreme. Beverly says, that, “Any believing man or woman, who serves the Lord and His people, is a deacon or minister. Paul was in this sense a deacon. - 1 Thess. iii:2,
Phœbe was a deacon - Rom. xvi:1; Apollos was a deacon - 1 Cor. iii:5. All those who were in service to the Lord in the church at Philippi were deacons - Phil. i:1. And indeed if we may imitate the translators of the English Bible, and coin the deacon’s office out of the verb diakoneo, then all believers have received the gift to exercise the deacon’s office one to another, and Paul tells us there are diversities of deacon’s offices. - 1 Cor. xii:5.”
The same writer undertakes to show that the seven holy men whose election is recorded, Acts vi, were not chosen to any permanent office, that they were never called deacons, that if theirs was the deacon’s office, then that office must have ceased before the death of the apostles, as it had reference to peculiar local circumstances.
But we submit that the circumstances, in their leading features, were not peculiar, but will continue to exist while the Lord’s intimation, that the poor we always have with us, is applicable. The apostles, as the first evangelists, planted the church in Jerusalem and, consequently, had charge in the department in question; which in due time - hastened perhaps by peculiar circumstances - they transferred to men chosen by the church. True, the term deacons, or servants, is not applied to the seven, but they were chosen to serve, and therefore were the servants of God and the brethren. The Church was not called upon to commit this service to all those members who possessed the qualifications specified, but to look out a given number. The seven men elected by the church and ordained by the apostles were, then, the stewards of the church, to receive and disburse its bounty. For such stewards there remains, and will remain, full need. Refuse to call them deacons if you please - call them ministers, servants, or whatever you find authority for calling them; but so long as you have a table to furnish, funds to take care of, poor to help, expenses to meet, some must have charge; the whole church cannot act; and those who act of the church must not be self-chosen. It then remains that the church look out men of wisdom, that they may be “set over this business,” or “necessity,” and as well may it be said that baptism and the Lord’s Supper arose out of peculiar local circumstances, and, therefore, were not designed to continue, as to draw the like unfounded conclusion in this case. The order then is, that brethren be chosen by the church to take charge of and appropriate its funds, in regard to the particulars above specified, and that the brethren thus chosen be ordained by prayer and laying on of hands, by those who have charge in that department at the time of the election. The one clear example in Acts vi., shows how the necessity was met, and how it should be provided for, so long as it exists; and it will exist so long as we have money to contribute and poor to help.
The term deacon, in its special application to the custodians of the church treasury, seems to have been derived from the synagogue of the Jews, where, usually, there were three persons set apart to collect and appropriate alms. They had charge of the poor-chest provided for Sabbath contributions, and also for the produce of the gleanings of cornfields and vineyards. Paul having done the work of an evangelist, in planting churches in Ephesus and Crete, left them before they were fully set in order, and, therefore, he provided for the election of deacons and the ordination of both deacons and elders by transferring, provisionally, his evangelistic oversight - in Ephesus to Timothy, and in Crete to Titus. This circumstance is providentially used to provide for us a statement of the qualifications required in those who are ordained to the deacon’s office.
The deacon, then, must be -
Grave
Not double-tongued
Not given to much wine
Not greedy of gain
Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience
They must be proved before they use the office
They must be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and houses well
Their wives must be grave, not slanderers, sober, and faithful. 1 Tim.iii.

Note, particularly, that before entering upon the office they are to be proved. Hence, generally, deacons cannot be ordained till some time after the planting of a church. They must be known as men of GRAVITY, SOBRIETY, and UNSELFISHNESS, noted for their understanding of, and FIRM adherence to, the faith. How needful these traits in those who re-called to minister to the sick and needy of the flock! A double-tongued man may not enter upon this office. How important that one who has to be officially acquainted with delicate family and social affairs should have a tongue that can be depended upon! Not given to wine, frugal, not greedy of gain, but liberal and yet prudent. How needful in those who minister the bounty of the church. A man with an unruly family, or a wife, who is not sober and faithful, or who is a slanderer, may not be ordained a deacon. We conclude, too, that an unmarried man is ineligible. some consider that “husband of one wife” is merely intended to exclude those who have more than one. But other circumstances being equal, the superior fitness, arising from experience in family relations, is so apparent, that we cannot but urge that deacons should really be “husbands of one wife.”
That women filled this honourable office is apparent. Paul wrote:- “I commend unto you Phœbe our sister, who is a servant (deaconess) of the Church which is at Cenchrea. That ye receive her in the Lord as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatever business she hath need of you; for she has been a succourer of many, and of myself also.”
She was, then, in this work of succouring, the servant of one church - that of Cenchrea. The East, owing to the more secluded life of females, would absolutely require that sisters be thus engaged. With us, though not so absolutely necessary, many cases occur which can only be investigated and relived by female agency; and, therefore, deaconesses should be ordained wherever practicable.
Of the things said concerning deacons, in this and a former article, this is the sum:-

That it is a standing ordinance in the church, that there be persons specially appointed to take charge of, and minister the funds of the church, especially in regard to providing for the needy.
That the persons filling this office must possess the qualifications enumerated by the apostle; that the office should not be filled till persons are proved thus qualified.
That the church elects; while those who have previous charge, in this department of labour, ordain the elected by prayer and the laying on of hands.
Deaconesses should be ordained in every church so soon as practicable.

QUERIES AND OBJECTIONS.
I. “Why should not the elders (bishops), two, or more of them, take charge of the treasury of the Church, and thus dispense with the election and ordination of deacons?”
ANSWER.
Because it was not so appointed by the Apostles. Paul addressed himself to the “bishops and deacons” of the Church in Philippi, and, therefore, the bishops had not committed to them the deacon’s office. In writing to Timothy he likewise distinguished between bishops and deacons. We admit that a deacon might fill the bishop’s office, in the event of the church so desiring, but not that a bishop can do the work of a deacon by virtue of his standing as an elder.
II. “As the bishops of the church have oversight in every department, have they not power to direct the deacons to assist needy brethren, at such times and to such extent as they consider requisite?

ANSWER.
Bishops are quite within their office when they exercise careful oversight in the matter of need and supply. They must not be considered to intrude when they make themselves acquainted with income and expenditure, and present suggestions to the deacons thereupon. But the deacons are responsible to the church by whom they are elected, and are not bound to carry out the suggested measures. If, however, they are incompetent the bishops should, by reason of their position, be the first to know it and to appeal to the church itself to judge. As, then the deacons and not the bishops are responsible, the former and not the latter have the right to determine, when and how funds entrusted to them shall be expended.

Elders.
“For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and ordain elders in every city.” Titus i:5.
In a previous section devoted to the “Work of an Evangelist,” we have in a measure contemplated the church under that provisional oversight which pertains to it when newly planted, and while unable to possess elders and deacons. It has been objected, that the provisional oversight in churches planted by an evangelist, or transferred to him by those who planted them, falls but little short of the “One Man system” - that he has as much in his hands, and is as necessary as the one and only pastor of a modern Baptist or Independent Church. To a certain extent this is true; and yet, even from the first, a wide difference is apparent. Look fairly into the two positions and it will appear that scarcely any two things can be more unlike. In the one case you have a man filling a provisional position and labouring to prepare men, or to discover their fitness if already prepared, that he may divide among them the work, office and oversight, which rests upon his shoulders, that, thus released, he may give all attention to the rescuing of sinners from the power of Satan, or to the setting other churches in order. In the other case, you behold a man who has made himself, or whom a perverse system has made, everlastingly necessary to the church in which he labours. He is the pastor - he is to feed them with the finest wheat - the pulpit, to which the whole church look for instruction is his - they come to be filled, he has to fill them. And this is to continue, not merely till the edification of the body can be committed to itself, but it is the summit of their wishes, beyond which they have no expectation. This man may (as is sometimes the case) spend fifty years with one church, and then be as necessary to it as at the beginning. Take him away, and send not one of his “order” to fill the vacant place, the “interest” expires. The popular pastor, or minister, is a creature of whom no trace can be found in the apostolic writings. He is the elder, though even fresh from college, not having seen years enough to furnish him with an ordinary knowledge of men and things. His office, so far as the New Testament enables us to trace its origin, arises from limiting the evangelist to, and perpetuating him in one church; dispensing with the qualifications for eldership; committing to the evangelist the work of a plurality of elders, and also that of divers teaching brethren, so that he becomes truly The One Man. No wonder that colleges in nine cases out of ten fail to supply men equal to their task. That many modern pastors deserve to be noted for talent and efficiency in preaching and defending the doctrines for the propagation of which they are set is cheerfully admitted; but, that any one ever did, or ever can, wholly fill the office to which they are called is unhesitatingly denied. A return to ministry, as instituted by the authority of Jesus, would leave abundant room and maintenance for all such labourers. Let each become an evangelist and set the church in order in which till now, as the only minister, he has laboured; then devote his entire time and ability to the enlargement thereof, or the planting of others, sustained by that church, if agreeable to him and them. There is no reason why each church should not support an evangelist, or a half-dozen, if possessed of means, and surely the multitude perishing around furnish ample employment for a mighty army of preachers.*
We hold that a church without a plurality of elders, each possessing all the items of qualification named by Paul, has not attained for full stature of the church of the New Testament. We cannot say that wanting in this it is not a New Testament Church, because the churches of the apostolic time existed, under the sanction of the Apostles, in two classes - those fully set in order, and those only advancing to the conditions requisite to that perfected order. The oversight in the last-named class of churches was provisional, but nevertheless apostolic, and the recognition of those churches, was as full and positive as was that of the churches of the other class. The provisional condition should be terminated so soon as a church can discern in its membership the duly qualified men. Then as to the qualifications:- We believe them reasonable and attainable. Many men in the churches have them not, because they do not sufficiently yield themselves to the requirements of their high and holy calling; that they have them not, is to their shame and may prove to their eternal loss.
But who and what are Elders? They are those duly qualified members of the church who, by ordination, have had committed to them oversight in all matters appertaining to teaching, guiding, and ruling. They are not all the senior men in the church; for many of that class know themselves completely destitute of duly specified qualifications. Nor do they consist of all those who think, feel, or judge themselves qualified; for men often count themselves competent for office when all around know them as wholly unfit. Age is a first element in the duly qualified elder - not non-age nor dotage, but age sufficient to guarantee the requisites for an experimental acquaintance with men and things. The ancient nations appropriately filled important official positions from the ranks of their senior men. From the elders of Israel the Sanhedrin was constituted. The Greeks filled the magisterial office from their seniors. The Romans had their senatus composed of men marked by age and experience. But no nation has been guilty of the folly of making age the only qualification, nor of the absurdity of calling upon the aged to take office upon the ground of faith in their own fitness for the duties thereof, though this absurdity has been urged upon the churches.
Elder (presbuteros) in the New Testament is used to denote - 1. Simply comparative age; as, “The elder son was in the field.” Luke xv:25. - 2. An official person: a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin. Matt. xvi:21. - 3. An ordained officer in a church of God. Acts xi:30; xiv:23. In this particular, then, it is like diakonos (deacon), used both in its generic and in its appropriated or official sense; and that, too, both in the Jewish and in the Christian dispensation.
The ordained elders of the church in any one place are the presbytery (presbuterion) of that church. The word occurs three times in the New Testament - twice applied to the Jewish Sanhedrin, Luke xxii:6; Acts xxii:5; and once to the elders of the church, 1 Tim. iv:14. Elders have official standing only in the church in which they are members, and, as ordination confers office only in the one church in which it takes place, elsewhere they are not elders, and, consequently, form no caste, clergy, or order, claiming official status and distinctive titles wherever they may go. Elders are also designated Bishops, Overseers, Pastors. That these several terms are applied in relation to one and the same office is apparent. Paul from Miletus “sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the Church,” and when they came He said unto them, “Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you OVERSEERS, to FEED the Church of God.” Acts xx:17-28.
Here the elders sent for by Paul, are designated overseers, and the word thus rendered (episkopos) is, in every other instance in the New Testament, represented by BISHOP. Thus, then, the elders are termed bishops, or overseers; and required to feed, or tend, the flock, which is the work of a shepherd or pastor. We also read, - “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain ELDERS in every city, as I had appointed thee; if any be blameless .... for a bishop must be blameless.” Titus i:5.
Here, most clearly, the terms elders and bishops are used interchangeably.
Again, “The elders among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder ..... tend the flock of God, which is among you, OVERSEEING it, not by constraint but willingly, nor for base gain but with good will: neither as being lords over the heritage, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd is manifested, ye shall receive the unfading crown of glory.” 1 Peter v:1-4.
Here, too, the elders are shepherds or pastors, who have to tend the flock. They, too, are bishops or overseers and, as such, are to oversee the flock, willingly and not for base gain. As pastors or shepherds, they are under a Chief Shepherd, from whom they will receive their reward. It is, then, as clear as demonstration can make it, that elder, pastor or shepherd, and bishop or overseer, are terms appertaining to one and the same officer in the Church of God.
In saying that the terms bishop, overseer, pastor and shepherd appertain to one and the same office, and that each is applied to the elder, we must be understood to mean that it is so in the English New Testament. To the reader of the Greek, the number of words so applied is fewer. In the English we have both pastor and shepherd where in the original poimeen only is found, of which shepherd is the exact equivalent. The term pastor is from the Latin, and originally signified a shepherd. But it is now come frequently to denote a hired preacher, as distinguished from the elders of the church, neither an elder nor an evangelist. As, then, shepherd is the true idea, expressed by the term in Bible usage, let us speak of our elders as the shepherds of the flock, and leave the term pastor for those who have improved upon apostolic order. So, too, with the term bishop. Overseer, we have seen, is once used to translate episkopos while in the other instances it is represented by bishop. We have here two words, where in the original there is but one. One of these two (overseer) exactly represents the term it translates. It is pure and simple English that everyone understands. The other (bishop) is but a corruption of episkopos, which came into our tongue by means of the Anglo-Saxon, and, thus traced back, means an overseer. But, then, the State church has appropriated and perverted it. Turn to the Dictionary and you read - “BISHOP, one of the head order of the clergy,” (Walker) - “BISHOP, a prelate, one who has the spiritual government of a diocese.” (Maunders) - We propose then to allow the term bishop to appertain to the diocese, as the special designation of a Roman or Anglican clerical head-centre. The Elders of the Church of God are simply the OVERSEERS and SHEPHERDS of the flock, under-shepherds to the Chief Shepherd, who is head over all.
The duties imposed upon the Eldership, or Presbytery, of a church are most important. Though elders are not essential to the being of a church, they are most certainly indispensable to its well-being. Still, elder-making has not always proved beneficial. Instances, not a few, are before us, in which it has proved the bane of the church, and led to strife and division. But the evils thus arising, spring not from the apostolic plan, but arise solely from misunderstanding its requirements. Churches make elders without regard to the required qualifications; whereas they are authorized to do so only when the qualified men are manifested. Misrule is the result. There are brethren who, under provisional arrangement, can do good services in filling up what is wanting, owing to the absence of an eldership, who, if ordained elders, would ruin the church. Much evil, too, has arisen from the absence of a proper understanding of the duties of the office. Now, unless the church and its elders see alike in this respect, an outbreak is pretty certain, sooner or later. We are even inclined to think that a clear understanding of what the church expects of its elders, and what they are not to take upon themselves, is more important than a perfectly accurate conception of the work intended to be committed to their charge. In every case the church, on the one hand, and the overseers, on the other, should distinctly comprehend what is to be committed to the elders by the approaching ordination, and their induction into office should, in no case, take place until it is ascertained that they and the church are, in this particular, perfectly of the same mind.
Some have expressed regret that we have not a statement of the duties of the eldership as concise and distinct as Paul’s statement of what a man must be who fills the office. Such statement would, no doubt, be quite convenient, but most likely the reason of its not having been given, is to be found in the fact that it is not absolutely needful; and, certainly, it is not thus requisite, for the terms by which the official elder is designated, together with the stated qualifications, clearly enough indicate the duties imposed upon him. With this thought in mind we turn to a series of articles from the pen of our esteemed Brother McGarvey, published in the Apostolic Times, which, on this particular point, so completely express what we have been in the habit of teaching, that we shall save some hours of writing by adopting the following commendable statement of the case.

The eldership - its duties.
“The titles of an office are often taken from some characteristic duty belonging to it. Thus the title President is taken from the act of presiding; Secretary from the act of writing; Auditor (hearer) from the act of hearing financial reports. In such cases the information derived from the title is generally meagre. In some instances, however, offices newly created adopt the titles of previously existing offices which are similar to them; and in such instances the titles carry with them all of their previous significance except so far as this is modified by the nature of the new office. Thus the term President, which first meant one who presides over an assembly and enforces order in its proceedings, when transferred to the chief officer of a college, and to the chief magistrate of the United States, carried with it the chief part of its previously acquired meaning. Now, it so happens that all the titles by which the elder of a church is known were adopted from previous existing offices, and brought with them in their new application much of their former significance. They will enable us, therefore, to obtain a general idea of the duties of the office, and to better appreciate the more specific statements of the apostles which will afterwards be considered.
The title Elder, which is most frequently used by the apostles, which is still the most popular of these titles, obtained an official signification among the Jews long before its adoption into the Christian Church. Originally it designated the older man, or heads of families in Israel, who exercised a patriarchal government over their posterity, e.g., Ex. iv:29; xix:7. In the days of Christ it had become the title of the rulers of the Jewish synagogues, and of one of the classes composing the Sanhedrin. Reliable information in reference to the functions of the office among the Jews is quite meagre, but it is sufficient to justify the assertion that those who enjoyed the title exercised authority in some capacity. When it was adopted, therefore, into the Christian church, it brought with it at least this general idea, that those to whom it was applied were rulers in the church. The exact nature and limits of their authority it could not of course designate.
The term episkopos brought with it a more clearly defined significance, and furnishes more definite information in reference to the duties of the office. Among the Athenians it was the title of ‘magistrates sent out to tributary cities, to organize and govern them’ (See Robinson’s New Testament Lexicon, and references there given.) Among the Jews it had very much that variety of application which the term overseer now has in English. It is used in the Septuagint for the officers appointed by Josiah to oversee the workmen engaged in repairing the temple, 2 Chr. xxxiv:12-17; for the overseers of workmen employed in rebuilding Jerusalem after the captivity, Neh. xi:5-14; for the overseers of the Levites on duty in Jerusalem, Neh. xi:22; for the overseers of the singers in the temple worship, Neh. xii:42; and for subordinate civil rulers, Jos. Ant. 10, 4.2. In all these instances it designates persons who have oversight of other persons for the purpose of directing their labours and securing faithful performance of the tasks assigned them.
Such a word when applied to a class of officers in the Christian Church, necessarily carried with it the significance already attached to it. It indicated, both to the Jew and Greek, that the persons so styled were appointed to superintend the affairs of the church, to direct the activities of the members, to see that everything was done that should be done, and that it was done by the right person, at the right time, and in the right way. Anything less than this would be insufficient to justify the title overseer, as it was currently employed in that age. The details of the process by which all this was accomplished will appear as we advance. The title Shepherd is still more significant than either of the other two. The Jewish shepherd was at once the ruler, the guide, the protector, and the companion of his flock. Often, like the shepherds to whom the angel announced the glad tidings of great joy, he slept upon the ground at night beside his sheep. Sometimes, when prowling wolves came near to rend and scatter the flock, his courage was put to the test (Jno. x:12); and even the lion and the bear in earlier ages rose up against the brave defender of the sheep. 1 Sam. xvii:34-36. He did not drive them to water and to pasturage; but he called his own sheep by name, so familiar was he with every one of them, and he led them out, and went before them, and the sheep followed him, for they knew his voice. Jno. x:3,4.
A relation so authoritative and at the same time so tender as this, could not fail to find a place in the poetry of Hebrew prophets, and the parables of the Son of God. David’s poetic eye detects the likeness between the shepherd’s care of his flock and the care of God for Israel, and most beautifully does he give expression to it in lines familiar to every household, and admired in every land:
‘The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want,
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures;
He leadeth me beside the still waters,
He restoreth my soul:
He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name’s sake,
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil:
For Thou art with me;
Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me.’ - Ps. xxxiii.

The same beautiful image is employed by Isaiah, when with prophetic eye, he sees the great Persian king gathering together scattered sheep of Israel in distant Babylon, and sending them back from their long captivity. He exclaims in the name of the Lord, ‘Cyrus is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure; even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built, and to the temple, thy foundations shall be laid.’ Isaiah xliv:28. But he sings a still sweeter note in the same strain, when he foresees the life and labours of the Son of God, and exclaims, ‘He shall feed His flock like a shepherd; He shall gather the lambs with His arms, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.’ Isaiah xl:11. The Saviour Himself re-echoes the sentiment, and says, ‘I am the Good Shepherd;’ ‘I know My sheep, and am known by mine;’ ‘I lay down My life for the sheep.’ Jno. x:14,15. Even the less poetic Paul is touched by the beautiful metaphor, and makes a prayer to ‘the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep’ (Heb. xiii:20);’ while Peter says to his brethren, ‘Ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.’ 1 Pet. ii:25.
A word thus highly exalted by the pens of prophets, and even by the lips of Jesus, would appear almost too sacred to represent the relations and responsibilities of an uninspired labourer in the cause of God. But even before the church came into existence it had been consecrated to this usage, and was a favourite term with the later prophets by which to designate the religious leaders of Israel. Jeremiah pronounces a woe upon the shepherds of his day who destroyed and scattered Israel, and predicts the time when God would bring them again to their folds, and set up shepherds over them who would be real shepherds to them. Jer. xxiii:1-4. The connection shows that the prediction has reference to the Christian age. Ezekiel speaks in the same strain, and in almost the identical thoughts of Jeremiah, except, that in contrast with the unfaithful shepherds of his age, he says ‘I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David: he shall feed them, he shall be their shepherd.’ Ez. xxxiv:1-23.
With such a history, the word shepherd came into the terminology of the church with a most clearly defined secondary meaning. When applied as a title in the church it necessarily represented its subject as the ruler, the guide, the protector, and the companion of the members of the church. When Paul and Peter, therefore, exhorted elders to be shepherds to the flock of God, all these important and tender relations were indicated by the word. In two distinct passages already quoted (Acts xx:28; 1 Pet. v:2), the elders are exhorted to be shepherds to the church. This exhortation, or rather this apostolic command, has failed to make its due impression on the English