The object of Mr. Waldegrave's second lecture is indicated by its title— “The kingdom of heaven, as now existing, the proper kingdom of Christ.” He represents pre-millenarians as maintaining the negative of this proposition; but prior to his entering on the direct discussion of it, he advances what he deems two strong preliminary reasons in its favor. What are these?
“In the first place, it may well be questioned whether the mediatorial offices of the Lord Jesus are, in operation, separable from each Other. A three-fold cord cannot be quickly broken. Christ is at this moment acting in the capacity of God's anointed Prophet; he is also discharging the functions of God's anointed Priest; it is difficult to believe that He has never yet exercised dominion as God's anointed King, that He is not yet King de facto as well as de jure. The three offices would seem to be conferred for the same object, and to have, as respects the discharge of their several duties, the same beginning and the same termination. Their one object is the salvation—the salvation to the uttermost—of the people of God. Their actual exercise in the work of that salvation began with the ascension of Jesus; it shall terminate with the accomplishment of the number of his elect.” Bamp. Lect. pp. 39, 40.
We are not at present called upon either to affirm or deny that Christ “has never yet exercised dominion as God's anointed King:” but as to our author's mode of proving that he has, we may safely affirm, that it would be difficult to find, within the same compass in the works of any sober-minded Christian writer, so many erroneous and contradictory statements as the passage just quoted contains. Have Christ's three offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, as respects their actual exercise, the same beginning and the same end? And did they begin with his ascension? Did not our Lord discharge the functions of it? Prophet yea, of God's anointed Prophet—while on earth? What meant, then, his quotation of Isa. 61:1, 2,1The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 2To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; (Isaiah 61:1‑2) in the synagogue at Nazareth? — “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.” Could any language more fully express his being anointed to the Prophetic office? And was it only anticipatively of his ascension that he quoted these words? Hear what he says: when he had closed the book, given it to the minister, and sat down; when all eyes were fastened upon him; “he began to say unto them, THIS DAY is this Scripture FULFILLED in your ears,” Luke 4:2121And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. (Luke 4:21). Christ not the anointed Prophet until He ascended! This is indeed a worthy use of the principles of interpretation asserted by our author! Had he forgotten his own words, page 24, where, having referred to “direct quotations” by our Lord from the Old Testament, “coupled with express mention of their fulfillment,” he says, The expositions thus supplied must, without hesitation, be accepted as sound. Nor should there be any reserve in our submission to them. For indeed to speak of accommodations, of inadequate and inceptive accomplishments, where Jesus speaks of fulfillments, is virtually to set aside His Prophetical authority, and to open the door to a most dangerous license in the interpretation of Scripture.”
Most heartily do we concur in these sentiments. But how condemnatory they are of the position maintained by their author, that Christ began the “actual exercise” of his prophetic office when he ascended on high! Is not Luke 4:18, 19,18The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18‑19) a “direct quotation” from Isa. 61:1, 21The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 2To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; (Isaiah 61:1‑2)? Is it not “coupled with express mention of its fulfillment?” Where besides have we the mention of such a fact in terms equally express? “This day is this Scripture FULFILLED in your ears!” And was it “fulfilled?” Then, Mr. W. is in error who he says, “their actual exercise (that of Christ's three offices of Prophet, Priest, and King) began with the ascension of Jesus.” if it was not “fulfilled,” our Lord's words would have to be understood by way of “accommodation, of inadequate and inceptive accomplishment;” and to understand them this would be, according to our author himself, to “virtually set aside Christ's prophetic authority, and to open the door to a most dangerous license in the interpretation of Scripture.”
But it is not by implication alone that Mr. W. contradicts himself on this subject. Let the reader weigh with each other the two following quotations—
“The three offices have, as respects the discharge of their several duties, the carne beginning and the stone termination. Their actual exercise began with the ascension of Jesus,” p. 40.
“But where are the words of this great Prophet recorded? To begin with the four gospels: each contains enough, and more than enough to establish him for a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people. And yet these were, as the Holy Ghost testifies, but the beginning of his instruction,” p. 18.
Let not the reader suppose that we have any satisfaction in exposing such self-contradiction for its own sake. Gladly would we pass it by as a slip of the pen, were it not that each of the contradictory propositions maintained by Mr. W. is, in its turn, essential to his argument. It behooved him in the first lecture to maintain that Christ was a prophet, and acted as a prophet while on earth: the position he seeks in his second lecture to establish requires that Christ should only begin to act thus when he ascended on high! The three offices are to be coeval in their exercise; and to maintain that Christ acted as a king while on earth would be more than any readers could be expected to believe; while, as to the priestly office, the apostle explicitly declares, that “if he (Christ) were on earth, he should not be a priest,” Heb. 8:44For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: (Hebrews 8:4). Scripture decides that Christ's exercise of his priesthood dates from his ascension to the right hand of God. Our author, to prove that his kingly office also had its commencement then, maintains (though in contradiction of his own statements, as well as of God's word) that it was then he entered on the discharge of his prophetic functions. Such must always be the confusion attendant upon the effort to bend God's Word to a system of our own. The very opposite of Mr. W.'s argument is the truth. He says that the three offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, are coeval in their exercise; but instead of this, the Lord first fulfilled his prophetic ministry while in humiliation on the earth; he then entered on his priestly functions when he ascended up on high; and it is when he comes again in his glory that he will be manifested as king. We do not mean by this that he ceased to be “God's anointed Prophet” when he began to act as “God's anointed Priest;” or, that he will lay aside his priesthood when manifested in the glories of his kingly power. We know that to be “a priest upon his throne,” Zech. 6:13,13Even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, 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. (Zechariah 6:13) is his distinctive glory in that day. Nor do we object to Mr. W.'s thought, as expressed in his first lecture, that Christ continues to fill on high the prophetic office on which he entered while on earth. All we maintain is, that what distinguished his sojourn here was his prophetic work, while as yet he had not entered on the functions of his priestly or his kingly office; that what distinguishes his session at the right hand of God is the discharge of his priestly functions, however, he may yet, in a certain sense, fill the place of prophet; and that what will distinguish the coming dispensation, will be his proper, actual reign, however the glories of his priestly and prophetic offices may be conjoined therewith.
It may be interesting, ere we leave this subject of time, to observe how our post-millennarian brethren differ from each other, besides contradicting themselves. Pre-millennialists are expected to be of one mind on every important subject; and their differences, even on subordinate points, are dwelt upon by their opponents as a strong presumption against their views.'' If such an argument be of any weight, it may be well to see how it bears upon our brethren by whom it is used. The Bampton lecturer dates, as we have seen, the commencement of Christ's “actual exercise” of all his three offices from his ascension to heaven. Mr. Lyon, on the other hand, dates his reign, at least, from the promise to our first parents in the garden. “His kingdom really began when the first promise was given.” Millennial Studies, p. 4. Mr. W. maintains that “as respects the discharge of their several duties,” the three offices of Prophet, Priest, and King have not only “the same beginning,” but also “the same termination.” Mr. L. teaches, that “he will continue on the throne as king, though not as priest, his priestly functions ceasing because there will no longer be any need for them,” It is evidently not by Mr. W.'s argument of “the threefold cord” that Mr. Lyon has been led to reject pre-millennialism; and if it has so little weight with his friends, he need not be disappointed to find it of still less cogency with his opponents, against whom it is directed.
Our author's second preliminary argument in favor of his proposition, that the kingdom of heaven, as now existing, is the proper kingdom of Christ,” is a singular one indeed. It is no other than its invisibility “To walk by faith, not by sight—to endure as seeing Him Who is invisible, is the characteristic, the duty, the prerogative of the Christian. Hence the fact, that the present, true, real, and effectual kingship of Messiah calls for the exercise of his faith, is in very deed a strong presumption in its favor,” pp. 41, 42.
If this be not to confound things that differ, how could such a censure be incurred? We had always supposed that the period of faith and patience stood contrasted in Scripture with that of rest, and blessedness, and glory, in which Christ and his saints are to share the reward of his sufferings on their behalf, and in which their endurance of suffering for his sake is also to find its recompense. It was for Mr. W. to discover, that the distinctive features of the one period prove it identical with the other—the contrasted period The apostle, in writing to the Thessalonians, does speak of glorying in their patience and faith, which says, he “is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer,” 2 Thess. 1:55Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer: (2 Thessalonians 1:5). Nay, says our author, it proves that the kingdom has already come! It is the place of a Christian to walk by faith; therefore, argues Mr. W., the present exercise of the proper and only royalty ever to be exercised by Christ may be inferred from its being an object of faith, not of sight! But it is not of Christ's royalty that the apostle treats, where he says, that “we walk by faith, not by sight” : it is of heaven's joys; and Mr. W.'s argument is as applicable to the one subject as the other. It as much proves, that we are now, in the only sense in which we ever shall be, in heaven, as that Christ now reigns in the only sense in which he ever will reign. Alas! we are not in heaven. it is by faith, not by sight, that we walk. But does this mean that the future objects of that faith—the “things hoped for,” of which faith is doubtless “the substance” does it mean that these are actually present! No, but the reverse. When these are present, and we are present with the Lord, “sight” will take the place of “faith"; and when Christ reigns, in that sense in which his glorious reign is foretold in Scripture, his royalty will be manifest to sense, and no longer, as at present, an object of faith alone.