Other interpreta.

forward.

really to learn the true sense of our Lord's declarations, but to reconcile them with the conduct of some Christian States, and to justify the employment of secular force in behalf of Religion, are driven to some ingenious specialpleading on the words employed, in order to draw from them such a sense as may suit their own purpose.

But all this ingenuity is (as I said before) wasted; because even supposing it proved that the words which Jesus uttered are, in themselves, capable of bearing some other meaning, still, nothing is gained (supposing our object is, not to evade, but to understand, Scripture) if that meaning be one which could not have been so understood at the time, or which would have been one utterly foreign to the occasion, and irrelevant to the question that was to be tried.

§ 10. E. G. I have heard it said that our tions put Lord's description of his kingdom as "not of this world" meant merely that He claimed to possess a spiritual dominion (as undoubtedly He did) over the souls of men, and to be the distributor of the rewards and judgments of the other world. And such certainly is his claim: but the essential point, with a view to the trial then going on, was, that this was his only claim. He did not merely claim spiritual dominion, but he also renounced

temporal. He declared not merely that his kingdom is of the next world; but that it is not

of this world.

tion of spi

minion

been irrele

In fact, the mere assertion of his spiritual do- Mere asserminion, and one extending beyond the grave, ritual dowould have been, at that time, and in reference would have to the charge brought against Him, wholly irre- vant. levant, and foreign to the question. He was charged with "speaking against Cæsar,"-with making Himself King in opposition to the Roman emperor. The Jews expected (as Pilate could hardly have been ignorant) a Christ who should be a heaven-sent "King of the Jews," possessing both temporal and spiritual authority; a kingdom, both of this world and of the next: for the great mass of the nation believed in a future state. Any man claiming to be such a king of the Jews, would evidently be an opponent of the Roman government. His spiritual pretensions, the Romans did not concern themselves about. It was the assumption of temporal power that threatened danger to the Romans; and it was of this assumption that Jesus was accused: did He not distinctly deny it? There was no question about the rewards and punishments of another world. The question was, whether He did or did not design to claim, for Himself, or his followers as such, any kind of secular empire :o See Appendix, Note (A.)

Mere dis

claimer of present personal claims

would have

ous.

could
any words have disclaimed it more strongly
than those He used? And can any one in his
senses seriously believe that when Jesus said,

66

My kingdom is not of this world," He meant to be understood as saying that his kingdom was not only of this world, but of the next world too?

No, I have heard it said by some other expounders, He did mean to disclaim all temporal dominion for Himself personally and at that time; been frivol- but that hereafter when "the kingdoms of this world should become kingdoms of the Lord," and when "kings should become nursing-fathers" of his church, when "the church should be in its complete development by being perfectly identified with the state,”—then, all those Christians who should have attained power, should exercise that power in enforcing the profession of his gospel, and in putting down idolatry, infidelity, heresy, dissent, and all false religion. In short, at the time when Christ stood before Pilate, his kingdom was not of this world," because" (I am citing the words of one of the most celebrated ancient divines) "that prophecy was not yet fulfilled, 'Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings, be learned, ye that are judges of the earth; serve the Lord with fear;"" the rulers of the earth, he adds, were at that time opposed to the Gospel; the Apostles and other early disciples were unable

to compel men to conform to the true faith; and therefore it was that the secular arm was not yet called to aid against the Church's enemies.

his follow

have been

guilty.

Now, without entering into the question To claim temporal whether our Lord's words could, in themselves, power for bear such a meaning; let us confine ourselves to ers would the principle we set out with, and merely con- to plead sider whether He could possibly have meant to be so understood. For this, we should observe, would clearly have been to plead guilty to the charge. It mattered nothing to the Roman Government whether it were Jesus Himself, or his followers, that should revolt against Cæsar's power, and set up a rival kingdom. And, therefore, when our Lord Himself, and afterwards Paul and the other Apostles, defended themselves against the imputation of seditious designs, it is impossible they could have meant to be understood as merely disclaiming such designs for the present, and renouncing temporal dominion only for themselves, personally, but reserving for their followers, when these should have become strong enough, the right to establish by force a Christian political ascendancy, and to put down all other religions. To have defended themselves against their accusers by acknowledging the very designs which those accusers imputed to them, would have been downright insanity.

D

Parallel case of

volution

ists.

But such absurdities as would, in any other political re- subject, revolt every man of common sense, are sometimes tolerated in the interpretations of Scripture, that are framed in order to serve a purpose. For instance, suppose some emissaries of the Pretender in the last century, or, in later times, of the French revolutionists, or of the Chartists, or any set of revolutionists of the present day, to go about the country proclaiming and disseminating their principles, and then to be arrested and brought to trial for sedition: can any one conceive them defending themselves against the charge, by pleading that they did not intend that they themselves, but that their disciples, should obtain the government of the country, and enforce their principles; that they aimed at the possession and the monopoly of civil rights and privileges, not for themselves, but for their successors; that they did not mean to take up arms till they should have collected a sufficient number of followers; and that they taught. all men to yield obedience to the existing government till they should be strong enough to overthrow it? Who does not see at once that to urge such a plea would convince every one of their being madmen? And yet this is what must be imputed to Jesus and his disciples,

See Appendix, Note (A.)