I appreciate my brother's good opening words, and earnestly hope and desire, as be does, that there may be a better understanding of our respective positions on these questions, and, as a result, a kindlier and more brotherly feeling after this discussion than there was before it began. At the beginning of this debate, in my second article, I said:

      He [Brother Boles] is right also when he says that these matters should not be permitted to create disturbance. There is nothing inherent in these things that calls for or necessitates a disturbance (in the sense of clash and alienation); and if such disturbance has ever been caused, it must be due to a wrong spirit and attitude in presenting or opposing these matters. With Brother Boles, I discountenance such disturbance and the uncalled-for aggressiveness and intolerance that would produce it. Might we not hope that this discussion may itself be a means to help brethren everywhere to study, weigh, and discuss these teachings without allowing them to disturb their harmony and love and Christian fellowship?

      Again, in my third article I expressed myself thus:

      I have endeavored to show.  . . that differences on such questions may exist among brethren simultaneously with loving Christian fellowship and kindly tolerance. If they occasion trouble, it must be due to a failure of Christian love somewhere; and that is far more serious than a mistake in such matters as these. For "if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge..  . . but have not love, I am nothing." With Brother Boles, I deplore all dissensions, alienations, strife, disturbance among brethren over any of these matters, and would be ready to help prevent or remedy such to the limit of my ability. Brother Boles is wholly right when be says that such things should not be made a test of fellowship. I hold with him absolutely in this. And when be says that no barriers should be raised between brethren over such differences as these, he is right and only right. But what if the barriers have already been raised? be asks. Then let's tear them down. Whatever has been wrongfully done ought to be undone. That is the meaning of repentance. It matters [294] not who they are, or where, that have done such things, they ought to repent and undo the wrong.

      I think this is a very important matter. If the day should come when we cannot in brotherly love and tolerance discuss our differences regarding such points as these, and when we should feel it incumbent on us to condemn, to brand and stigmatize and disfellowship one another on account of such differences, we shall have demonstrated to the world that our claims of brotherly unity in Christ were impracticable. If for disagreement on questions which do not interfere with our perfect unison in all fundamentals, in the acceptance of and obedience to the gospel, nor with our work or congregational practice as members of his body, the church--if for disagreement on points which do not clash with the foundation of our faith, or our work and worship together as Christians, we would have to disfellowship one another and cast one another out, then the cause of New Testament Christianity and unity in Christ would be hopeless, for there would be no end to the divisions and subdivisions that could and would be created on that principle. Let us, therefore, be brethren and study the word of God together in love and mutual helpfulness.

      While on this point I should like to assure Brother Boles again that I have committed myself to nobody's theory, Judaistic or other, and that all of his search for, and keen analysis of, some theory I am supposed to have adopted is in vain, for there is no such thing. I am a free Christian and seek only for the teaching of God in his word. My brother really confesses his inability to classify me under some hateful theory or another. "Brother Boll," he says, "follows this theory flinchingly and in confusion. He has modified the general theory in some points," etc. So, after all, my teaching does not exactly fit into any pigeonhole he knows of. I evidently do not follow any cut-and-dried theory be has heard of, for, [295] according to his admission, I flinch and wabble and modify. But my brother is wrong. I have subscribed to no one but Jesus Christ and have accepted nothing but God's word. Could he possibly grant me credit for this and regard me as a brother along with himself and others, instead of laboring to put me into some human and heretical pen? All along he suggests the impression that I have gone off after somebody's theory and doctrine, and that I am not really just a simple Christian, simply endeavoring, like himself, just to find God's will and mind from the Book. At the risk of wearying my readers, I will quote a paragraph from my little book, "The Kingdom of God" (page 11), published five years ago:

      The present writer deems it desirable at the outset of this study to remove any misapprehension as to his own position. He stands committed to no human theory (not even to his own, is so far as be may hold any); nor does he advocate or countenance "speculation." His one and only desire is to get all that God says on every topic, and as a free Christian he feels no necessity of manipulating the testimony of the Scriptures either to please any man or to make it fit any preconceived tenets or human standards of orthodoxy. But while maintaining his liberty and independence, he does not propose to ignore the positions generally held by his brethren; and in whatsoever be feels bound to differ with the views generally current he does not do so because of loving to differ, or counting himself wiser than others, but only and solely upon the ground of God's word, upon which alone, as simple Christians, we all stand. It may also be in order to add that the present writer rejects in toto the doctrinal system and theories of Adventism and Russellism; and that his study of the word of God has led him to no clash with the teaching held by his brethren in the church of Christ, in any matter of fundamentals or any point of obedience, or any congregational practice, or in anything that should affect our fellowship in the Lord Jesus Christ. He believes that Jesus is King now, crowned with glory and honor, enthroned on the right hand of the Father. He believes in the full efficiency of the gospel unto its God-designed end, as the power of God unto salvation. Nothing he has found in the Scriptures contravenes these positions. [296]

      Now, if my brother will just take me at my word and regard me as honest, and give me credit for my principles and expressed intentions, he could fight the whole thing out on a simple Scripture basis, without troubling about anybody's theories.

      The first thing in my respondent's argument that demands attention is

      He says that the question is not, "What is the throne of David," but, "Do the Scriptures teach that Christ is now on David's throne?" Very well; but if the reader is left in the dark as to what is meant by David's throne, the proposition, however simple it may be, becomes entirely obscure. I objected to his definition and pointed out carefully that it did not define. His reiteration of the same definition does not make it a whit better or clearer. I had the right to demand a clear and concise definition of "David's throne," and to know what is meant by Christ's being "on David's throne." It was not only justice due me, but to the readers as well, that all might know exactly what we are talking about. I even suggested to him what would manifestly have been a fair and clear definition, that the throne of David stands for "that peculiar royal authority and rule which God allotted to David." He did not accept it, but repeated the same vague, loose, unsatisfactory definitions which draw no line, and which, if accepted, would not have left an issue to debate about; for I, too, believe that Christ is now on "the throne of the Majesty," "the throne of God," "the throne of Jehovah," and has authority "to rule over the Lord's people." If that is the definition of the throne of David, there was nothing to dispute about. Why did not the affirmative give us a clear-cut, distinctive, and sharp definition, instead of one so broad and vague that no issue could be deduced from it? I am no more in favor of a war about words than he; but every reader will see how much depends on what is meant by [297] the term, "throne of David, which is under discussion. If my respondent is permitted to assume in his very definition that the throne on which Christ is now sitting is the throne of David, and thus beg the question to begin with, no discussion is possible. An experienced debater like Brother Boles should be able to see that. I might return his compliment and say that I very much suspect that he saw that a fair definition, according to the Scripture concept, the clear meaning with which "the throne of David" enters the New Testament from the Old, would make it impossible for him to meet the argument.

      Brother Boles thinks I "ignore scholarship" because I refuse to admit the definition of the "New Standard Bible Dictionary." Let us note that definition. "Jesus the Messiah is the true Davidic King." Good so far. "And his throne--i. e., his power, etc--sometimes his seat at the right hand of the Father--is the realized ideal of the Davidic throne." I called that inadmissible. It is, in the first place, no definition, but a mixture of fact and current theological opinion, very much like Webster's definition of "baptism." And it is of no more value to Brother Boles than for me. He says that Jesus' throne as Davidic King is "sometimes his seat at the right hand of the Father." Then what is it at other times? Could it then, at other times, mean David's sphere of rule over Israel? I confess to no such blind devotion to what Brother Boles denominates "scholarship" as to accept a piece of buncombe just because it occurs in some "New Standard Bible Dictionary." Brother Boles ought to see that this "definition" is vague, unsatisfactory, and unfair, not only to me, but even to him. The definition of Hastings is good enough, but does not touch the point that must be brought out. "The 'throne of David' often stands for the royal honor of David's house." Yea. That is like saying the throne of David is David's throne. And even so Hastings only says that it means that "often." Not [298] always, therefore. What does it mean on other occasions? Smith's definition is perfectly good, but it is only a general definition of the terms "throne" and "sitting on a throne." What I have been wanting to know all along is what specific limit and province of rule and power is designated by the term, "throne of David"--whether it was something that David had and held, or something else. Just what was the sphere and scope of his royal authority? Was it only in a vague sense "over the Lord's people," as Brother Boles says, an elastic term which can be adjusted to mean any other people than those over whom David ruled? The discussion of that question does not belong to the definition, but the definition must leave room for that discussion, and not assume the question to start with. Is David's throne only a general expression which, though meaning civil authority in the Old Testament over the nation of Israel, in a territory defined of God, means in the New Testament something totally different--a spiritual sovereignty over another people, without regard to place or location? That was the issue, and if the affirmative had defined his terms Scripturally the whole discussion would have been more clear and pointed.

      He reiterates the Scripture definitions of the throne of David which he gave, but answers none of the questions, nor pays any attention to the negative's demands or arguments. I called his notice to the fact that the throne of David was a sphere of royal authority delegated to David and his seed, by Jehovah, over an earthly territory and a special people; that once it stood; that it was subsequently "cast down to the ground" and "overturned;" that it was "Jehovah's throne" only in this limited and delegated sense, not the absolute sovereignty God exercises in heaven; that David or Solomon never sat on the throne Christ now occupies, and Christ never sat on theirs. All this he passed grandly by. I asked what right he had to impose on the term "throne of David" a [299] sense different from that which the Scriptures plainly attach to it. No answer. I asked him pointedly what, if David sat on Jehovah's throne in the unlimited sense, God was doing while David and Solomon ruled on his throne, and who was running the universe during that time. No answer. I called specific attention to the fact that the promise of an everlasting throne to David involved the everlasting continuance of David's people, and their settlement forever in the land which God had promised them. I brought out that this is particularly taught in the context of the very passages which he used. (2 Sam. 7:8-13; Jer. 23:5-8; Amos 9:15.) All this seems to have deserved no notice or answer from him. It went for absolutely nothing.

      Why does the affirmative sweep aside the plainest and most specific testimony of the Scriptures on these points? The secret lies in his own preconceptions, in the spiritualizing interpretation he has adopted. To take God at what he says seems to him "Judaistic, literalistic, and materialistic." Therefore, things must be changed over into spiritual values and equivalents, metaphorized, allegorized--theological methods by which the word of God can be deprived of its obvious meaning, and other meanings substituted in lieu of the plain, literal terms.

      "The Lord's people with David," says my respondent, was fleshly Israel; the Lord's people with Christ is 'the Israel of God,' or Christians. The Lord's people in the time of David are described by the phrase, 'from Dan to Beersheba.' This is a term denoting all of the Lord's people; but to-day the Lord's people include all Christians, all the people of God, the whole 'family in heaven and on earth.' (Eph. 3:15.)"

      Again he tells us that "the throne of David" was the type of the throne of Christ. To claim that the throne of David is yet to be established is to nullify the antitype, which is the throne of Christ to-day. Christ is now [300] on the throne which was typified by David's literal throne."

      Here, then, we have the secret of the whole. The Scripture definitions of the throne, the people, and the territory of David, with all the promises and predictions pertaining thereto, are not to be taken at what they really say, but figuratively, at what Brother Boles says they typify. In this he tacitly admits that those statements in the Old Testament, taken at what they say, sustain the position of the negative. I thank him for that. But he says they must not be taken at what they say. To do so would be "Judaistic, literalistic, and materialistic." The whole thing must be thrown over into the realm of spiritual analogies, and the details made to fit according to the interpreter's ingenuity. Thus "from Dan to Beersheba," for example, does not mean the land God swore to Israel from one end of it to the other (as it always means in Scripture), but it means "all the Lord's people," "Christians," "the whole family in heaven and on earth." This to me savors strongly of that private, arbitrary interpretation against which my brother took such a severe stand a few articles back. He not only claims that God's dealings in the spiritual realm correspond with certain points of his dealings in the earthly sphere (which would be good and true), but that the latter were only figures of the spiritual realities which Christ brought in. The oath of God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, concerning their descendants, was but a vaporous image, as it were, of spiritual blessings which were to come to another people. The actual descendants get nothing; the spiritual meaning alone counts. And the land God swore to them for an everlasting inheritance for them and their seed after them was but a figure of some spiritual concept. And the oath God swore to David concerning his throne and his people was but a shadow of what God intended for the church, his spiritual people over whom Christ should reign, as David reigned over the [301] nation of Israel (though Christ is never spoken of as being in relation of King to his church). My respondent is afraid that by taking these things at their face value we might "nullify the antitype." Ought we not to fear, rather, lest we nullify the word of God, his promises, and his oath, by our theological preconceptions? No wonder my respondent thinks that prophecy cannot be understood. According to such principles of interpretation, a prophecy might mean almost anything when the time for its fulfillment comes around! It is not strange that he thinks that the negative's position is Judaistic. Certainly his view differs greatly from any impression that a Jew would have got from his own Scriptures, and he would have no little difficulty showing a Jew how it happened that all the prophecies of the Messiah's birth, humiliation, and rejection were literally fulfilled, but the prophecies referring to his glory and the promises concerning the land and the people and the throne of David were all "spiritual." Dr. Alex. McCaul, quoted in "Kingdom of God," page 59, says:

      The Jews object that many prophecies, and those such as especially concern themselves, have not been fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth, and that therefore he cannot be the Messiah promised by the prophets. To this many Christian writers have replied that such declarations are figurative, and that under earthly emblems heavenly things that are intended--that the Jews are never to be restored to their own land, nor the Messiah to have a kingdom over Israel; that the only blessings which they have to expect are adoption into the Christian family here and admission into the heavenly Canaan hereafter. But to this the Jew objects that a mode of interpretation which is based upon two contradictory principles is necessarily false. "You prove that Jesus is the Messiah," he says, "by the grammatical principle--you evade difficulties by the adoption of the figurative. Choose one of the two. Carry through the figurative exposition, and then there is no suffering Messiah; carry through the literal, and a large portion of the prophecies are not yet fulfilled." The Jew's demand is reasonable, and his objection to this expository inconsistency valid:.  . . to receive those [302] prophecies which foretell Messiah's humiliation and atoning death in their plain and literal sense, and seek to allegorize those which deal with his glorious reign on the earth over restored and blessed Israel, is to place an insurmountable stumblingblock before every Jew of common sense, and to hold up prophecy to the scorn of the infidel.

      My respondent not only implies that all this business about David is now a thing of the past, but (arguing from 2 Cor. 5:16) that it does not matter now whence Christ sprang. So "spiritual" has this "throne of David" on which (according to my respondent) Christ is now sitting become, that sure enough it wouldn't be any infringement on David's rights if our Lord had sprung from any other tribe of people. Really his present rule has nothing directly to do with David's prerogatives and the promises made to him. Yet the Scripture keeps calling attention to the fact that Christ is of David's seed. Why? "Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, of the seed of David, according to my gospel," says Paul to Timothy long after Christ's ascension. Why? Was Paul too "Judaistic" and "materialistic?" In the last book of the New Testament, Christ is referred to as the "Lion of the tribe of Judah" (Rev. 5:5), and at the very end of that book be calls himself "the root and offspring of David" (Rev. 22:16). If 2 Cor. 5:16 meant what my respondent thinks, why this special notice down to the very last, of Christ's Davidic parentage? Is Christ man now? (1 Tim. 2:5.) If so, to what ancestry is his humanity assigned? By what right can he claim David's throne, and on what ground can he sit on that throne? Did not God swear to David that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne? Is the fact that Christ is of David's seed of no more force or significance to-day?

      But, after all, Brother Boles has now himself proved nolens volens that Christ is not now on David's throne! According to him, the actual throne of David exists no [303] longer. That on which Christ now sits is not the throne of David, but a spiritual counterpart and equivalent, an antitype of it. Now the antitype is never the same thing as the type, but only a picture or model of it. For example, Moses was a type of Christ, but Christ is not Moses. Christ does not occupy Moses' seat, and Christ's law is not Moses' law. Christ is the antitype of Aaron, but they are not the same persons, nor is Christ's priesthood the perpetuation of the Aaronic service. If, then (as my respondent says), "the throne of David was the type of the throne of Christ,.  . . Christ is now on the throne which was typified by David's literal throne," then Christ is evidently not on David's throne now, for David's throne was only the type of the one on which Christ now sits. If my respondent had shaped his proposition to read, "The Scriptures teach that Christ is now on a throne which was typified by the throne of David," I would not have gone out of my way to deny that. What I believe is that God, regardless of all antitypical fulfillments, will redeem his oath and promises made to the fathers at face value, and will do exactly as he said in his word.

      My respondent thinks that the fulfillment of God's promise to David, according to Jer. 33:17, 18, would demand the continuance of the Levitical priesthood. He tries to draw a "deadly parallel" thus: "Except one of David's line is ruling in David's land over David's people, it is not the throne of David;" and therefore, "except one of Aaron's line is officiating in Aaron's land and for Aaron's people, it is not the priesthood of God." This is not a true parallel. He should have said, "Except one of Aaron's family is officiating in the appointed sanctuary of God on earth, it is not the God-appointed service of the Aaronic priesthood." That will do, but not the other. The Aaronic priesthood was limited as to its duration, and reached its limit in due time. (Heb. 9:6-10.) But the throne of David was by promise to be an [304] everlasting throne, to endure "until the moon be no more." Unless there is a similar extension to the Aaronic priesthood, the same time limit would not apply to both. I accept absolutely what is told us in Hebrews about the discontinuance of the Levitical worship. I believe now, as I taught in 1910, that Christ is our High Priest, and that he sits now upon the throne of all the universe at God's right hand, but not that he is as yet sitting on David's throne.

      It is a rule of "honorable controversy" laid down in "Hedge's Logic" that a disputant is not to charge his opponent with the consequences of his teaching if he disavows them. If he thinks his opponent's doctrine would logically lead to bad conclusions, he can point out that fact; but he cannot charge his opponent with teaching or holding them. My brother fails here. He pictures out a theory which he says is generally held by premillennialists (which itself is a mistake), and while admitting that I flinch" and "modify," he says that "Brother Boll .  . . in the main contends for all these points." Among those "points" is that "the temple worship is to be restored," and "the Aaronic priesthood resumed, animal sacrifices to be offered; in fact, the theory demands the restoration of the law of Moses." He says that Brother Boll in the main "contends for all these points." I expected better of my brother. If, as he says, he is far from wishing to make out a case against me, or from intending to saddle some great and damaging charge off on me, why does he make such an unfounded charge as this, which he must know would "make my name to stink" among the brethren? Where is his proof, and what is his proof, that I teach such things? I invite him to present one iota of evidence that I have ever contended for such things as he charges upon me. Or if it was but a slip, I will gladly give him opportunity to retract it. This is too serious an accusation to be left unsubstantiated or uncorrected. [305]

      I must also once more revert to a charge he made against me before, and which he is too unwilling to give up--namely, that I do not believe in the universal Lordship and authority of Jesus Christ. After all the times I have reaffirmed that I do believe so, he still thinks that I make inconsistent and contradictory statements concerning it. He refers to my book ("The Kingdom of God"). Well, in that--book I stated:

      The throne which our Lord occupies now is the all-inclusive sovereignty of heaven. It is the position of supreme authority held by him as the glorified God-man. .  . . It may be argued that being in the place of supreme and all-inclusive authority ("All authority in heaven and on earth is given unto me"), the authority of David's throne, being comprehended in "all authority," is his now also. That is entirely true. It is his and no one else's. He has and holds the key of David. He is the anointed King of David's line, the Christ appointed for Israel. (Acts 3:20.)

      Is not this clear and satisfactory? I showed that, in common with Brother Lipscomb, my respondent himself believes that Satan still rules here below, and that the kingdoms of this world are not the kingdom of God as yet, and that all things are not yet subjected to Christ. In saying such things, does he, or does Brother Lipscomb, contradict the truth concerning Christ's universal Lordship and authority? My respondent will not say so. I stand exactly where he does in this thing.

      It has been shown that though antitypical and spiritual comparisons and counterparts of the Old Testament truths and promises be conceded, those original promises and oath-bound covenants of God are not thereby canceled. If, for example, it be granted that Christians to-day are in a spiritual sense the "Israel of God," that would not make null and void the promises to and concerning the nation which descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. All their threats and predictions of evil have been literally fulfilled upon them, and God declared that he would [306] fulfill the promises of good upon the same people, in the same way. (Jer. 32:42.) The proof is partly under our eyes. God promised, for instance, to preserve Israel and never to make an end of them. (Jer. 30:11.) Is he not doing that very thing to-day? We see them until yet marvelously preserved among the nations. (See T. B. Larimore's sermon on the subject.) What God is doing with "spiritual Israel" to-day has not affected his faithful dealings with the nation of Israel in this respect, and surely will not cause his promises to them to fail in the future. Spiritual equivalents do not nullify original facts and promises. If there is a Jerusalem above, that does not make void the clear and positive promises of God concerning the Jerusalem on earth. If, relative to our country, Boston were called our Athens, no one would be confused by such language. Boston is not Athens, and Athens is not Boston. If Boston is the Athens of America, it means simply that to us it is the equivalent of what Athens was to the ancient world. From all the arguments Brother Boles has made concerning the spiritual equivalents of the Old Testament people, land, and David's throne, it would not follow that God's definite promises and oaths to that people and to David, their king, about their land and their city and the royal throne, are thereby canceled, made void, and abrogated. God did not deceive Israel, nor will he ever break his promises to them on any pretense.

      My brother is right when he says that the Jews expected a restoration of David's throne, kingdom, and people in the land. According to their prophecies, they had a perfect right to expect such things. Their error lay not in that, but in the fact that they had failed to see the necessity of a spiritual change in themselves before these promises could be fulfilled, and had failed to believe in the humiliation of the Messiah, which bad been no less clearly foretold in their Scriptures than his glory. He is right again when he says that this is a very ancient [307] theory--that even Christ's disciples held the same idea. Just so. The Lord reproved them once for failing to believe in all that the prophets had spoken. (Luke 24:25.) Yea, even after Christ's death and resurrection, even after he had opened their mind that they might understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:45)--surely they understood their Scriptures then!--yea, even after he had given them forty days' special instruction on the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3), they still held that same conviction, as shown by their question, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" Even more remarkable is the fact that the Lord in his reply, so far from correcting them, actually implied that sometime the kingdom would be so restored to Israel; only, it was not for them to know the times and the seasons, which the Father had set within his own authority. After saying which he called their attention to something that concerned them more immediately, which, he said, would happen in a few days. (Acts 1:6-8.)

      Not only did the disciples hold what Brother Boles calls that "Judaistic, literalistic, materialistic" theory, but for three centuries of its purest and most primitive existence practically the whole church held such beliefs.

      My respondent quotes several scholars and commentators in support of his contention. This is proper when such quotations are properly used. We accept scholarship in matters of scholarship. We give due consideration to the words of commentators, and most especially do we weigh with respect the words of able and faithful brethren in the Lord. But no uninspired man can be an authority in spiritual things. Brother Boles doubtless does not mean to leave such an impression, but really he talks as though I ought to bow in humble submission to the various commentators which he produces, such as [308] Ridley, Burkitt, T. O. Summers, Grotius, Matthew Henry, and Adam Clarke. One could "prove" anything under heaven on this fashion. "What will Brother Boll do with these scholars?" he asks; "they flatly contradict his position." Brother Boll will have to do exactly what Brother Boles did in the first proposition with Campbell, McGarvey, Barclay, and Milligan.

      As for commentators, I see no reason why their say-so should count for so much more in this discussion than Brother Boles' own. I regard him more highly than I do some of these celebrities which he brings up, and would call their comments in question as quickly as I would Brother Boles', if I believed them wrong. The proposition says, "The Scriptures teach thus and so," not, "The commentators teach," or "The commentators say that the Scriptures teach this and that." I think my brother has made wrong use of his commentators throughout this discussion and has misunderstood my use of them also. When I quote from any writer, my respondent seems to think that I am inconsistent unless I accept that writer's whole teaching and theory. Would he do that? He quotes solemnly from James Hastings. Does he therefore subscribe to all the infidel modernism of which Hastings' Bible Dictionary is full? Will Brother Boles turn down such notable scholarship? But here is a good quotation from a commentary which Brother Boles quotes as often as any other, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, on Rev. 3:21: "He that overcometh, I will give to him to sit down with me in my throne, as I also overcame, and sat down with my Father in his throne."

      Two thrones are here mentioned:

      (1) His Father's, upon which he now sits, and has sat ever since his ascension, after his victory over death, sin, and the world; upon this none can sit save God, and the God-man, Christ Jesus, for it is the incommunicable prerogative of God alone; (2) the throne which shall be peculiarly his as the once humbled and then glorified Son of man, to be set up over the whole earth (heretofore [309] usurped by Satan) at his coming again, in this the victorious saints shall share (1 Cor. 6:2). The transfigured elect church shall with Christ judge and reign over the nations in the flesh, and Israel the foremost of them. .  . . This privilege of our high calling belongs exclusively to the present time while Satan reigns, when alone there is scope of conflict and for victory (2 Tim. 2:11, 12). When Satan shall be bound (chapter 20:4) there shall be no longer scope for it, for all on earth shall know the Lord, from the least to the greatest. (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, N. T., page 563.)

      My respondent says: "Nowhere in the Scriptures are we taught that Christ is to occupy two or more thrones." Well, what about Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown on that? What will Brother Boles do with such scholarship? For it is fully equal with that of most of the others he mentioned. If commentators count, here's a bull's-eye for the negative, and that from one of Brother Boles' own preferred authorities, too!

      But I ask, what is all that worth to us? I would not think of placing any weight on such a thing for proof, though I might quote it for aptness of expression and to show that eminent men who were not counted as heretics and Judaizers held such positions. But it is no proof to anything. On many points I can quote Alford, Bengel, Calvin, Wesley, Luther, and some of our own strong brethren. But we are not searching out what men have said about these questions, but what God has said. My beliefs stand or fall with what the Scriptures say, as nearly as I am able to ascertain it, not with what men say about it.

      It has always been a principle with those who stand as simple Christians that we accept no man's authority in matters of God's teaching and religious faith and practice, that we call no man "father" or "rabbi." We do not thereby discredit the work of able men and commentators, but, like the noble Bereans, we go to the Scriptures as the one final and only court of appeal, to see whether these things be so; for, as Brother Boles knows, no uninspired man is an infallible interpreter. [310] If a commentator is a great and able man and knows the Scriptures so thoroughly, he ought to be able to point out to me what God has said, and do it in such a fashion that I can see that God said it. If he can show me that God said it, I will accept it. If he can't do that, I shall certainly not accept the man's word for it. If he can show me that God said it, I will accept it, not because the man said so, but because he showed me and I see that God said it. That I conceive to be the Christian's proper attitude toward scholars and commentators in matters of faith and doctrine.

      In an earlier article my respondent complained that I had failed to recognize McGarvey, Lipscomb, Sewell, as of equal authority with myself. I do not remotely presume to measure myself with those good men. But this is not a question of human authority, whether theirs or mine (I claim none), but of the Scriptures. This question is not to be settled by the dictum of men, but by the word of God. I esteem Brother Lipscomb as highly as Brother Boles does. And I know what Brother Lipscomb's attitude was. He was as far as possible from setting himself up as an authority; and he never condemned even a boy or girl for differing with him, but always referred them to the Scriptures to see and judge for themselves. As Christians, we cannot do otherwise. Whenever we subscribe to any man, even the best of men, or to any set of men, blindly and in toto, we become followers of that man, or of that party, therefore partisans, and forfeit our high name and place as Christians only. Brother Boles does not indorse Brother Lipscomb in everything he has ever said at wholesale, not even everything I have quoted from Brother Lipscomb in this discussion; but he does not, therefore, exalt himself above Brother Lipscomb or "push him aside." Neither do I.

      I stand in these matters as simple Christians stand, and where the whole brotherhood in Christ professedly stands. Brother Boles appears to think that we ought [311] to let the word of commentators settle the matter, and as though it were a grievous offense to set them aside. (If that is so, then which set of commentators shall it be?) If that is his conception of the Christian's principles, it is not mine. These commentators look no better to me than any one else, unless they can point me to a clear word from God. Then I thank them and follow God.

      At this point I have reached the limit. I have yet about seven type written pages, a review of the affirmative's "Summary," item by item, and then the negative's final summary. But although my respondent made me the generous offer to use all the space I want, I cannot take undue advantage of that, but must cut off those final pages.

      The affirmative has not produced a passage that declares that Jesus Christ is now on David's throne, nor one that necessitates such a conclusion, either in itself or in conjunction with other passages. His argument that Christ "is now on the throne of God, and David's throne is called 'the throne of Jehovah,' hence he is now on David's throne," is like saying: "The sun is a luminary, the moon is a luminary; therefore, the sun is the moon." The absolute throne of God on which Christ now sits and the limited, subordinate sphere of God's government in Israel which he delegated to David ("the throne of the kingdom of Jehovah over Israel"-- 1 Chron. 28:5) are as different concepts as the sun and the moon among the luminaries of heaven.

      The affirmative's main contention has been to establish a spiritual, typical analogy between Christ's present spiritual rule and David's earthly rule. The negative did not feel obliged to deny this. Such spiritual correspondence does not prove that the ancient oath and promise of God to David concerning his throne and his people are nullified. Indeed, it would prove that Christ is not now [312] sitting on David's throne, for the throne on which be now sits would be only the antitype. Type and antitype are never the same thing. All the spiritual fulfillments my respondent may be able to point out do not destroy the faithfulness of God in the fulfilling at face value of all he has said and promised in the past.

      Finally, the negative avows the same position in regard to Christ's present universal Lordship and authority that Brother Boles himself holds. The negative believes that all the right and authority of David's throne is Christ's now, and his alone. As to the actual exercise of it, he bides the time until disobedient Israel shall turn and seek him, and when they see him shall shout: "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." (Matt. 23:39.) [313]

[UP 294-313]