"And in their days, even of those kings, the God of heaven shall set up A KINGDOM which shall never perish, and A DOMINION that shall not be left to another people. It shall grind to powder and bring to an end all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever."—DANIEL.

JOHN THOMAS, Editor. NEW YORK, MAY, 1854—

Volume 4—No. 5

Dr. Thomas—Dear Sir: I am obliged to you for the notice you have been pleased to bestow on my two little articles on the above words. But I am not quite certain that I understand your position as to the meaning of these words. Before I can consistently reply to your strictures, therefore, I desire to be better informed. By this means I may be better prepared to reply without "multiplying words without knowledge."

Will you please to state definitely—not paraphrastically—what you take the meaning of metanoia to be? Give it, if you please, in the form of a proposition, with a reference to proofs, and I will consider both, and reply either by approval or dissent.

Will you do the same in reference to (Aeido) Hades? I am bound to no creed but the Inspired Volume, and will be obliged to you for any information.

Will you also, as you think I have not believed "Abrahamically," please inform me what you mean by that word; especially as you think such a belief so important, and your benevolence induces the desire of my salvation?

It is several years since I have seen much of your writing, except "the Hope of Israel." Will you be so kind, also, as to give me the meaning which you attach to euangelion, or gospel, as used in the commandment to the apostles, Mark 16: 15: "Go and proclaim the gospel," &c.

Very respectfully,

S.E. SHEPARD.

New York, 18^th March, 1854.

* * *

It is with pleasure I proceed to endeavour to make myself better understood than from the Doctor’s friendly inquiries I find I have in my remarks in our March number on the words in question. My strictures there have been accepted in the spirit in which they were tendered, at which I am glad. I am encouraged therefore to add to them with that plainness which is indispensable for truth, but with sincere esteem for my friend, whose position I am compelled to repudiate, not from resentment at the treatment I have received from his denomination, but from logical certainty and scriptural assurance of the unshakable validity of my own.

First then as to metanoia. It is a word derived from metanoeo, which is itself compounded of meta, and noeo—the meta having the force of with, in the sense of on the same side with; also towards: while noeo has its root in noos or nous, signifying mind, understanding, intellect; comprehensive of its states or affections. Hence the verb noeo is expressive of the operations of the intellect, as, thinking, considering, attending, pondering, &c.: to think with is therefore the radical idea of metanoeo—so that if God, for instance, present a proposition to the intellect, metanoeo is to think with that proposition, or to approve as true what God affirms is true.

Now, metanoia, being the verbal derivative, expressing what exists, it signifies A THINKING IN HARMONY WITH, say the thoughts of God, or with any other conversed with, as the case may be. When a sinner is exhorted to metanoia, a change of mind is implied; because the thoughts of God are essentially antagonistic: but I do not find in the etymological analysis the radical idea of change. These things being admitted, it follows that no one is the subject of gospel metanoia whose thoughts are not the thoughts of God revealed in the gospel of the kingdom.

I do not see that it is necessary to add any explanations to what are found in the article on hades. I may, however, repeat that while the radical idea of a grave is not to be found in the word, yet by implication it does signify the grave. I have defined it on page 14 for March 1854.

By believing "Abrahamically" I mean, first, to believe the things promised to Abraham in their obvious sense; and secondly, in the manner he believed them as defined by Paul in Romans 4: 13, 18, to the end.

As to euaggelion, I understand it to signify a good message, from eu, good, and aggelia, a message. A good message implies a Sender of the message or word, and a Bearer of the message, who is therefore the angel or messenger, and styled in Scripture the Messenger of the Covenant, that is, of the Abrahamic and Davidian covenant.

Salvation in Mark 16: 15 is predicated on believing the good message and being baptised; and condemnation on not believing that good message. In Acts 10: 36, Peter styles this message "the word which God sent TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, evangelising—peace by Jesus Christ." In these few words are indicated the sender, the message, the messenger, and the party to whom the peace-message was sent. Peter then reminds Cornelius and his friends that they know that word, which is the reason why he does not repeat it to them. He reminds them also where that message to Judah began to be evangelised by Jesus Christ; namely, in all Judea, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism preached by John. By turning to Matthew 4: 23, this apostle tells us that the message of peace gospellised to Judah by Jesus in Galilee was "the gospel of the kingdom"—the Good Message concerning the Kingdom. He preached peace to Judah through the establishment of the kingdom—a peace to them increasing without end when he should occupy the throne and wear the crown of his father David. Read Isaiah 9: 6-7. Not "a wooden throne," as some lightly suppose, nor the identical golden crown David handled; but, being David’s son and heir, (the only living heir known,) and ruling then over the same nation, and reigning in the city where David dwelt, the throne he occupies millennially, and the diadem he then wears, are styled David’s.

Now before Jesus died, and after he had been for over three years preaching the gospel of the kingdom, he said, "THIS gospel of the kingdom must be preached in all the habitable for a testimony to all the nations." Hence the gospel preached to the nations several years after Pentecost was the same Jesus preached to Judah before he died. For several years, as my friend knows, it was preached only to the Jews for the obedience of faith; but when the time came that Gentiles might be permitted to become heirs of the kingdom upon the same conditions as the Jews, the same gospel Jesus preached (and there is only one true gospel in the Bible) was preached to all the nations of the Roman Habitable, or "to every creature," as Jesus had commanded. See Colossians 1: 23.

Now the issue between me and the Doctor’s whole "Brotherhood," commonly designated after Mr. Alexander Campbell, is THE GOSPEL. We differ indeed upon details of minor consideration; but they have become as nothing compared with this. What is the gospel to be obeyed for salvation in the Kingdom of God and of Christ? —is the question of the first magnitude that eclipses and absorbs all the rest. As he knows, I advocated for some time the views current in what Mr. C. styles "this reformation," Bethany being the centre of communion, which views I understand in all their length, breadth, and thickness. But during that time and for the remnant of the past 20 years, I have been studying Moses and the Prophets as well as the Apostles, which is a rare exception to the general practice of "reformation-preachers," as my friend well knows. The instruction I derived from these neglected writers opened my eyes to the unscriptural nature of the views of "this reformation," and compelled me in honesty and candor to renounce them; and without qualification or compromise, firmly (but with none of the "bitterness" of feeling attributed to me) to testify against them as an unscriptural substitute for the gospel, and inadequate to the salvation of any one immersed upon them as the subject-matter of his faith. My friend, the Doctor, is a preacher of that system; but not sold to it body, soul, and spirit, for he says, "I am bound to no creed but the inspired volume." I am glad to hear him say this. I hoped as much; and therefore, believing what I have stated as to the vanity of the system he expounds, I expressed the sincere wish, which I reiterate, that repentance unto life may be to him through a timely obedience to the gospel of the kingdom in the name of Jesus.

I repeat then, that the euaggelion tes basileias, "Good Message of the Kingdom," is a stranger to the "Brotherhood" to which the Doctor belongs. What it holds forth as the "ancient gospel" is only an exhibition of a few historical items, called "facts," pertaining to the Mystery of the good message, styled "the mystery of the gospel," and "the mystery of Christ," in the epistles. From the testimonies quoted the Doctor will see, that salvation is predicated, not merely upon the recognition of the Messenger as Son of God, but on the belief and obedience of the good message of the kingdom which he announced. He did not preach the mystery; but the gospel, with only an incidental allusion to the mystery occasionally and obscurely. The preaching of the gospel of the kingdom and its Mystery and Fellowship of the Mystery, was the work reserved for the apostles. The Mystery they preached reveals to the believer of the Peace-Message sent to Judah, and to none else, on what conditions such a believer may become an heir of peace in the kingdom—namely, by also believing the things concerning the sonship, mediatorship, and sacrificial character of the Messenger-King of the Jews; and baptism in his name. The Doctor’s, as well as all other theological systems extant, are based upon the egregious and fatal error of substituting a mutilation of the mystery for the good message, or gospel, itself.

Now, if my friend turn to Acts 8: 12, he will see that the euaggelion, related to when "Philip preached Christ" to the Samaritans. It referred, in the order stated, first to the things of the KINGDOM of God; then to the things of the NAME of Christ; and that Jesus was he. I know, and my friend, the Doctor, also knows, that if a man at their meetings accept an invitation from one of the "reformation-preachers" to "come forward and confess the Lord," as the phrase is, and he be asked, "Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?"—and he reply "Yes," he is greeted with a "thank the Lord," and handed over for immersion! This is called believing the gospel! But what good message is there expressed in the question? Such an one’s assent to that question as it is popularly understood by Gentile theologists is not belief of the gospel, nor is that Gentile understanding of it the gospel. It is evident in the text upon what the immersion of the Samaritans was predicated; I would therefore ask the Doctor, if he advocate a return to first principles—to New Testament faith and practice—which he professes to do, why does he not believe for himself, and inculcate upon others the same things, and the belief of them, as an indispensable prerequisite qualification for immersion? If he and his "Brotherhood" were to do this, we should stand side by side, and not vis-à-vis, as at present. It is not agreeable to stand alone and opposed to all "Christendom;" but it cannot be helped—a Bible-taught man is necessarily insulated; because "Christendom," Protestant and Papal, is apostate and faithless of its truth.

The things of the kingdom are covenanted things. They are set forth in the covenants of promise, made with Abraham and David; and may be briefly indicated as the place of the kingdom, its nation, its empire, its king, its princes, its throne, its immortality, and so forth. The things of the name are also covenant things. The sacrifice and the figurative resurrection of Isaac stand out as an illustration of them. As Peter taught on the Day of Pentecost, so the Seed to be called in Isaac was to be raised up from the dead to sit on the Davidian throne, when He, and all in him, should possess the gate of their enemies and the empire of the world. Jesus is that Seed—the antitypical Isaac of the covenant—and though raised, the things covenanted to him have never yet been fulfilled. As the representative testator, he has "confirmed the covenant for many," bringing it into force by dying and rising again; so that believers in the things covenanted, by being understandingly immersed into him, may become the justified heirs of the promises. Beyond this nothing is accomplished; therefore with patience we wait for their fulfilment.

That I may be as definite as possible, I would remark further that the place of the kingdom is the land covenanted to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Hence, faith in a kingdom somewhere else is not faith in the kingdom God has promised to all in Abraham and his Seed. The nation of the kingdom is composed of the natural descendants of Abraham in the line of Jacob and his twelve sons. Hence, to affirm that God hath cast Israel away, or that the Israelites will never be restored to the Holy Land, is equivalent to denying that the kingdom of God will ever exist. It is impossible that a person holding this dogma can believe, or even understand, the good message of peace to the children of Israel, that is, the gospel.

The kingdom’s empire is the world—all the nations inhabiting the earth to its utmost bounds. Hence, those who believe and teach the destruction of all the wicked at the appearing of Jesus Christ, and the burning up of the world; or who say they do not know what the future of nations is, are without intelligence in the truth. They are not only infidels, but evil speakers against God, who has said, "all nations shall be blessed in Abraham," who with his Seed shall possess the world. All nations are now wicked, and possessed by the wicked; so that if "all the wicked will God destroy" at Christ’s coming, there would be no nations to be blessed, and consequently no empire for Jesus and the Saints.

The king is Jesus of Nazareth, "the King of the Jews." As the kingdom is God’s kingdom, Jehovah styles the king "my king," and the nation "my nation," and the land "my land," and the throne "my throne." If, as some say, Jesus will come no more, then there will be no kingdom. Hence they who reject his coming are infidel of the gospel of the kingdom. To call such believers of the gospel convicts him who acknowledges them of ignorance or unbelief. No personal advent, no kingdom, no resurrection, no restitution of all things Israelitish, no blessing of the nations in their enlightenment, and the destruction of their oppressors. The land covenanted to Abraham, and the kingdom, being inseparable, it is impossible for King Jesus to remain where he is when the time arrives for the Saints to take the kingdom of the fourth beast under the whole heaven. He must come, that the words of God may be fulfilled.

The princes of the kingdom are those Israelites and Gentiles who, to the time of the setting up of the kingdom, shall have "walked in the steps of the faith of Abraham," whose faith was perfected in obedience. These princes are "the saints," of whom there are very few in this generation; so that, being almost destitute of salt, it has become unsavoury and nigh to cursing. All the Gentiles, enlightened by Peter and Paul, believed the gospel of the kingdom first, and were immersed afterwards. Who will venture to deny this? But now very few believe that gospel, and of those who do, very few are sufficiently assured of its divine totality and uncompromising exclusiveness to count all their former scholasticism and pulpit churchology as mere dross, to be washed into oblivion by the baptismal obedience the gospel of the kingdom demands. Obedience to the gospel is the stone of stumbling and rock of offence to this generation. Theoretical believers do not like baptismal obedience. They do not like to put off their old serpent pietism; because in so doing they would not only confess themselves to have been deceived, but would in effect pass sentence of condemnation upon their pious great-grandmothers and devout contemporaries! O ye of little faith! How poor, and miserable, and blind, and naked! Even the salt hath lost its savour. It is because of this Laodiceanism of the times that the Oriental Question, which is to end in the breaking off of the Gentiles as a sapless and rotten branch, has been providentially created. The way is thus preparing for "the kings of the east," at whose advent the princes of the kingdom will appear.

The throne of the kingdom is Jehovah’s Davidian throne. At present without being, but hereafter to exist gloriously in Jerusalem when she shall cease to be trodden under foot of the Gentiles, and all nations shall be gathered unto the Name of Jehovah there.

The immortality of the kingdom belongs only to the king and princes, who are incorruptible and deathless. Being immortal, they are able to possess the honour and glory, and power and riches, of the kingdom, without leaving them to other people. They obtain a right to it by keeping the commandments of God; and come into its possession at their resurrection, as Jesus did.

But here I must suspend for the present. I hope I have succeeded in stating my meaning so definitely that my friend, the Doctor, and the reader, will be at no loss to comprehend it. If the Doctor can point out the way of truth more distinctly and scripturally, he will lay me under great obligation. My interests are all on the side of the truth. Neither the editor of the Herald nor its friends are afraid to look it boldly in the face. Whatever the Word established we fear not to receive, though it might set "all the world" against us, and "the Church" beside. I do not believe the Herald has a subscriber now who would discontinue it because a thing was stated, and testified to, which had not yet formed an article of his creed. Its mission is to fish for pearls; and to bring out of the divine treasury things new as well as old. Hence, we are neither afraid to produce nor to look at new things. If therefore the Doctor have any pearls or any thing new, which he believes he can demonstrate from Moses and the prophets and from the apostles, let us have them with the proof, and we will try them; and if when weighed in the balances they be not found wanting, we will seize upon them and take care not to let them slip.

March 31, 1854 EDITOR.

* * *