PROPOSITION. - "That a Kingdom of God which was at hand in the days of John the Baptist is now in existence and is ruled from The Throne of God, having laws and subjects on the earth."

MR. ANDERSON opened the debate with a speech of fifteen minutes duration. He said,

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nisbet, Ladies and Gentlemen: - You have heard the proposition, that the Kingdom of God, which was at hand in the days of John the Baptist, is now in existence, and is ruled from the throne of God, having laws and subjects on the earth. If you keep before you exactly and as clearly as you can where we agree and where we differ, it will help a great deal. Mr. Nisbet and I both agree that the Jews were a Kingdom of God - that is, that there is a Kingdom of God behind us, a Kingdom that once existed, but does not now exist. There we are both agreed. Again, we both believe that there is a kingdom in the future, a kingdom of glory that is not here yet. Again, we are both agreed, and as far as I know both sides will admit, that God exercises an overruling power among the nations of the earth. These are points we are agreed upon, and hence do not discuss. The point is, has Christ a kingdom now? This is the point of difference: Is there a Kingdom of God, having specific laws that people may obey, of which they may become obedient subjects, and which is governed from the throne of God? Is there such a kingdom? I say, Yes; Mr. Nisbet says, No. This is the point of difference, and, of course, it is for me to lead proof of what I affirm, and it is Mr. Nisbet's business to examine that proof. We shall begin by looking at Col. 1:13, where Paul says, speaking of Jesus, "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the Kingdom of His dear Son." That affirms all that I require to affirm. It distinctly states that there is a Kingdom of God's dear Son now, and that Paul and the Colossians were translated into it then. It had an existence in the days in which Paul wrote that epistle to the Colossians. The verse says distinctly what I believe, and distinctly contradicts what Mr. Nisbet says. Turn with me now to Hebrews 12, and there you will read at the second verse, "Looking unto Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith, who, for the joy that was set before Him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." I quote that passage because there is a throne named there, and a throne indicates a kingdom, and Jesus is there set down at the right hand of the throne of God. That he is not there simply occupying a seat of honour without power is evident. If you turn to Matt. 28 at the 18th verse, you have Jesus saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and, lo, I am with you always even unto the end of the world." My chief point here is that Christ has all power in heaven and on earth. That is, he is seated on the throne of God; with all the power of the throne of God delivered to Him. In the 1st Epistle of Peter, chap. 3, verse 22, speaking of Jesus, Peter says, "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him." How a kingdom can be denied in the face of these passages is, I confess, a perfect mystery to me. If there was a kingdom into which the Colossians were translated and that kingdom was that of God's dear Son, and if you have that Son on the Throne of God, with the power of the throne handed to Him, and angels and authorities and powers subject to Him - it strikes me as absurd to deny a present kingdom. Look at Acts 5 and verse 31. The apostles make this statement, "Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." He is exalted a Prince and as a Prince He grants repentance. I know that our friends on the other side say, "He is a Prince, that means the Son of a King, but then he is not the King." I admit that prince sometimes means the son of a king, but it also sometimes means king, and it will have to be settled whether it is Son of a King or Sovereign here. In Chamber's 20th Century Dictionary the first meaning of the word prince is "one of the highest rank, a sovereign," and other good dictionaries give the same meaning. Whether prince means sovereign or son of a sovereign will be settled by the context. It is quite clear the context settles it here. Christ can save and forgive. Is that the work of a King, or a King's son? If you have Christ as a Prince to save and pardon, he is by name and power the Sovereign Jesus. I am perfectly satisfied that these passages convey kingdom to any unprejudiced mind, and you cannot help thinking of the present kingdom when you read statements such as these. All that is in keeping with what you read in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You have the theme of the Kingdom of Heaven as at hand. John the Baptist proclaimed that Jesus preached the Kingdom of Heaven as at hand. The twelve made their voices heard over the land of Palestine proclaiming the kingdom at hand. The seventy were sent out preaching the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, and if all these great preachers were sent across that little country preaching the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, and that is eighteen hundred years since, and no kingdom has yet been set up, it is worse than absurd; it is misleading. It cannot be denied that something was at hand, something lived and died immediately after that. The Jewish temple was then standing, sacrifice being offered there. The Jews were exhorted that they should obey what God had commanded in that Temple, but surely after that Jewism came to a finish and Christianity sprang into being. Something had come and gone. That something which was at hand had all the essentials of a kingdom even if you deny the name of it. If there is a kingdom into which the Colossians passed, if there are laws that men can and do obey, surely you have all the essentials of a kingdom. I may ask whether there is a territory? I say, "the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof," and I am not badly off for territory. And that included you have all the essentials of a kingdom, even if you deny the name. But the name is there as well as the essentials, and you can't get clear of that fact in dealing with the kingdom. From the first Pentecost after Christ's resurrection the kingdom at hand was no longer the main theme of the twelve. They preached that Jesus was exalted at the right hand of God, that he was Lord of all, and had all power, and that man should believe in and submit to His kingly power and glory; and the kingdom at hand was no longer the theme of the apostles. Take what happened immediately after, and you have in name, in theme, and in everything else, a kingdom now here. Keep this point well before you. Remember that the present kingdom is the thing disputed; that I have proven that there is a kingdom, that the subjects are enjoined to observe all things which He commanded, and remember that he is seated upon a higher throne than ever mortal sat upon. Suppose we turn to Rev. 1:5, "And from Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness and the first begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood." Here Jesus is called the Prince of the kings of the earth, and that does not differ from the King of kings.

MR. NISBET then replied in the negative for fifteen minutes. He said,

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Anderson, and friends: - I quite agree with Mr. Anderson's procedure in endeavouring to draw attention to the fact that we agree on certain things, and that we differ also. I don't quite agree with him in all he says upon the difference and upon what is agreed on, and in order to make this more clear I shall endeavour to put you in the same position as I occupy myself as to what I believe and what I don't believe. The subject that really is before us is the existence or non-existence of a kingdom such as Mr. Anderson has described. Now, we find John saying "the Kingdom of God is at hand." What do I understand by the term "kingdom" here? What do I understand was at hand? Well, to begin with, that which is at hand exists. It is not a question as to whether it exists or not, but whether it is here or not. Now, "the Kingdom of God is at hand." What was the Kingdom of God? If you go back, as Mr. Anderson has taken us, to the time of Israel, there was a Kingdom of Israel, sometimes styled the Kingdom of God. But because the King of Israel sat upon the throne of the Lord, so that Kingdom of Israel is frequently styled the Kingdom of God. But that was not the first instance of the Kingdom of God. It was the first instance of it on the earth. The Kingdom of God always existed and will exist, and does exist, but John said, "the Kingdom of God is at hand." What could be mean by that? Not that a Kingdom was coming into existence, but that the Kingdom of God, which always had been in existence, was at hand, and a manifestation of it would appear on the earth. Mr. Anderson believes that Kingdom of God which John was preaching was brought into existence then. I don't believe that; but that it always existed, not on this earth but under David, and it ceased to be among men in accordance with that statement, "I will overturn the Kingdom of Israel, and it shall be no more," etc. The Kingdom of God existed on earth in the form of a king appointed by God, but it disappeared among men, and in the days of John the Baptist there was no Kingdom of God among men; it was under the sway of the Roman. The question is, what was at hand? What was to be introduced at that time upon the earth, subsequent to the proclamation by John, "the Kingdom of God is at hand." We are agreed upon the existence of God's Kingdom over all in heaven. The question to be considered is, what did John introduce by his proclamation? What was in view in the purpose of God as to be introduced in the fulfilment of that? The time is fulfilled, and "the Kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in the good news." We are agreed that the Kingdom of Israel once existing, no longer existing, was styled the Kingdom of God. We both believe in a Kingdom of Glory to come. It was promised to Jesus, Luke 1:32. During the time past there has been what is termed a kingdom of men in contradiction to the Kingdom of God. In Daniel we are told that He setteth up the best of men, saying that he has controlling power even over the best men. The question is, does the kingdom preached by John as at hand exist now? We deny it. It does not exist on the earth, and Mr. Anderson has not proved it. He has shown us that Christ has been exalted a Prince, but he has not shown that the kingdom is here - that it exists in any sense among men. He says such a kingdom exists with specific laws and subjects, and I say no. Now, for the proof that such a kingdom as preached by John as at hand now exists, see Colossians 1:13, "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son." Colossians was written by Paul the apostles of Jesus Christ, and you will find in this verse Paul does not say that they had been translated into the Kingdom of Heaven - that the Colossians had been translated - but he says a certain "us" had been translated to the kingdom. That is a very important distinction, and an essential distinction as my remarks will show. In Colossians 1:13, he says, "God delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us." In verse 21, "And you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled." That was all that was true of them. They were not in the kingdom, but the apostles were in the kingdom. What is a kingdom? That is the point that Mr. Anderson will have to face and dispose of before he can establish that believers, as a whole, were in the kingdom. John introduced a deduction on matters which was established afterwards. As a matter of fact Jesus says to his disciples, "Fear not, little flock, it is your Father's good pleasure to give you a kingdom." Rev. 1:9, "I, John, also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the Word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ." John was an apostle. John was in the kingdom; the ordinary believers were not in the kingdom. The apostles exercised their rule in accordance with what was set before them, "Whatsoever sins ye remit are remitted; whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," etc. They were in the Kingdom of God given to them though Jesus Christ, and Mr. Anderson makes a mistake in thinking that all believers were in the kingdom in the apostolic age. For those who had ruled were there, and therefore Jesus is styled the Prince of the rulers of the earth. Mr. Anderson has to say that that condition of things existing in the apostolic age exists in the earth. I believe that God's kingdom has always existed and does exist, and that in the apostolic age that kingdom was exercised by Jesus Christ. That kingdom then existed; but it was only the little flock - those who were in the apostolate. The term signifies the apostles as a whole. They had been translated into a kingdom, and occupied a place with power. God's kingdom does not exist on earth. It was at hand in the days of John the Baptist. But God's kingdom, which rules over all, always existed and will exist. He is not manifest in the earth, neither with laws, nor people; nor is anything such as a kingdom at hand. They simply don't exist. Now, Mr. Anderson has to show that that introduced in John the Baptist's day by Christ and the apostles is continued to this day. The proposition requires him to prove that it now exists. Let Mr. Anderson prove it.

Questions put by Mr. Anderson to Mr. Nisbet: -

Q. - You admit, then, Mr. Nisbet, that the apostles were in the kingdom?

A. - I do.

Q. - Can there be a kingdom with simply rulers without subjects ?

A. - The kingdom preached by John the Baptist had no subjects, no laws such as the Kingdom of God is to have.

Q. - Then it was a kingdom with rulers but without subjects?

A. - They were to obey them that had rule over them.

Q. - Who had to obey?

A. - Those under them.

Q. - Then were there no subjects in the kingdom, if there were rulers?

A. - They were not subjects of the kingdom, but under the influence of the apostles.

Q. - That apostles were in the kingdom who ruled them as subjects?

A. - They could bring their power to bear upon them as their superiors.

Q. - That they were rulers over them but the people were not under them?

A. - They were not rulers - instructors.

Q. - Your suggestion amounts to this, that you had a kingdom and there were rulers in it but not subjects?

A. - I have said the rulers did not rule them in the sense you have asked, but instructed them under the command of Christ, and had authority to teach and instruct.

Q. - And they were in the kingdom but the people were not subjects?

A. - The people were such as I will show in the course of the evening.

Q. - This epistle to the Colossians was written to the faithful brethren in Christ?

A. - It was.

Q. - And at this 13th verse of Colossians it says, "He hath delivered us." Was Paul alone delivered from the power of darkness, or were the people also?

A. - The epistle says Paul and Timotheus are brethren. There is an "us" too; they describe themselves as "us", as in verse 9. "For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding." We who pray were those who had been delivered into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Q. - I understand from that second verse of the epistle to the Colossians that it was Paul who wrote it to the saints and faithful brethren. Do you admit the epistle was written to these?

A. - Yes.

Q. - Well would not the "us" include himself and the people to whom he was speaking?

A. - Yes, if the context did not show that they are excluded in some cases.

Q. - At verse 13. They were delivered from the power of darkness, but the people to whom Paul wrote this epistle were not included?

A. - No, I don't think so; you have cut out the half - "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness."

Q. - Then did the "us" mean that Paul alone was delivered from the power of darkness and the people to whom he was writing had no such blessing?

A. - Paul was speaking for all and the whole Apostolate, although he mentioned but himself and Timotheus.

Q. - You are quite satisfied that the Colossian saints were not delivered from the power of darkness, or at least this verse does not say so?

A. - I say they were not delivered from the power of darkness, and also translated into the kingdom.

Q. - If any person were translated into the Kingdom of God's dear Son, God had a kingdom then?

A. - Granted.

Q. - How did Paul get into the Kingdom of Christ if Christ had no kingdom?

A. - I never said that. You are not paying attention. John had a kingdom which was preached as at hand, and was established in the earth under the influence of the apostles. It no longer exists in the earth, but God's kingdom does exist..

Q. - You admit that Christ at that time had a kingdom?

A. - I gladly admit that.

Q. - And that Paul was in it?

A. - Paul and the apostles.

Q. - And these were all rulers?

A. - Not rulers in your sense, but administrators. There was a kingdom of rulers and administrators, but no ordinary subjects. They had those under them, but this is not a kingdom of earthly men. "My kingdom is not of this world.".

Q. - The rulers were in the kingdom and the people over whom they ruled were not?

A. - What do you mean.

Q. - You say the apostolate were in the kingdom and the Colossians were not?

A. - I said that the apostles were the administrators of the kingdom, and in that sense were kings, but not with territorial lands under their feet.

Q. - But you admitted they were in the kingdom?

A. - Yes, gladly, but not all believers.

Q. - There were rulers in that kingdom, but no subjects?

A. - Call them what you will, but accept ruler in the sense you find it.

Q. - You say this was a kingdom that had no subjects?

A. - It had administrators in the persons of the apostles, and subjects in the persons of the believers who were under the rule of the apostles.

Q. - And the rulers were in the kingdom, but the people were out of it?

A. - That does not follow.

Q. - It follows from your position?

A. - It follows that they were in.

Questions put by Mr. Nisbet to Mr. Anderson: -

Q. - Do you believe that which John preached as at hand had no existence, or do you believe it had?

A. - If it had existence then it was not at hand, it was here. I believe it was not here.

Q. - The question is, had it any existence before it came here? Does "at hand" mean "here"?

A. - I mean it was at hand nineteen hundred years ago, and if it is not here yet it was not at hand then.

Q. - In what sense was it at hand, when it was not at hand before John opened his mouth?

A. - In this way, that when anything comes at all, there is a time when it must be at hand, before it comes into existence. The kingdom was just near then, and therefore at hand; in that sense the kingdom was at hand then..

Q. - I thought you said the Kingdom of God always existed?

A. - That which John preached was at hand.

Q. - I am asking if the Kingdom of God always existed?

A. - I said we all admitted that God exercised an overruling power over the nations of the earth. That always existed.

Q. - I want to know if the Kingdom of God which in Daniel is spoken of as ruling over all - his beast of the kingdom of men - if that Kingdom of God really existed at the time of John the Baptist?

A. - There always was God's overruling power among the nations of men.

Q. - Is the Providential Power the same as the Kingdom of God?

A. - That all depends on what you mean. If you mean his overruling power among the nations of the earth, - Yes; and if not, - No.

Q. - Is that recognised as scripture?

A. - Sometimes.

Q. - How is it that the Kingdom of God came into existence after John's preaching, if it was already in existence?

A. - I pointed out that there were four aspects of the kingdom. One, with overruling power always existing.

Q. - We are past that, but the question is, what came into existence? You said it came into existence after the preaching of John the Baptist?

A. - Yes.

Q. - You say the Kingdom of God always existed; is it the same kingdom, or the same in a new shape among men?

A. - Put it any way you like. An overruling Providence.

Q. - I am not asking about an overruling Providence. John says, "Behold the Kingdom of God is at hand." You have said that came into existence then - that which was said to be the Kingdom of God at hand, came then. I want you to say whether it was a different kingdom from that which always existed in the past.

A. - Yes.

Q. - Had the King laws, aristocracy, territory and people?

A. - Yes, there were all these.

Q. - I want you to name one of the territories of the Kingdom of God?

A. - The earth is. Jesus said, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel," showing that he had territory in all the nations of the earth.

Q. - I am asking about territory?

A. - If they went into all nations, that proved He had territory in all nations, and all nations were His territory.

Q. - Did the apostles and kings possess territory at that time?

A. - They were only kings under Him, for He was the Prince of the kings of the earth.

Q. - Were they the kings of the material earth upon which He stood?

A. - They were subordinate kings, and He was the King of the kings.

Q. - Did these kings possess a single yard of earth?

A. - Yes, under God; but Christ was their King.

Q. - Could they take rent for it?

A. - Yes.

Q. - Can you give me a case?

A. - They did not ask rent from God, but from their subjects.

Q. - Give me a case where they called upon their tenants for the rent of the earth that they occupied, and which belonged to the apostles?

A. - I don't know that they ever did that kind of thing. They came to subject the spirits of men to the Great Ruler upon this earth.

Q. - In other words, they were more concerned about the spiritual welfare of the people than to get money for rent?

A. - That is so.

Q. - In other words, you will agree they had not a square yard of earth under present conditions then existing?

A. - I never said anything about the apostles having earth.

Q. - Your contention was that after the preaching of John a kingdom was to be established and it possessed a territory, and that the rulers were those under Christ?

A. - I said that Christ possessed a territory, and not the apostles.

Q. - And yet they were in the kingdom. Were all the apostles in the kingdom?

A. - Yes, the apostles were in the kingdom.

Q. - What does "in the kingdom" mean?

A. - Under the reign of Christ.

Q. - Having no power and authority?

A. - Christ had power and authority to make disciples of all nations.

Q. - Was Christ the Prince, and who were these kings?

A. - These kings were those that ruled over the nations of the earth.

Q. - In accordance with Christ's laws?

A. - No.

Q. - Then they were opposed to Christ?

A. - Yes, a great many of them.