In the January Harbinger (1851) Mr. Campbell reports a sermon which he preached at Bloomington, Ind., from which I glean the following excerpts:
“On Saturday night our subject was the promised advocacy of the Spirit, after the return and coronation of the Messiah in heaven; the commencement of his kingdom, and the peculiarities of the Christian dispensation, in contrast with the patriarchal and Jewish institutions. We gave reasons why Christianity, or the kingdom of Christ, could not be developed till he received all authority in heaven and earth—till he received the kingdom and government of the universe.” “The kingdom has come, and the king has been on the throne of David now more than eighteen hundred years: still, myriads are yet praying, ‘Thy kingdom come’!” “Thus Jesus, after he had expiated our sins on earth, entered heaven, and basing his intercession, _as our high priest_, upon his sacrifice, he sat down a priest upon his throne, ‘after the order of Melchizedek;’ a high priest forever, ‘according to the power of an endless life.’ This, as set forth, is a leading doctrine of this current reformation.... It is pregnant with great revolutionizing and regenerating principles.”
If Jesus is not now our anointed Prophet, Priest, and King, he is not yet the Christ. Do you believe Jesus to be the Christ now, or the Christ that is yet to be?
Bro. Ira C. Moore, in F. F. of June 17, (190?) says “No.” He reasons that because these two words are from Greek words of different meanings, and because the two words themselves have no meaning in common, therefore they can not apply to the same thing. He says the meaning of a word may be substituted by the word and make sense, and refers to our use of this principle in reference to baptism and sprinkling. The principle is true in the main, but Bro. Moore’s reasoning from it is as fallacious as can be. No one claims that the words kingdom and church mean the same. To describe or define a specific act words must of necessity be synonymous, yet words very different in meaning may be applied to the same person or thing, owing to the different relations that a person or thing sustains to the world. Man, husband, father, citizen, author, and president are words very different in their meanings, yet all of them apply to one person Theodore Roosevelt. In the different positions of life he occupies the relation that each of these words indicates. Because all these words are appropriately applied to him does that mean that you can take a sentence in which one of them is used and replace it with either of the words and make sense. “I, Theodore Roosevelt, husband, or author, or father of the United States,” etc. How is that? “Nonsense,” did you say? Just so.