« AnteriorContinuar »
from the perusal of the four Gospels, especially in the original, or in Campbell's improved translation, that the term Christ was never addressed to the Saviour, while on earth, as a proper name, but as an appellative. The use of the article in the Greek is lost in many places in the English, by the negligence or misapprehensions of King James's translators. Dr. Campbell observes, in his Preliminary Dissertations,' vol. i., p. 223, "If we were to judge by the common version, or even by most versions in modern tongues, we should consider the word as rather a proper name than an appellative, or name of office, and should think of it only as a surname given to our Lord. Our translators have contributed greatly to this mistake, by very seldom prefixing the article before Christ, though it is rarely wanting in the original. The word Christ was at first as much an appellative as the word Baptist was, and the one was as regularly accompanied with the article as the other. Yet our translators, who always say the Baptist, have, one would think, studiously avoided saying the Christ. This may appear, to superficial readers, an inconsiderable difference; but the addition of the article will be found, when attended to, of real consequence for conveying the meaning in English, with the same perspicuity and propriety with which it is conveyed in Greek. So much virtue there is in the article, which, in our idiom, is never prefixed to the name of a man, though it is invariably prefixed to the name of office, unless where some pronoun or appropriating expression renders it unnecessary, that, without it, the sense is always darkened and sometimes marred. Thus, in such expressions as these, This Jesus whom I preach unto you is Christ-Paul testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ— Showing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ—the unlearned reader forms no distinct apprehension, as the common application of the words leads him uniformly to consider Jesus and Christ is no other than the name and surname of the same person. It would have conveyed to such a reader precisely the same meaning to have said, Paul testified to the Jews that Christ was Jesus; and so on of the rest. The article alone, therefore, in such cases, adds considerable weight to the expression, yet no more than what the words of the historian manifestly convey to
every reader who understands his language. It should be, therefore, Paul testified to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ, or the Messiah, &c. Many other examples might be brought to the same purpose; but these are sufficient."
That Jesus is the Christ is proposed to us as a fact in the New Testament. But what is implied in the term Christ? John tells us that it is a correct translation of the word Messiah. Now, both terms denote one and the same thing, for Messiah in Hebrew, and Christ in Greek, signify anointed. That Jesus is the anointed, is, in our tongue, equivalent to Jesus is the Christ. But still a question may occur, What is the meaning or peculiar import of the term anointed in this connexion? To this we answer, from the Bible, that persons designed for the office of king, for the office of high priest, and, sometimes, for the office of a prophet, were, by a divine command, anointed with oil, and thus empowered and consecrated by God to the office for which they were designated. Thus Saul was called the Lord's anointed, and this consideration prevented David from taking away his life, when obnoxious to his wrath, and in his power. David also, and the kings of Judah were thus consecrated and empowered to act as kings, as viceroys under God, over Israel. In allusion to this ceremony of inauguration, Paul applies to our King these words,Thy God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy associates in office, above all the prophets, priests, and kings that were ever sent to Israel."
Three eminent prophets, David, Isaiah, and Daniel, represent the promised Deliverer as an anointed prophet, an anointed priest, and an anointed king. Isaiah represents him as an anointed prophet, chap. Ixi., 1, "The Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor." Daniel represents him as an anointed priest, chap. ix., 25, 26, “ And after threescore and two weeks shall the anointed Messiah, the Prince, be cut off, but not for himself," &c. David, in the second Psalm, represents him as an anointed king. He represents the alliance of the kings of the earth against the Lord's anointed, and sings his coronation upon Zion, the hill of his holiness. The whole of the salvation which sinful men require is comprised in the performance of these three offices. We are ignorant, guilty, and enslaved. To
remove ignorance is the office of a prophet; to remove guilt is the office of a priest; and to emancipate and lead to victory, to defend and protect, the office of a king. Now, to believe that Jesus is the Christ, is to receive him as the only prophet, the only priest, and the only king, qualified and empowered by our Heavenly Father to instruct us, to atone and intercede for us, to reign over our conscience, to guide, defend, and lead us to victory. His qualification for these offices, being the Son of God, the ONLY BEGOTTEN of the Father, renders him infinitely worthy of our confidence, and constrains us to trust in him with all our hearts. To his word, as our prophet, we look for instruction; to his sacrifice and intercession we look for pardon and acceptance; and to him as King on the throne of the universe, we yield implicit obedience, and are assured, if we put ourselves under his guidance, he will lead us to complete and triumphant victory. As we have used, and may often use, the phrase, “Jesus in the Christ," we thought it expedient to give this brief statement of the ideas attached to that phrase. A. CAMPBELL.
MR. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL TO W. JONES. "MY MUCH ESTEEMED AND VENERABLE BROTHER JONES!
"You wish me to state whether we, of the reformation in America, differ from our brethren in England in any articles of the Christian faith and practice; and if we differ from you in any thing, to state wherein. I trust that, before this reaches you, the works forwarded you will have arrived in England, and from these you will more fully learn, than I can now write, our views of the ancient and the modern exhibitions of Christianity. There is, in our judgment, a great difference between original Christianity and the best modern forms of it with which we are acquainted. But that I may be understood on the question before us, I will preface my reply with a few remarks on the cardinal difference between the original institution of Jesus Christ and the reformed religions of Protestant countries. If I were to classify in three chapters the whole Christian institution, after the fashion of the modern schools, for the sake of being understood, I would designate them Christian faith, Christian worship, and Christian morality. To these the moderns have
added two others, which, using the same licence, I would call
human philosophy and human traditions. Now, in the first chapter, we and all Christians are agreed; for as Christian faith has respect to the matters of fact recorded-to the direct testimony of God found in the New Testament concerning himself— concerning his Son and Spirit-concerning mankind-what he has done, what we have done, and what he will do, there is no debate. I find all confessions of faith, properly so called, like the four Gospels, tell the same story so far as matters of fact or faith are concerned. In the second chapter we are also agreed that God is to be worshipped, through the mediator, in prayer, in praise, public and private-in the ordinances of Christian baptism, the Lord's Day, the Lord's Supper, and in the devotional study of his word, and of his works of creation and providence. In the third chapter we all acknowledge the same moral code. What is morality is confessed and acknowledged by all; but in the practice of it there are great subtractions. We repudiate the two remaining chapters as having any place in our faith, worship, or morality, because we think we have discovered that all the divisions in Protestant christendom-that all the partyism, vain jangling, and heresies, which have disgraced the Christian profession, have emanated from human philosophy and human tradition. It is not faith, nor piety, nor morality, but philosophy and tradition that have alienated and estranged Christians, and prevented the conversion of the world. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle deserved not the reputation of philosophers, if Calvin, Arminius, and Wesley were not worthy of it. The former philosophised morally on nature and ancient traditionthe latter on the Bible and human society. Religious philosophers on the Bible have excogitated the following doctrines and philosophical distinctions The Holy Trinity;' · Three persons of one substance, power, and eternity;'' Co-essential, consubstantive, or equal;' The Son eternally begotten of the Father; An eternal Son; Humanity and divinity of Christ; Free will;' Liberty and necessity; Original sin;' Total depravity;' 'Covenant of grace; Effectual calling;' Free grace; Sovereign grace; General atonement;' Particular atonement;' Satisfy divine justice;' Reconciled God;' 'Active and passive obedience of Christ;' Inherent righteousness;' 'Progressive sanctification;' 'Justifying and saving faith;'Historic and temporary faith;' The direct and reflex acts of faith ;' The faith of assurance, and the assurance of faith ;' Legal repentance; Evangelical repentance;' Perseverance of the saints, and falling from grace; Visible and invisible church;' • Infant membership;' Sacraments;'Eucharist;' Consubstantiation; Church government; The power of the keys,' &c. &c. &c. Concerning these and all such doctrines, and all the
speculations and phraseology to which they have given rise, we have the privilege neither to affirm nor deny--neither to believe nor doubt; because God has not proposed them to us in his word, and there is no command to believe them. If they are deduced from the Scriptures, we have them in the facts and declarations of God's Spirit. If they are not deduced from the Bible, we are free from all the difficulties and strifes which they have engendered and created. We choose to speak of Bible things in Bible words, because we are always suspicious that, if the word is not in the Bible, the idea which it represents is not there; and always confident that the things taught by God are better taught in the words and under the names which the Holy Spirit has chosen and appropriated, than in the words which man's wisdom teaches. There is nothing more essential to the union of the disciples of Christ than purity of speech. So long as the earth was of one speech, the human family was united. Had they been then of a pure speech, as well as of one speech, they would not have been separated. God, in his just indignation, dispersed them; but before he scattered them he divided their language. One of his prophets, who lived in a degenerate age, who prophesied against the corruptions of his day, when he spoke of better times, of an age of union and communion, was commanded to say, in the name of the Lord, Then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent. Purity of speech is here declared to be a pre-requisite to serving the Lord with one consent. The words of the Lord are pure words.' To have a pure speech we must choose the language of Canaan, and abandon that of Ashdod. And if we be of one mind, we must speak the same thing.' This was Paul's scheme of union, and no man can suggest a better. It requires but little reflection to discover that the fiercest disputes about religion are about what the Bible does not say, rather than what it does say-about words and phrases coined in the mint of speculative theology. Of these the homousios and the homoiusios of the ever-memorable council of Nice are a fair sample. Men are neither wiser, more intelligent, nor better after than before they knew the meaning of these words. As far as known on earth, there is not, in The Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,' the name of any person who was either converted or sanctified to God by any of these controversies about human dogmas, nor by any thing learned from the canons or creeds of all the councils, from that of Nice to the last methodistic conference. It is a virtue, then, to forget this scholastic jargon, and even the names of the dogmas which have convulsed Christendom. It is a concession due to the crisis in which we live, for the sake of peace, to adopt the vocabulary of