I FEEL bound to apologise to the public for noticing such a publication, as that lately from the pen of Mr. John R. Moreland. Some of my friends advised me to treat it with silent contempt. Others have urged me to take notice of it, observing that, though the more judicious were above its influence, yet it might affect some honest, good men, who have never read my book. This reason prevailed in my mind; and this I hope will satisfy the public that I have descended to so low a work. From perusing the letter, now presented, I find some expressions rather tart. But I assure the public, they were designed only to affect Mr. Moreland, and those in his spirit. They are not intended to wound the pious, pacific spirit of any denomination. Such, without distinction, are dear to my heart.

B. W. STONE.       [2]

MR. JOHN R. MORELAND,

      A few days ago, I saw a publication of yours, the apparent design of which, was to crush me, and to exalt yourself to the very pinnacle of honour, as the brave and zealous defender of the faith. Like Jehu, it speaks this language, "come, and see my zeal for the Lord." It is a pity you had not remembered the words of the blessed Saviour, "he that exalteth himself shall be abased."

      Since you have treated me in such an ungentlemanly and unchristian manner in your pamphlet, you ought not to be offended, but humbled at the plainness of my observations. It is a duty I owe to myself, to my family, to the world, to wipe off the scandals which you have maliciously endeavoured to impose of my character; in doing this, your own will be exposed. Indeed, sir, I have no pleasure in exposing the faults of my fellow-creatures; but necessity is imperious, and in this case, indispensable.

      You shall insist that Mr. Spears, in my name, gave you a challenge to meet me in debate. This you know Mr. Spears positively denies. But had there have been a misunderstanding between you and Mr. Spears, yet my note addressed to you, which you have published, was sufficient to rectify that mistake. This was the very design of that note. By it you were assured that I ever stood opposed to such debates, considering them as a species of ecclesiastical duelling, degrading to the character of a gospel minister. That note pointed out the plan I had originally designed to pursue; from which I was determined not to depart. Why you would not [3] preach with me in Cynthiana, according to the plan proposed by me; and why you insisted upon another plan, to which, you well knew from my note, that I would never submit, can be easily seen, and is plainly seen, by men of discernment. It was a happy method to back out from what might be disagreeable to you in the issue. Soon after the day you refused to preach with me, you heard rumors afloat respecting you, such as might be expected--you state that you followed me to Georgetown, and there publicly dared me to the onset. I wonder, sir, that you should make this part of your conduct more public!--conduct, at which a modest man should blush, and wish to wash off the stain with tears. You must have known from recent events, that I had too much firmness to depart from my course to pay any attention to yours. If such a brave defender of the faith, why did you and your brethren fly, when by permission, I ascended the pulpit with you in Georgetown, to reply to your discourses, designed purposely against me and my brethren? Why did you flee and not hear? Your friend M'Calla proclaimed the reason, because I was suspended! Tender consciences! But enough about the great trifle, which you are pleased to call a challenge. I proceed to something more serious, to answer briefly some charges you have exhibited against me.

      You charge me with denying the divinity of Christ, I reply, that the candid, who have read my book, know better. Do not, sir, from this conclude, that I impeach you with ignorance. Many great, wise, and learned divines of old, were so blinded by tradition, human glosses and bigotry, that they could not see the plainest evidences of our Lord's divinity, though his life, doctrine, and works, like sunbeams, manifested. No better refutation of this charge against me is necessary, than my last book itself, from which you have drawn it. Now, sir, I assert, and will make the assertion good, that I hold [4] Jesus Christ in a far more exalted sense than you do; and that your views of him sinks him from that exalted character, given him in the Bible, to the low views of Socinians. If I prove not the assertion, let the charge remain against me in full force; but if I do, let the tongue of slander cease to reiterate the tale, as it has done for years past.

      We both profess to believe that there is but one living and true God--and the scriptures affirm that this one, and only true God, is the Father. Joh: 17, 3. 2 Cor. 8, 4-6.

      We both profess to believe that there is a Father and a Son; and that they existed before the world was. But we differ in this; I believe that the Father and Son are two distinct intelligent beings of one spirit--so distinct, that the Father begat, and the Son was begotten--the Father sent, and the Son was sent, &c. You deny that the Son, who existed before the world, was a real intelligent being, distinct from the Father, but was himself the very God--the very Father; for the very, or true God is the Father as just proved. Now, sir, can the same one intelligent being be both the Father and Son of himself? Can the same one being both beget and be begotten by himself? Can the same one being send and be sent by himself? Can the same one being give all things to himself, and received them from himself? Can the same one being say, "I came down from Heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." Can the same one intelligent being, be in the form of himself, and equal to himself. Can the same one being pray to himself, "Glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory I had with thee before the world was?" You may say, it was the humanity that prayed thus. But did his humanity exist before the world was? and was it then in possession of glory with the Father? I am confident that every man, not blinded by a human system, will [5] say, that these things cannot apply to the same one intelligent being--you yourself, sir, cannot believe it.--They must apply to two distinct, intelligent beings--not to two distinct, intelligent and equal beings or Gods; for we both acknowledge but one such God, who is the Father. The Son therefore cannot be an eternal intelligent being, distinct from the Father. When you and your friend Mr. Birch followed after me to Georgetown, he then preached, that the three persons in Godhead, did not mean three Gods, but three subsistences or modes. This sentiment you tacitly approved. The three persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost then are the three modes, not three distinct intelligent beings. With this gloss let us read a few texts: "The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the World."--that is, one mode sent another mode to be a Saviour. Again; "the Father loveth the Son and hath given all things into his hands,"--that is, one mode loveth another mode, &c. Again; "baptising them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"--that is, in the name of three modes.

      Now, sir, while you so unblushingly affirm that I deny the divinity of Christ, tremble at the idea of your denying his real existence, and frittering him down to a mere mode. I really suspect that Trinitarians are generally driven to this dreadful opinion. Those about Georgetown who heard Mr. Birch preach, were generally highly pleased with his discourse, therefore I conclude they must have received this sentiment as true.

      Now I ask, what difference is there between Modal Trinitarians, and Socinian Trinitarians? The more judicious see none. No doubt, you are following the footsteps of the Presbyterians in Great Britain, who are now generally Unitarians, as Nicholson affirms. Encyc. Art. Presbyterians.

      You also charge me with denying the humanity of Christ. You may venture too much on the credulity of [6] the people. For should they happen to read my book, you must sink in their esteem. But you think I deny his humanity, because I have denied that the Son of God took a soul, as well as a body, in union with himself.--You say the son did take a reasonable soul in union with himself. We have long called for bible proof--but we have called it vain. Will you still assert this when you must know it is not in the Bible? And will you charge me with denying the humanity of Christ, because I reject your unscriptural tradition? If it is not true, that the son of God took to himself a soul, but a body only, then sir, according to your views the son of God had no soul--he was only a mode united to a body!! On such a Saviour I could not trust for salvation.

      You may contend that he was a proper man, and therefore must have a soul. That the son of God was called man, is not disputed, and that he had a soul is not disputed by me. But the soul, I contend, was the son of God himself, the only begotten of the Father; and when united with flesh, was the very soul of that body. If Daniel called the angel Gabriel a man, because he appeared in a human body--if Moses called the angels that appeared to Abraham and Lot, men, for the same reason--why may not Jesus be called a man when he was born of a woman, united to a human body, and tabernacled among us thirty three years?

      There are three ideas attached to the term son, in the Bible. 1. A son by creation, as was Adam and the angels. 2. A son by adoption. 3. A son by derivation, as Seth was from his father Adam. The last idea is the highest and most proper sense of the term.--Suppose I have in my family a number of children, and should say to my friend, all these are my children; but this one is my own son--my only son--my only begotten. Would not my friend conclude that this one was a son in a sense different from the others--and that the others [7] were sons by adoption? This one has obtained his name by inheritance, as Paul declares Jesus did. By his son, God created all things--This son was united with a body prepared for him. In him the Father dwelt--the whole fulness of Godhead bodily. Hence he bears the names, titles, and attributes of Jehovah--Hence divine works and worship are ascribed to him. If the prophets, with a small measure of this fullness or spirit could penetrate through thousands of future years, and describe minutely distant events;--cannot Jesus, with the whole fullness, and the spirit without measure, penetrate through nature, or be omniscient? If Sampson with a small measure of this fullness was supernaturally strong,--what bounds can be put to the power of Jesus, in whom dwelt all the fullness of Godhead? He must be omnipotent. So of every perfection.

      If Abraham called the place where he was about to sacrifice Isaac, Jehovahjireh, because Jehovah manifested himself there--if for the same reason Moses and Gideon called their altars Jehovah--if Ezekiel called the spiritual city Jehovah-Shammah, because the Lord was there and dwelt in the city--If Jeremiah called the name of the future church Jehovah our righteousness, because God dwelt in Zion and manifested himself there--shall we think it strange that the same prophets should call Jesus Jehovah, Emmanuel, mighty God, &c. when in him dwelt the Father,--all the fullness of Godhead bodily, and God was manifest in the flesh?

      Almighty works are also attributed to him; but he plainly declares, that the Father in him did the works. Now if the son was God independent of the Father, and equal to his Father in power, how could he thus speak? and how could he say, the son can do nothing of himself? The divine worship is ascribed to him, I have abundantly proved in my book.

      When you and all other Trinitarians are proving the [8] divinity of the Son, by the divine names, titles, attributes, works and worship, ascribed to him, you think, or affect to think, that you are bearing heavily on us; and the ignorant part of your audience wonder at our ignorance, and are prepared to say amen to your anathemas against us. But did the people know the whole truth, they would see that our views of the Saviour, are as far above yours, as the heavens are above the earth. For as to the man Christ Jesus, you hold him a mere creature that never existed before he was born of Mary--We believe he was the glorious son of God before all worlds or angels, and, though "the Lord from Heaven," yet he was made flesh, and dwelt among us. Let the candid judge which of the two, as man, is the greatest. As to his divinity, you say the second person of trinity was united to the man--we say the whole fullness of Godhead dwelt in him. Surely there is at least as much divinity in the whole fullness, as in the second person of three. But as your second person is not a God, or a distinct, intelligent being, but a mode, our views infinitely exceed yours. I advise you, sir, to be silent in your opposition to Socinians, lest you be found fighting against yourself.

      You also charge me with wilful misrepresentation of your doctrines, and specify the charge with the following quotation from my address.--"All these things were done and suffered by the very God, say our brethren in the forecited articles, to reconcile the Father to us."--Yes, sir, I have said this,--and is it possible that you overlooked the very article referred to, and transcribed in my book, from which I made the remark? That article, speaking of the two natures of Christ, says--"whereof is one Christ, very God and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile the Father to us." Meth. Dis. Art. 2. Fie! fie! Mr. M. what will men of character think of you, for [9] slandering me falsely with the base scandal of wilful misrepresentation? Though you say it is a wilful misrepresentation, yet, wonderful to tell!!--you immediately attempt to prove that very God did suffer!! You adduce Acts 20, 28, and 1 Joh: 3, 16, in proof of it. "Feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."--and "hereby we perceive the love of God, because he laid down his life for us." Thus, sir, you yourself have cleared me from the charge of misrepresenting your doctrine, either wilfully or ignorantly. Do, sir, read Griesbach's Greek Testament on Acts 20, 28, and Doct. Adam Clarke on the same text, and you must be convinced, that it should be read, "feed the church of the Lord," &c. In the other text you quoted from 1 John 3, 16, the word God, is a supplement, and not found in the Greek text. Indeed, sir, the doctrine that very God suffered, cannot be well spared out of your system. Without it, where can you find an infinite satisfaction for infinite sin against an infinite law?

      This charge is similar to another you have preferred against me, which is, "you have said, the Son was a created being, a mutable, changeable creature." Do, sir, read the book again, and you will blush that you have again exposed yourself. This, sir, is the sentiment of Arius, according to Buck. But my views are as high above those of Arius, as Arius's is above Socinius and modal Trinitarians. The old father's expression is, "the Son is of the substance of the Father." Against this I have no objection. It was the divinity of the first centuries, from which the church has for many centuries departed. If he was of the substance of the Father, he was not a created being, but derived his being from the Father--as a creation is a production of something out of nothing. That the son of God changed from the form of God, to that of a servant--from riches to poverty--from ease to pain--from life to death--from death [10] to life--from one condition to another--can you, sir, deny this? Your charge is groundless.

      I will notice another charge in your pamphlet, which is, that I have made slanderous publications against the Synod of Kentucky. This, sir, is positively denied. All I said respecting the Synod was this, that "the Synod have done me greater injustice in that noted minute of theirs, in which they declare to the world, that they have suspended me, because I seceded from the confession of faith? Is it slander, sir, to say what the Synod have said, and published before me? Is it slander to say that the Synod suspended me because I seceded from the confession of faith? Indeed, sir, it is a cause of blushing, that a man must be suspended from the ministry, because he cannot receive the doctrines of that book. Is it slander to say the Synod have done me injustice? I have proved by testimony, sufficient to satisfy any reasonable man, that previous to my ordination, and at the very time, I made exceptions to that book, and only received it as far as I saw it consistent with the word of God. Now to be suspended for seceding from a book I never received, more than any other book, I say is injustice; is this slander?

      Had I stated the whole transaction, as published in our apology, you would have been more irritated. Neither the Presbytery nor Synod had preferred any charge against me--I with others protested against their proceedings in the case of M'Nemar and Thompson--We voluntarily withdrew from the jurisdiction of the Synod, because we believed they were condemning the doctrines of the glorious revival--We formed ourselves into a separate Presbytery. All this was done before they proceeded to their act of suspension. So the Pope of Rome suspended Luther, after he had done as we did. If our ordination be void, so was Luther's and the Reformers'--and every ordination from them to the present [11] Synod of Kentucky must be void. Had your friend M'Calla thought of this, he would have blushed to say, as he did in Georgetown to a large congregation, that he could not hear me preach, because I was suspended.--Tender conscience!

      Though I had fully answered Mr. Clelland's slanderous publications against me, by the certificates of men of the highest standing in society, yet you have transcribed the whole again from his book into yours. Shameful conduct! unworthy of a man! unpardonable in a preacher!--By this you have given the lie to every one, who certified the falsity of Mr. Clelland's publication. If you doubt the veracity of these men, ask the Rev. John Lyle--he will state the same things with respect to my ordination--ask Doct. Blythe--ask Mr. Robert Marshall--they can testify the same, unless the length of time has erased the remembrance. But, sir, if the testimony already given, cannot satisfy your mind, it is in vain to seek more. I really think, there is not another man in Kentucky besides yourself, who would retail scandal, when proved to be groundless. This is a comment on the conclusion of your pamphlet, that you will not longer treat me as an honourable opponent. Take heed, sir, lest by such dishonourable opposition, you sink beneath contempt.

      You have also introduced the old hackneyed expression of mine, "the devil got the price, which was the blood of Christ." You admit, that at Doct. Campbell's request, "I ate the words, but begged leave to retain the idea." Now, sir, when I had eaten the words, they ought never to be objected again. Candour would scorn to do it. "But I retained the idea." Yes, I did, and expressed the idea in the very words of inspiration, Heb. 2, 14. Can you object against this? As the expression is yet in the mouth of every opposer, from Dan even to Beersheba, I will express the idea of the devil getting the blood of Christ, a little more fully, as I have often done. [12]

      The devil and wicked men thirsted after the blood of Christ; because they saw if Jesus be permitted to live, all men would go after him, and the kingdom of darkness would be ruined. They thirsted for his blood, and at last obtained or got it on Calvary--for wicked men, instigated by the devil, crucified the Lord of Glory. This blood was the price of our redemption--for through death Jesus destroyed him that had the power of death, that is the devil, and delivered them, &c. Heb. 2, 14.--Knowing that this expression was still bandied about maliciously against me, I determined once more to endeavour to put it to silence in my last address. I therefore wrote and published these words in the introduction--"If in my first publications I have written any thing contrary to the doctrines of this book, I cordially relinquish them." Was not this sufficient to satisfy the candid? especially when I disclaimed the ideas, attached to the expression by my opposers? What but malevolence could dictate the propriety of bringing up again the eaten and long ago relinquished expression?

      The conclusion of your letter to me, is surely a specimen of a refined taste. "A slippery snake must be held with a strong grip." Sublimely ridiculous! In the expression there is something of the terrible united with the sublime--for by strongly gripping a snake, the imagination shudders at the idea of a certain bite, which might be dangerous. No doubt you obtained this idea of me, by viewing how wisely I slipt out of the chain, forged in Westminster, by which you and so many others are yet bound--how wisely I slipt my neck out of the halter, made some years ago, in the Kentucky Synod, to suspend me--how happily I slipped out from the slanderous publications of Mr. Clelland--and now you will be fully convinced, when you see how successfully I have slipt out from the load of your accusations against me--and how completely I have slipt out of [13] your strong grip when you were exulting in the prospect that you would convince the people that I was a man destitute of talent or learning. Well for me that I escaped! and especially, that I escaped with honour to myself, and convinced the world, that I had too much firmness to be moved from my course, and submit to the caprice of John R. Moreland.

      But enough of the snake, after I have given you one piece of advice. Always keep truth on your side, and you will also be a slippery snake, and wisely elude the grip of opposers. "Be ye wise as serpents and harmless as doves."

      Mr. Moreland, why will you vex your soul about us and our errors? Do you not believe that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and that whatever he decrees is right? Surely, if this be so, we are filling up the purposes of heaven as well as you; and as those purposes are right, we must be as righteous as you? You believe the number of the elect is so definite that it cannot be increased or diminished--Surely then we cannot ruin them, nor can you by your opposition save the reprobate. Fret no more, lest you betray the want of faith in your doctrine. I am now, sir, done with you. When I shall find you in the spirit of an humble christian, I will then cordially acknowledge you a brother. Farewell.

BARTON W. STONE.      

      GEORGETOWN, Nov. 21st, 1821.

[A Letter to Mr. John Mr. John R. Moreland, pp. 1-14.]

      Barton W. Stone's A Letter to Mr. John Mr. John R. Moreland (Lexington, KY: Printed at the Office of the Public Advertiser, 1821) has been transcribed from a microfilm copy of the book kindly lent by Abilene Christian University's Center for Restoration Studies.

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. I have let stand inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typography; however, I have offered corrections for misspellings and other accidental corruptions. Emendations are as follows:

            Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 5:      his humany [ his humanity
 p. 10:     Lord, &c. [ Lord," &c.
            suplement, [ supplement,
 p. 13:     griping a snake, [ gripping a snake,
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
373 Wilson Street
Derry, PA 15627-9770
724.694.8602
stefanik@westol.com

Created 2 February 1998.