Barton W. Stone's Letters to Thomas Campbell, and An Apology:
• "To Elder Thomas Campbell, Senr." The Christian Messenger 7 (July 1833): 204-210.
• "No. II. To Elder Thomas Cambell." The Christian Messenger 7 (August 1833): 225-230.
• "An Apology." The Christian Messenger 7 (October 1833): 293-294.

Related Texts:
• Thomas Campbell's "Worcester on the Atonement," Letter to William Z. Thompson. Millennial Harbinger, 4 (June 1833): 256-262.
• Thomas Campbell's Letter No. 1, to Barton W. Stone. Millennial Harbinger, 4 (August 1833): 421-425.
• Thomas Campbell's Letter No. 2, "To Barton W. Stone." Millennial Harbinger, 4 (September 1833): 439-445.
• Thomas Campbell's Letter No. 3, "To B. W. Stone." Millennial Harbinger, 4 (October 1933): 503-509.
• Thomas Campbell's Letter No. 4, "To B. W. Stone." Millennial Harbinger, 4 (November 1833): 548-503.
• Thomas Campbell's Letter No. 5, "To B. W. Stone." Millennial Harbinger, 4 (December 1833): 594-598.

      Dear Brother: for such I esteem you, and such will call you till you deny the relation. [204]

      I have read with considerable interest your remark on N. Worcester's book on atonement, in hopes that I should discover truth not before brought to view from the book of God. I was more elated with this hope, when I found your remarks approved of by your son, A Campbell, and published in the Harbinger for the use of his readers. I have long since lost my pride of opinion. I would not knowingly hold a sentiment contrary to the truth of God, for a world. Willingly would I sink, and lose the esteem of all men, rather than hold to or propagate an error. With this mind I read your remarks; but must confess I was more surprised, than corrected and edified. I profess not to receive all that brother Worcester has written on this subject. He may have erred on some points. Nor can I receive as truth what you have written. You appear, when you entered on reformation to have had your eye so fixt upon a few prominent principles, that you had not time to examine some doctrines, you had received before, as truth, and, therefore, have brought them along with you, from that vortex, in which YOU had been tossed for years. Not in the spirit, nor manner of a controversialist I write. If I am wrong, so are many others--we most sincerely desire to be set right--if I am right, I as sincerely desire others to receive the truth. I am sorry to find my old brother, who has so zealously, and successfully plead for reformation on Bible facts alone, now attaching so much importance to his opinion of the sacrifice of Christ--so much, that you believe it impossible that any of our race can be saved without the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, as you have explained it, for this must be your meaning, and that upon Mr. Worcester's plan, the manifestation and death of the Son of God were wholly in vain and unnecessary.--Good men in all ages have done what you have done--The council of Nice denied salvation to all who rejected their unintelligible jargon--Luther and Calvin did the same in fact, and every sectarian establishment proceeds on the same principles.

      I shall now briefly notice your remarks. YOU say, "Noah Worcester, declares that his principal object in writing, was, to evince that, in the sacrifice of Christ, there was a display of love, not of wrath. If God has no pleasure in the death and sufferings of the wicked, he surely could have no pleasure in the sufferings of his Son." The contrary of this sentiment you receive and defend, that is--that the death of Christ is a display of wrath, and that God takes pleasure in the sufferings of his Son. This you attempt to prove by scripture, and the texts you adduce shall be examined in order.

      1st. "It pleased the Lord to bruise him, he hath put him to grief." Isaiah 53, 11--You take these words in their literal import--That God was the prime agent in bruising and smiting his Son; and that he took pleasure in the Sufferings inflicted by him [205] on his Son--and all this, to display his wrath. A few appalling questions arise naturally out of this sentiment. Was the death of Christ a sinful action! This is not doubted. If God smote, and killed his own Son, why were the Jews charged with the crime? If they acted freely in killing him, how could the deed be attributed to God, any more than any other free act performed by them? as well might we say that the free acts of the Jews in blasphemy, in adultery, in every sin, were the acts of God as that the death of Christ was his act; but none attribute their acts to God, why?--because he did not actively influence the Jews to commit them. Had he by his divine agency influenced them to these sins, then he must be considered as the prime agent--and they only as the executors of his will. Can they be considered as guilty? It is easy to say to whom blame attaches.

      You may ask, Do not the scriptures mean what they speak, and speak what they mean?--What, I ask, means this scripture--"Therefore they could not believe--because that Isaiah said again. He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them"--John 12, 39, 40--You, my dear brother do not take these expressions in their literal import, for if God by an active agency did blind their eyes, and harden their hearts, that they should not see, hear, understand, believe, nor be converted, and healed, how could they be justly charged with their crimes? How could God pass righteous judgment against them? I confess, I cannot see. Though God is represented as having exerted his agency in blinding and hardening the Jews, yet his inspiring spirit has explained the matter thus. "For the heart of the people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes HAVE THEY CLOSED; lest they should see with their eyes, &c. Acts 28, 27.--What means this scripture? "And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go number Israel and Judah."--2 Saml. 24, 1.--In 1 Chro. 21, 1, it reads, "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." To take the first text literally, is to contradict the whole current of scripture, for God tempteth no man to sin. Many similar texts we find in the scripture, in which many things are ascribed to God, in which he had no direct or indirect agency.--Why they are ascribed to him we may not certainly know; but in his government they took place, nor did he see proper to prevent them. So when it is said, "It pleased the Lord to bruise him, he hath put him to grief"--it does not mean that God by any direct or indirect agency did this, but it was his pleasure not to prevent it. For it was his purpose from this hellish deed of killing his Son that he would subdue the power of darkness, and destroy sin.

      I presume, you understand the Hebrew language. Do, my [206] old brother, turn to Isai. 53, 11, and read it as it literally stands in that language. Jehovah inclined to humble him, he hath caused him to travail in pain." For love to the world, Jehovah chose his Son to be their Saviour--He inclined to humble him by his being born of a woman, suffering the hatred and persecution of the world; enduring the agonies of death, in being buried, and continuing for three days under the power of death.--"He hath caused him to travail in pain"--as a woman in parturition. Such were the sorrows of Immanuel on account of the sins of the world. Where, my dear brother, do we see the wrath of God manifested in the death of his Son? Where his pleasure in the sufferings of his Son? But you have adduced other texts to prove that God himself killed his Son, and took pleasure in his sufferings--as

      2dly. "Awake. O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man, my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts; smite the Shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn my hand on the little ones." Zech. 13,7. with Matt. 26. 31.

      God smote the Shepherd in the same sense that he smote the little ones in the text. For to turn his hands on the little ones means to smite or slay them. [See Acts 13, 11,--1 Sam. 24. 12, Deut. 13: 9.--Ezek. 38, 12.--Ezek. 6, 14.--1 Sam. 5, 6.--Jer. 6, 12. 51, 25.] Now shall we ascribe all the persecutions, afflictions and deaths of Christians to God the Father of all? If so, surely we must clear the persecutors of the crime. I repeat it, God had no direct or indirect agency in either the persecution or death of his Son, or in the persecution and death of the christians.--

      3dly. Another text you adduce in proof of your opinion is Rom. 8, 32. "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how will he not with him also freely give us all things." In this text I can discover nothing of God's wrath manifested in the death of his Son, or of his pleasure in his sufferings. I see nothing more than the greatest possible display of his love to the world, that he delivered up, or gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him might not perish, but have everlasting life. Surely the Apostle was in this text speaking solely of the love of God, and from it arguing our comfortable expectation of all good.

      4thly. Another text you adduce is Matt. 26 , 38, 39. "My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death; and he fell on his face and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." I inquire what, was the cause of this sorrow?--You doubtless will answer, it was the wrath of God which he was about to endure on the cross. I ask again: From what portion of the scripture have you learned this? Shew me this plainly taught in the scripture, and I bow submission. Till this be done, I must [207] view it as a mere speculation, sanctified by antiquity. What but the cup of suffering an excruciating death inflicted by the powers of hell and earth, caused him thus to agonize in pain? If this cup were the wrath of God, then the poor disciples had to drink it too--For said Jesus, Ye shall indeed drink of my cup, Matt. 20, 23. you shall suffer as I do: This prophecy was literally fulfilled--If the disciples had to suffer the wrath of God too, of what avail were the sufferings of the surety according to modern divinity to them:--That the Father's will was, that his Son should suffer, I have no doubt: "For, says the Son, for this cause came I unto this hour." Had he not died, then the plan of infinite wisdom for the redemption of man would have been frustrated; the prophecies respecting his death would have failed--his own predictions of his death, and resurrection would have been nullified--and the world's last and best hope forever cut off. The word of God by the prophets would be proved untrue, and the testimony of Jesus and his Apostles false. This is the impossibility why the cup should not pass from him.

      5thly. Your next texts in order are Heb. 9, 22. and 10, 4. "Without shedding of blood is no remission." "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins." That the blood of Christ does effect the remission of sin is an undoubted truth. But how, is the question--Does his blood effect a forgiving disposition in God to the guilty? This my brother will not admit; because he knows that forgiveness is an eternal perfection in his nature, and he is of one unchangeable mind. Does the blood of Christ remove legal obstructions existing between the forgiveness of God and the guilty? What are these legal obstructions to the forgiveness of God? Not sin, or the transgression of the law--for sinners or transgressors are the only subjects of forgiveness--Not the truth of God's word. "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die, or dying thou shalt die," for this word is fulfilled in all, whether forgiven or not. Does the justice of God stand in the way of forgiveness? This question depends entirely on the subject proposed for forgiveness. If the subject be an impenitent sinner, every perfection in God as well as justice would oppose his forgiveness; for though God is merciful, gracious and forgiving, yet he will by no means clear the impenitent." It is in King James' translation,--the guilty--the word is a supplement, evidently wrong; for none but the guilty can be cleared--none but the guilty are the subjects of forgiveness. To say he will by no means clear the guilty, is to seal the world in desperation--none can be saved, seeing "all are guilty." Even they, who boast that Christ their surety has fulfilled all demands of law and justice against them, and therefore, they though guilty, are cleared: have forgotten that by some means this was done--they were cleared by the means of Christ's substitution, and therefore their doctrine fails--If they [208] were cleared from their debts by a surety paying them for them, then they ceased to be subjects of forgiveness, for they had nothing to be forgiven--they were forgiven independent of repentance, or any moral character whatever. Let this truth be admitted, and no christian will deny it, that God will by no means clear or forgive the impenitent, then it follows that the life, the death, the blood, the intercession, the word of Christ, or any other means whatever, can never effect remission of sins to the impenitent. We must repent or perish. These means just stated can avail us nothing farther than to lead us to repentance--and all have to acknowledge that all that believe in heart are led to repentance, and gospel obedience, and consequently to remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit--all acknowledge this, except such as believe that repentance is wrought in us by some mystic, physical operation of the spirit. This sentiment you reject equally with me; and acknowledge with Paul that the goodness of God leads to repentance, or reformation--but all this goodness of God revealed by Jesus Christ, and manifested in his life, death and resurrection, will never lead any one to repentance until believed in and acted upon.

      My brother has heard much of forgiveness by the blood of Christ--reconciliation to God by his blood--justification by his blood--sanctification, cleansing, purging, washing from sin by his blood--Can you conceive from scripture, how these things are effected by the blood of Christ, in any other way than that I have just suggested?--You will acknowledge with all intelligent scripturians, that these effects of the blood of Christ are produced in none but such as believe--Now you believe as firmly as I do that faith alone will not save, it must produce obedience, as reformation, baptism. &c. before salvation or remission can be obtained. Now, why does my brother condemn this doctrine of the moral influence of the blood of the Saviour?

      6thly. You next introduce Heb. 9, 16. "And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death for the redemption of transgressions that were under the first Testament, that they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." You in your quotation of this text have interpolated a sentence foreign from the Apostle's meaning--thus, "that the called--namely, under that covenant, might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." Does my brother believe that the first covenant called any to an eternal inheritance? You cannot--I must have misapprehended you. But to the point. The Mediator by death redeemed from the transgressions of the first Testament? How? By his death he took that Testament out of the way, nailing it to his cross--it has waxed old and vanished away. If the testament is done away, of course its transgression is gone; and its curse also--for where there is no law there is no transgression and consequently no curse. [209]

      You combat another sentiment of brother Worcester, who refuses to admit that "any being in the Universe can be properly said to have a right to transfer a just punishment from the guilty to the innocent." You think differently, i. e. you think that God has that right, and has exercised it in transferring the just punishment of guilty sinners from them to his innocent Son. To prove this you quote Isai. 53, 6, and 2 Cor. 5, 21. "All we, like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. For he has made him a sin-offering for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the justified of God by him." Your opinion is, that Christ was not actually guilty of our iniquities, but was treated as if he had been so, the Father inflicting upon him the just wages of sin; namely, sufferings and death. He laid on him the punishment due to us all. Were I in this sentiment, I would boldly avow myself a Universalian--If Christ bore the punishment due to us all, for the purpose of making us the justified of God, who shall condemn one of the human family? I impute not the doctrine of universalist to my brother, but to the sentiment advanced by him. It is admitted that the government of God is perfect, and must be therefore, a perfect model for all governments on earth. Let it be considered as a principle in the divine government that it is right for the innocent to suffer in the room of the guilty, and that the guilty be released from punishment on this account; then should not the same principle be admitted in all civil governments? Now as Christ is the pattern of a holy life, whom we must imitate or follow; and as he under, the perfect government of God, though innocent, voluntarily suffered the punishment due to the guilty--Should we not under a similar government do the same?--Should we not feel it the highest virtue, and ourselves bound to do it? This admitted, what check or restraint would be imposed on sin? Would not law become a mere brutum fulmen?

      On this subject I cannot in the present number give more room in our paper. In the next I will write more fully, if life and health permit. Your old brother and companion in tribulation for Christ's sake.

B. W. STONE, Editor. [210]      

[The Christian Messenger, July 1833, pp. 204-210.]

      My dear Brother.--In the close of my first letter, I was remarking on your exposition of Isai. 53, 6 and 2 Cor. 5, 21. "He hath laid on him the iniquity of us all"--this, in your view, means he laid on him the punishment due to us all. You think by this vicarious punishment we are justified. "Being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath though him." Rom. 5, 9. You add a little to the text, that being justified by faith in his blood."--Dear bro: What has faith to do in the justification of which you speak? If A is guilty of murder and is condemned to die; and If B becomes his surety, and bears the punishment due to A, then is not A clear, whether he believes or not that B has died for him? A's faith produces no effect whatever, in the matter of his justification. But, why talk of justification or forgiveness at all in A's case? The debt due was fully paid by B the surety--& could the law, or executive now say to A, I forgive or justify you freely by my grace? Not freely, might A say; for my surety has paid my due, or debt, fully in my stead--I have nothing to be forgiven--I see no grace or favor shewn me, in this forgiveness or justification. In fact, there is none but in the surety--if there is I should be glad to see it proved by scripture testimony.

      Has my old brother duly considered, What are the punishments due to us for sin? Have these punishments been really [225] inflicted on Christ in our stead? or has he borne them in our stead? Is this the righteousness, by which we are justified? The punishments of sin are both in this world, as sickness, pain, death, the fears and horrors of a guilty conscience; and in the world to come, which are everlasting separation from the comfortable presence of God, most grievous torments in soul and body without intermission in hell fire forever and ever. This is a part of our old catechism which we learned in youth, and the truth of which I have never doubted. These, we both believe, are the punishments due to us for sin.--But you believe, that these punishments were inflicted by the Father on Christ, as our vicar or surety--Did Christ suffer the punishment due to us in bearing sickness, pain, and death? If he as vicar has paid the punishment due to us, Why do we all still suffer them?--Did he suffer the punishment of everlasting, separation from God, and most grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission in hell fire forever and ever? I well know, you will answer in the negative. Impossible he should suffer thus, forever separated from God, and yet declared to with him--forever and ever in hell fire suffering most grievous torments in soul and body, and yet be now glorified with his Father in heaven! If these punishments were inflicted on him--he must be still bearing them to eternity; for they have no end. My brother must have written without due consideration the sentiment for which he pleads--

      You may now ask, How did Christ bear our iniquities, unless it be that he bore the punishment due to our iniquities? I will, in answer quote the words of Matthew the Evangelist. "When the evening was come they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils; and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick, That it might be fulfilled--(mark it)--that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses." I must confess to my old brother that I prefer Matthew's exposition to his, and all other expositions ever made by man. You in expounding the text, "He laid on him the iniquity of us all,"--say, He laid on him the punishment due to the iniquities of us all,--For this you have no scriptural authority--Bear with me, and let me say, He laid on him the work of taking away our iniquities, with all their train of sickness, pain and death. This perfectly accords with Matthew's view, and with the whole current of scripture. This exposition, having the sanction of scripture, must be preferable to yours--yours, clogged with such insurmountable difficulties.

      Bro. Noah Worcester asks, Where shall we find a premise that those shalt be saved, who rely on a vicarious punishment for the remission of their sins?--You answer, "In Rom. 3, 25, 27--and 5, 9--and Eph. 1, 7." Let us humbly and honestly examine these texts; I think we shall find they speak no such sentiments [226] Rom. 3, 25, 26, "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sin that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." NOW, for my life, I cannot see any vicarious punishment here, nor any promise of remission of sins to those who rely on such punishment. My old brother well knows that the word hilasterion, translated in the text propitiation, should be rendered propitiatory, or mercy seat; so you have rightly rendered it on the next page, but you there have given another definition of the word, i. e. sacrifice, which cannot be defended; for a mercy seat, and a sacrifice are two very distinct ideas.

      Paul represents Christ as the true mercy seat, from which God dispenses his favors to men--to men only who believe--From which mercy seat God dispenses pardon, or remission of past sins (not future sins) to the obedient believer--and from which mercy seat God declares to mankind that he can be just in justifying the ungodly. This he has done to encourage the poor sinner to come to him boldly on the mercy seat to obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. O the unbelief of man! they commonly say, How can God be just in justifying such a sinner as I am? God declares from the mercy seat, he can be just when he justifies such; and is not this enough?

      Rom. 5.9. "Being justified by his blood"--This text has already been considered. But vicarious punishment, according to the common idea attached to this phrase, cannot be found here, nor pardon or justification by such punishment even hinted. The other text in Ephesians is as far from proving justification by vicarious punishment, as those just considered. It simply states what we all believe, that through the blood of Jesus we obtain redemption, or remission of sins. But how, is the question.

      Bro. Worcester alleges that, "Christ has wholly omitted to teach any such doctrine as a ground of justification"--You think differently, and introduce John 6, 51, 58, "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." I have read labored productions of the great and learned to establish the doctrine of vicarious punishment for justification, but not one did I ever find who applied this text to prove that doctrine, before you. My old brother will, by a moment's examination of the connexion of those verses, find the true explanation of "eating the flesh, and drinking the blood of the Son of God." Says Jesus, "The flesh profiteth nothing, (though you should literally eat all his flesh, and drink all his blood)--the words I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life--the words spoken in flesh, and exemplified in flesh, and confirmed by blood--This is the spiritual the life-giving [227] food of christians. If in this text, Christ has taught vicarious punishment for justification, I cannot see but that he has with equal plainness taught every other doctrine of spurious orthodoxy, or of the would be evangelical churches.

      Bro. Worcester excepts against the terms vicar and substitute, and so do all who love the use of Bible terms; for these are not found in that book. You do not plead for the terms, but for the ideas attached to them you say, "that he either suffered deservedly on his own account, or on account of others, to redeem them from suffering: for he assures us himself he ought to have suffered (Luke 24, 25")--We grant, he did not suffer deservedly on his own account, but on account of others to redeem them from suffering--My brother has forgotten how grievously the Apostles suffered, not deservedly on their own account, but on the account of others--Were they vicars or substitutes? Have not you, and thousands of others suffered great privations and distresses in your ministry; not deservedly on your own account, but on account of others? Are you therefore a vicar or substitute? And did you not suffer all this to redeem sinners from suffering the torments of hell? You certainly did, as did the Apostles before you, and as did the great Redeemer of sinners. But you quote Luk. 24, 27, to show that "Christ ought to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory."--Certainly, "He ought--But why, Because his sufferings and death were predicted by inspired prophets--But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus must be? (Matt. 26, 54,) Read the connexion--I ask for the same reason, Ought not the Apostles--the little ones of Jesus, have suffered? This was also predicted and must be fulfilled. If you call Christ's sufferings on account of others, vicarious, I object not to the idea--but your idea is that he suffered the wrath of God--the just punishment due to us for our iniquities, that the Father was the sole author of all his sufferings. This is the doctrine of the boasted evangelical churches, found in their creeds, but not found in ours, the Bible. If it is, I am unhappily deceived; and humbly hope I may live to see it there.

      You farther remark, "according to the views and reasonings of this writer, (Worcester) all sacrificial blood has been shed in vain; for he ascribes to the sacrifice of Christ, only a moral influence upon the remission of sin; that is, by its effect upon the mind, producing repentance and love." My dear brother, if ONLY repentance and love are produced by the sacrifice of Christ, can you think his blood is shed in vain, are these nothing? But you say this is only a moral influence. Do, my old brother, tell us what was the physical influence of his sacrifice, and whom did it influence in or upon the remission of sin? You deny its moral influence on man--we must certainly then conclude that its influence is on God, or on something else than man; but this [228] influence is not moral, therefore it must be physical. Do inform us, in the language of inspiration, respecting this physical influence of the sacrifice of Christ on God, or on his law, or on man. I really wish to have every error corrected in myself and others.

      Your reasonings on page page 259 and 260 are founded on expositions not admitted to be correct; therefore, they have no weight on my mind. You say, "The Son, upon his trial before Pilate, explicitly ascribes his sufferings to the Father--for when Pilate said to him, knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and power to release thee, he replied, Thou couldst have no power against me, except it were given thee from above; (I will add the other sentence of the verse) "therefore, he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." John 19, 10, 11. Did the Father deliver his Son into the hands of Pilate, with authority to Pilate to crucify him? Shall we say, therefore that the Father had greater sin than Pilate, because he delivered him up to Pilate? I dare not say it. Have you not, my brother, given a wrong exposition of this text? I have very different views from yours, and will give them for examination.--Pilate said, he had power to crucify him--Jesus denied that he had this power or authority from Cæsar, or from his laws--for Jesus had committed no crime punishable by such a death; according to the statutes of Cæsar, he was innocent. This power to crucify him Jesus grants Pilate had, but he received it from above--What? from the Father above? No: we have just seen this to be impossible. It was from another court this authority was given--not from Cæsar's court--not from the court of heaven--but from the highest court ever before established on earth, a court above all others being divinely appointed. I mean the court composed of the High Priest and Elders of Israel. They, or their High Priest delivered him to Pilate, with authority to crucify him.--He has therefore greater sin than Pilate.

      It was not my purpose to attempt a defence, of all that brother Worcester has written, nor a reply to all you have written. A few prominent points of your strictures only have I noticed. There are a few gospel facts, which I consider as axioms: I have therefore doubted the truth of every doctrine, which stands in opposition to these.

      1st. That God loved the world, and therefore inclined to save them.

      2. That all his perfections harmonized in the plan and work of saving them.

      3. That all his perfections harmonized, and were united with love, in giving his Son to execute the plan and work of saving sinners.

      4. That the plan was, that the Son of God should be made flesh--that he should live, die, be buried and rise again and ascend [229] to heaven--and come the second time without sin onto salvation to those who look for him.

      5. That this plan is an exhibition of love, and of all other divine perfections.

      6. On this plan God proposes to the world pardon, salvation, reconciliation--sanctification, immortality and eternal life, on the condition that they believe in his Son, and obey him. That is, that they believe that he died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried and rose again from the dead according to the scriptures--By this faith the Corinthians were saved. But they also obeyed,--For they heard, believed and were baptized.

      7. That faith in Jesus, that lived, died and rose again, produces a moral influence or effect on the mind, to reconcile us to God--to lead us to repentance and consequently to remission of sin. If the blood of Christ has any effect on God, or on his government in the pardon of our sins, I know it not, and as Bro. McGee says, I am not concerned to know. Because, if God has not revealed it, he saw it unnecessary for us to know it--Our great wisdom is to profit by the things, revealed.--Every dissertation on these unrevealed things I cannot but consider as vain speculation, calculated to gender strife, and division; from which, may God deliver us! Amen.

[The Christian Messenger, August 1833, pp. 225-230.]

      Some of our weak brethren are afraid that the passing remarks of Bro. Thomas Campbell and myself will ultimate in a controversy, and injury to the cause in which we profess to be engaged. We have been solicited by them to desist, and by others of stronger minds, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way. As a Bishop must not be self-willed, I have yielded to their wishes.

      I desire to explain a few ideas suggested in my letters to Bro. Campbell, without which explanation I might appear, in the view of the public, as heretical in point of doctrine.

      1. That by the blood of Christ we are redeemed and washed from sin--purged, cleansed, sanctified and justified, and [293] reconciled or atoned to God. These effects are never produced in the unbeliever, or disobedient--therefore, to such characters the blood of Christ is unavailing. This position none will deny to be correct.

      2. I had intimated that the blood of Christ did not remove legal obstructions to the pardoning grace of God, for Abraham, and all the saints before the law of Moses was given, were justified or pardoned by faith. The law of Moses was, therefore, no obstruction to the pardoning grace of God--Christ took that law out of the way, and consequently its curse and transgression, by his death--but this was not done in order that an obstruction to pardon might be directly removed; but that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. The Gentiles were never under this law, therefore, it was not an obstruction to their pardon.

      3. I have said that sin is not an obstruction to pardon; for sinners only are the subjects of forgiveness--but I have even guarded this position by adding believing, penitent, sinners. Who will deny the correctness of this doctrine? But I have never said, that sin is no obstruction to the enjoyment of divine forgiveness.

      4. I have said according to the scripture, that forgiveness is an attribute of God, that true penitents are the subjects of this forgiveness--that the goodness of God leads to repentance--that this goodness of God is manifested in the flesh of his Son, at his coming, living, dying, rising from the dead, and intercession. That faith in Jesus produces reconciliation to God, or repentance towards God, and consequent obedience; through which obedience we receive forgiveness. Can this be doubted?

      5. I have often remarked that Calvinists, Arminians, Universalians and Fullerites agree that the blood of Christ reconciled or appeased God to us--or that it satisfied the demands of law and justice against some, or all mankind for sin--that by it legal obstructions to pardon were removed, &c. But WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE? On these subjects to me it speaks not. I should be forever satisfied, if the Scripture said that God was reconciled to us by the death of his Son--or that his death removed legal obstructions to God's pardoning mercy. Till this be shewn, I cannot leave the foundation on which I build--till this be shewn men should be modest in their pleasures--till this be shewn speculations, and opinions sanctified by authority and a labored chain of reasoning from unscriptural premises, should influence none. Search the Scriptures.

B. W. STONE, Ed. [294]      

[The Christian Messenger, October 1833, pp. 293-294.]

      Barton W. Stone's "To Elder Thomas Campbell, Senr." was first published in The Christian Messenger, Vol. 7, No. 7, July 1833, pp. 204-210; "No. II.: To Elder Thomas Campbell," in No. 8, August 1833, pp. 225-230; and "An Apology," in No. 10 October 1883, pp. 293-294.

      The letters and the apology by Barton W. Stone were occasioned by Thomas Campbell's review "Worcester on the Atonement," published in the Millennial Harbinger, Vol. 4, No. 6, June 1833, pp. 256-262. Thomas Campbell's responses to the letters were published in five installments in Millennial Harbinger, August-December 1833.

      Pagination has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page.

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
373 Wilson Street
Derry, PA 15627-9770
412.694.8602
stefanik@westol.com

Created 6 December 1997.