FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

NEW SERIES.

VOL. V.	B E T H A N Y,   V A.   JANUARY, 1841.	NO. I.

      Brother Campbell--I WILL preface the following remarks with an extract from my "Address," 2d edition, 1821.

      "In God's dealing thus with Israel, he is to be viewed as their temporal king, or political head. 1 Sam. viii. 6, 7, and xii. 17, 19. In this relation, although he granted no pardon to presumptuous sinners according to law; yet as a spiritual Saviour and Redeemer, he did show mercy, and grant pardon to those offenders who repented, believed in, and plead his gracious promise or covenant. In other words, they were justified by faith in the gospel preached to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the law, and which was continued to be preached to the Israelites, and by which, without the deeds of the law, all the children of Abraham, whether Jew or Gentile, have been in every age justified. Lev. xxvi. 42. Deut. xxx. 31. Num. xiv. 19, 20. Gal. iii. 8. Heb. iv. 1." page 38.

      I am glad to find that we agree in the leading principle of legal [12] sacrifices, that their virtue only extended to temporal blessings, and to the averting of temporal curses--that they could not purify the conscience nor justify the sinner in the sight of God, so as to free him from the future judgment of God, and from future punishment in another world, and to give him a place among the sanctified in heaven. For this doctrine I have been an advocate for many years. Though we agree in this, yet we differ in two points. You contend that the benefit of sacrifice was granted to transgressors of every class, but one--"This is the man who presumptuously despised Moses and renounced his dispensation." I contend that there are many unpardonable transgressors of the law, to whom the benefit of sacrifice was not granted, nor pardon obtained by them. They must die without mercy. These characters are the idolaters, the blasphemers, the Sabbath-breakers, the disobedient children to parents, the murderers, adulterers, and many similar characters named in the law--all of these are worthy of death, and must surely be put to death. Let us have the general law, Deut. xvii. 6. "At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he that is worthy of death be put to death." What can be more explicit than Numbers xxxv. 31. "Moreover, ye shall take no satisfaction (kaphar, atonement) for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death." So of the other characters mentioned above. See and read attentively the following texts:--Gen. ix. 6. Deut. xvii. 2, 13; vi. 13; xii. 18. Exod. xxi. 14, 17. Lev. xxiv. 16; Exod. xxxi. 15. xxxv. 2. Lev. xx. 10, 11. Deut. ix. 16. Exod. xxii. 20. Num. xv. 30, &c. Are any of these characters directed in the law to take a lamb, or any other victim, and offer it for their sins in order to forgiveness? Not a hint do we find in the law.

      You admit that "one of us may be mistaken in this case." Yes, my brother, one of us is certainly mistaken, unless you in the class of presumptuous despisers of Moses, include idolaters, blasphemers, murderers, and all those characters mentioned above. But you confine the presumptuous despisers of Moses to those "who renounce his dispensation." Such are apostates from his laws and government.--These we acknowledge are presumptuous despisers of Moses; but are not idolaters, murderers, and all those classes named above, also presumptuous despisers of Moses? To the law we appeal--Num. xv. 30. "But the soul that doeth aught presumptuously the same reproacheth the Lord, and that soul shall be cut off from among his people, because he hath despised the word of the Lord and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall be utterly cut off." 2 Sam. xii. 9, 10, the Lord says, "Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord to do evil in his sight? Thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite, and hast [13] taken his wife to be thy wife. Now, therefore, the sword shall never depart from thy house, because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife." Here we are plainly taught that the Lord and Moses are despised, presumptuously despised, when their commandments are presumptuously broken to do evil.

      Moses in the chapter just quoted, Num. xv., very plainly arranges sins into two classes--sins of errors or ignorance, and presumptuous sins, ver. 22. "If ye have erred, and not observed all these commandments, then it shall be, if aught be committed by ignorance, without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer a young bullock--and the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation--and it shall be forgiven; for it is ignorance."--Verse 27. "And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a sin-offering, and the priest shall make an atonement for that soul that sinneth ignorantly, and it shall be forgiven him." Verse 30. "But that soul that doeth aught presumptuously shall be cut off." Is this soul directed as those are who erred or sinned ignorantly, to bring a sin-offering and obtain pardon? No: they must be cut off--utterly cut off. The reason why those who erred and sinned ignorantly had the privilege of sacrifice and pardon, is plainly stated--because it was ignorance; evidently showing that none but such transgressors had this privilege granted them. Verse 31. But who are those that sin presumptuously? Those that despise the word of the Lord, and hath willingly broken his commandments. Compare Deut. i. 43. Exod. xxii. 14. Deut. xvii. 12, 13.

      One, or both of us, may have been mistaken, because of inattention to the proper import of errors, sins of ignorance, presumptuous or wilful sins. Moses has explained errors, sins of ignorance; to be the same thing, and contrasts or sets them in opposition to presumptuous or wilful sins. Num. xv. 22-29. Now a sin of ignorance is, according to the Septuagint translation, a sin committed unwillingly or reluctantly. As far as I have examined, they invariably use the word okousioos when expressing what we call a sin of ignorance. Now the learned well know that this word signifies unwillingly, not with full consent of the mind. See Lev. iv. 2.; v. 15.; Num. xv. 22-29. In this sense Paul uses the same word without the privative a, Heb. x. 26. "For if we sin wilfully [ekousioos, willingly,] after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." The same word is used also, Phile. 14. and 1 Pet. v. 2. In these verses the word is translated willingly. It is no where else found in the New Testament. Presumptuous or wilful sin is that which is committed knowingly and willingly, with the full consent of the mind. [14]

      That many saints lived from Adam to Christ is evident--that their sins were pardoned, and pardoned through faith, and not by the deeds of the law, is true as far as we are informed; but that they were justified by the blood of law sacrifices, looking through them by faith to the blood of the great antitype to be shed in future, I must reject for reasons stated in my first number on Atonement. If they were pardoned and purified from sin by the blood of Christ, it could not have been by faith in the blood, or from any knowledge they had of it. It could therefore have no direct influence or effect on them to reconcile them to God, or lead them to repentance--that whole virtue, influence, and effect of his blood, must have been directly on, or in God himself; who by it was so affected that he was pacified, propitiated, or reconciled, and the honor of his law and government so well sustained that he granted pardon and favor to sinners. Of all this we have no account in the scriptures.

      My dear brother, are you not inconsistent when you state that "the legal institution of sacrifice is but a national dispensation of a previously existing sacrificial system;" that this institution extended no farther than to temporal life and blessings; and yet that the old saints in the patriarchal age, as Abel, Shem, Noah, &c. received spiritual pardon and spiritual blessings through their sacrifices? The reason you assign is because they may have had views superior to the legal economy. May have had is no argument that they really had superior views, so that they though their sacrifices saw the blood of Christ to be shed in future, when the Israelites under the law could not see it. How do you know whether Abel's offering was a sin-offering, or a thank-offering? Why was Abel's offering accepted and Cain's rejected? Not because Abel's was a sacrifice of blood, and Cain's was not; but because Abel offered in faith. Faith in what? In the blood of Christ to be shed 4000 years after! Of this you, my dear brother, are as ignorant as myself. Do read the 11th chapter of the Hebrews, and understand the faith by which the elders obtained a good report. In all the instances of faith there recorded, do you find one that had the blood of Christ as its object? Do read again the last chapter of Job, and see whether the sin pardoned there was not wholly an error, or sin of ignorance; and this pardon not by faith in the blood of Christ. You think David, in the case of Uriah, was pardoned by sacrifice. Once more read this case in Psalm li., and you will see your mistake. David says, "For thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it." This shows that he had not given it, because his sin admitted not of sacrifice. As to God smelling a sweet savor from the sacrifice of Noah and others, nothing more is intended than that God was pleased with his obedience and piety. But of this more fully hereafter. [15]

      Your broad assertion that no sin of any description was ever pardoned but by shedding of blood, is very doubtful. Was it by blood of any description that pardon was granted to those, Num. xiv. 19, 20? How were the Israelites pardoned in Babylon for seventy years? Not by blood of victims; for their temple, altar, and all were in ruins, and sacrifices must be slain at the temple. How were those pardoned who were not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary? 2 Chron. xxx. 18, 19. How were these pardoned who were led captive into foreign lands? Read 2 Chron. vi. 34, 20. Is there one instance on record, from Adam to Moses, of one person being justified by faith in the blood of Christ? Not one. Is there one case of such justification from Moses to Christ? Not one. It is easier to assert than prove.

      Paul's simplified plan of sacrifice I have accepted. He adduces them to a few points. 1st. By them a remembrance of sin was made every year, and we may say correctly, every day. No ravenous unclean beast or fowl was admitted for sacrifice; the sight of such dying could excite in the mind of the worshipper no pity nor compassion. But the innocent and clean beasts and fowls were only required.--When the offerer saw these innocent animals writhing in agony and death, he then was made to remember sin, and saw its effects--misery and death. Had not sin entered into the world, death had been unknown. These dead works, or works of death, were considered by Israel as the foundation of repentance. Heb. vi. 2.

      2d. "Almost all things by the law were purged with blood"--men as well as things; for all things include persons as well as things. John i. "All things were made by him:" surely persons are here included. To make an atonement for, means to cleanse or purge, as I have proved in my second number. None can say that God was ever cleansed by any sacrifice under the law or gospel. This needs no proof. I know not any better reason why God ordained sacrifice for purification, than his own will; thus in type pointing to the death of his Son, "who is exalted to give repentance, and remission of sins."

      3d. By law, without shedding of blood there is no remission. Heb. ix. 22. This is evidently Paul's meaning. Now remission of sin is granted to the penitent only--the blood of the victim cleansed the offerer, who by it was made to remember sin; which is essential to repentance in every age.

      4th. These sacrifices were typical of the blood of Christ. Did the innocent lamb suffer death for sin--sin not its own? And in this, is not sin in its evil nature bringing misery and death, seen and remembered? So in the innocent Lamb of God is sin in all its horrors seen, [16] remembered, and condemned. Sin instigated the powers of earth and hell to hate, to persecute, and kill him." "Away with him--crucify him, crucify him," was the voice of sin in the mouths of wicked men, his servants. Satan put it into the heart of Judas to betray him. The wicked slew him, and to them is the crime charged. God did not kill him, nor instigate others to the horrid act, nor did he league with hell and the wicked world in the wicked deed. Now a question arises, How is the justice of God displayed and glorified in this wicked deed? How are the honors of his law secured by this death so contrary to all just laws, human and divine? How can the authority and dignity of divine government be glorified by such a wicked deed? I confess I cannot see as is generally stated. The death and sufferings of Christ, according to the first prophecy, were to be inflicted by the old serpent the devil. Gen. iii. 15. "He had the power of death." Heb. ii. 14. God in his predeterminate counsel delivered up his Son into the hands of wicked men, foreknowing their treatment of him--that they would crucify him. Yet he determined through this very death of his Son to condemn sin, and to save sinners. This was his will, that the Son came to do. The Father was well pleased with the offering the Son made--it was to him a sweet savor--hence "it pleased the Father to bruise him"--i. e. to suffer him to be bruised. He was not pleased with the pains and dying groans of his Son, only as they were suffered in obedience to his will, and were the means through which he would "destroy him that had the power of death"--i. e. the devil, and deliver them "who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage"--and through which means he would condemn sin and save the sinner.

      Who took vengeance on the Son? The orthodox say God did it--himself poured out the vials of his wrath on the bead of his Son. If Jesus was the substitute in the law, room, and stead of sinners, then the Lord must take vengeance; for he it is who takes vengeance or inflicts punishment on the wicked; therefore he must on the substitute of the wicked. This is indispensable in the system of orthodox atonement; and yet we have Just seen that God did not crucify or slay his Son, but the wicked did it. What, then, becomes of the system? It must be sheer speculation, infinitely foreign from truth, though long sanctioned by human authority from the Catholic Archbishop Anselm in the eleventh or twelfth century, down to the present day. Before his day, according to Professor Murdock, we cannot find this doctrine of substitute punishment taught by any.

      Brother Campbell, I shall after this attend to my original plan. In my next two numbers I shall publish the 3d and 4th numbers on [17] Atonement, which have been sent you some months ago; the 3d you inform me is mislaid and cannot be found. After I have published these numbers I will then take a general and particular review of your objections against my views of this doctrine, and consider particularly your own.

                  As ever yours in love,

B. W. STONE.      

      October 1st, 1840.

BROTHER STONE:

      My dear Sir--MAY the new year be to us both the most useful and happy year of our lives! On entering a new year it is good to reconsider the past and to amend our ways. "Lord, teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts to wisdom."

      It becomes necessary for the sake of new readers and to refresh the memory of the old, to glance at the points in which we have concurred, and at the points in which we differ so far in this investigation. And first at the points in which we have concurred:--

      1. That to "expiate," and "pacify," and "atone for," are scriptural ideas and expressions.

      2. That sacrifice is as old as the fall of man, 2500 years older than the law, and that the legal institution of sacrifice is but a national dispensation of a previously existing sacrificial system.

      3. That the legal sacrifices were for the exclusive benefit of those who were under that dispensation, and interfered not with the nature, design, or use of sacrifice as practised by all the saints from Abel to Moses.

      4. That the life and death, the blessing and the curse of the law were merely fleshly and temporal, and that therefore the virtue of its sacrifices could extend no farther than temporal life and temporal blessings. These forfeited, the law had no other blessings in store for them.

      5. But until a man had forfeited these, the legal sacrifices accompanied with repentance and the previous qualifications, had power to remit all the penalties of that institution, to sanctify its subjects, and to save them from the consequences of transgression, so far as the law caused the offence to abound.

      6. Salvation, then, under the law, spiritual and eternal, was through faith, repentance, and sacrifice, as it was from Adam to Moses.

      7. All sacrifice, altars, victims, and priests were typical, whether [18] before or under the law: the antitype of them all is Jesus the Messiah, our sacrifice, altar, victim, and priest.

      8. There never was on earth a divine system of religion without blood in it. Sacrifice, altar, and priest, are the skeleton of every dispensation.

      9. That without faith and repentance sacrifice never did, never can, avail any thing. That it was in consequence of faith that Abel's sacrifice excelled that of Cain.

      So far as, I can understand your communication, we agree in these nine propositions. But you seem to differ from me in the following, which I shall call the tenth:

      10. That neither divine mercy nor human repentance, without sacrifice, is adequate to the remission of sins.

      I may misunderstand you on this point; and if I do, it is from such affirmations as the following:--

      1st. You intimate that errors, or, as you define errors, viz., sins of ignorance, require blood; but that greater transgressions, or what are, in contrast with simple errors, called sins, are forgiven without blood or sacrifice. In one sentence, that in order to remission errors required blood, and that sins did not!

      2d. You intimate that there was a gospel preached to Abraham by which Jews and Greeks were justified, and that it had neither blood nor sacrifice in it. This you quote in the letter before me from an Address published by you the second time in 1821, which I never had, as far as I recollect, the good fortune to read.

      3d. In your interpretation of this gospel, as you quote your Address, it would seem that the Jews under the law, and the Gentiles without law, were justified by Abraham's gospel without any sacrifice or deeds of the law, regarding (as you seem to me) that when Paul said, "You are justified by faith without the deeds of the law," he meant justified by faith without blood or sacrifice. Do you make sacrifice one of the deeds of the law!!

      4th. You object to my strongly affirming with Paul that without shedding of blood there is now, and there never was, remission of sin to one of Adam's race. Your objecting to this would seem to indicate that you teach that without shedding of blood there is remission in some cases--nay, in all, before and since the law.

      5th. And finally, that there was no sacrifice or sin-offering under law but for mere errors, or sins of ignorance and ceremonial defilement. As there is some confusion in your style, some misprinting too in the copy before me on this point, as well as in some of the preceding, I hope I misunderstand you, and that when you fully explain yourself we will fully agree on these five as we agree on the nine. [19]

      I say, as we agree on the nine; for with a single exception to my proof of one of these, and I requested your objections in a former epistle on any of the points involved in them, I conclude there is a concurrence in them all. You object to my views of the faith by which Abel obtained testimony that he was righteous, rather than to the fact that God testified of his gifts at the altar. You ask me how I know that Abel's offering was a sin-offering, &c. Because of the matter of it, and because of the state of mind in which it was offered. It was a bleeding lamb, and it was offered in faith. These are both facts. Now Cain's was neither. In matter and form they differed. Abel believed the promise in its two branches--1st. That the seed of the woman was a Son of Man; and that he would avenge the quarrel by bruising the serpent's head; that he would redeem man from sin and Satan, and that at the expense of suffering himself. The circumstances gave to Adam's family their interpretation of the matter, and that the bruising of the serpent's head meant the bruising of Satan's power over man, is farther evident from Paul's use of the terms, Rom. xvi. 20. Enoch, the seventh from Adam, by his prophecies, as intimated by Jude, shows bow greatly we moderns underrate both the knowledge and faith of the antediluvians. If you demand a priori proof, it cannot be given for this and many other such matters farther than I have given it; but the a posteriori proof is obvious; for God always required faith in the Messiah and sacrifice, and never asked less from one than another. Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Melchisedec, &c., lived under the same dispensation. Abel was only the prototype, as he was the protomartyr of that economy. The seed of the woman was therefore Christ; the bruising his heel indicated Messiah's sufferings; the bruising of the Serpent's head intimated Satan's ruin. Abel believed, built an altar, and sacrificed a lamb, the antitype of which is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. I am sorry to see my brother Stone intimate a doubt on this subject.

      There are some indistinct affirmations and negations between us on the sins of ignorance and presumptuous sins. You seem to conceive of nothing between these. I do not, my venerable brother, wonder at it, inasmuch as the whole subject of the Jewish sacrifices and offerings are but little understood and very imperfectly examined by our scribes and elders. Presumptuous sins cut a person off from any institution under which man was ever placed. If a man "sin wilfully," i. e. a. presumptuously--"there remains no more sacrifice," &c. is as true of Christ's administration as of that of Moses. Some, with you, imagine that as sin-offerings refer so often to sins of ignorance, there is no institution for any other kind of sins. Now, sir, should I grant [20] that sin-offerings, as defined by Moses, refer to sins of ignorance alone, and to all sins of ignorance, (which by the way I do not concede,) still it by no means follows that there were no sacrifices under the law for any other sins or errors than those of ignorance. This is evident for two reasons:--

      1st. Because the sins of ignorance for which sin-offerings are specially designed in the law, are defined to be but one class of said sins--namely, sins of ignorance against negative precepts; or, to use the words of Moses, "If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord CONCERNING THINGS WHICH OUGHT NOT TO BE DONE--and shall act against any of these." This specification shows the peculiar province of that species of sin-offerings as referring to those absolute prohibitory precepts which, if violated wittingly, constituted presumptuous sins. Of this class of precepts concerning things which ought not to be done, the Jews counted three hundred and sixty-five, of which only some forty would subject a wilful transgressor to excision. Now only for transgressions of these through ignorance was that class of sin-offerings ordained.

      2d. But besides those emphatically styled "SIN-OFFERINGS" there were other sin-offerings--such as the burnt-offerings, the trespass-offerings, and the peace-offerings; all of which were sin-offerings; some of them, too, for sins of ignorance against positive precepts; of which, according to some Rabbis, they had two hundred and forty-eight. But other sins besides sins of ignorance against positive precepts, are enumerated by Moses, as I before demonstrated to your satisfaction, I hope, from Leviticus, 5th and 6th chapters, 1-7. There are sins of knowledge, of doubt, and of ignorance, specified under the law of trespass-offerings--as any one may see who will impartially read the passage referred to.

      With regard to the occasion of this discussion of sin-offerings, permit me to offer a few remarks. Your opposition to it seems to arise from a conviction that if we establish that sins in general were expiated by the legal, or by the patriarchal sacrifices, (for they are different institutions)--and especially on the principle that the victim died for, or instead of the offerer, the whole doctrine of old orthodoxy naturally follows; and to this you would make it appear you have a peculiar dislike. Well, now, I have no predilection for, nor antipathy against, either old or new orthodoxy or heterodoxy: I care not a fig how my reasonings will affect either system. The question with me is, Is it true? Do the Prophets and Apostles teach it? If so, I teach it. If not, I teach it not. You have been so vexed with old orthodoxy, that, like the burned child, you dread the fire. You have been [21] scorched, and burned, and bruised by men calling themselves orthodox. Well, be it so. Still old Orthodoxy is, as I before said, more learned, more devout, more intelligent, and more practically useful than old or new heterodoxy. Both have been professedly men whose hearts never felt the love of God, and therefore both are stained with blood of human sacrifice. When in power both are intolerant, proud, proscriptive, and persecuting. This you will see fully sustained in my last number, under the caption or "A Sin against Orthodoxy." It has used me very ill; but that is no reason why I should detract aught from its well founded pretensions.

      I cannot now write a dissertation on burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, peace-offerings, meat-offerings, drink-offerings, thank-offerings, &c. &c. Four of these, suffice it to say, the four first, were sin-offerings for sins of different attributes; and by these offerings once a year all the sins of the people in or under the covenant were expiated and remitted, so far as the penalties of the Jewish institute required.

      Before the Jewish institution began, the saints, one and all, through faith in the promised seed, offered up sacrifice to God; and God, as in the case of Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job, testified of their gifts and justified them. They were pardoned in anticipation of "the redemption of the transgressions" to be brought in under the new, or at the close of the legal institute--of which I have something to say in its own place.

      When Enoch prophesied of the last days of the Christian age, when Jesus affirmed that Abraham saw his day and was glad, and when Job before Moses said, "I know that my kinsman (redeemer,) my Goel liveth, and that he shall stand upon the earth in the latter day, and that in the resurrection I shall see him;" who can limit the boundaries of faith or knowledge possessed and displayed by the patriarchal people and the Jews! May we not then conclude that when the gospel was preached to Abraham sacrifice and blood were in it as well as in our gospel, whose first fact is, THE MESSIAH DIED FOR OUR SINS according to the scriptures." Isai. liii. Dan. ix. &c. &c. of which more fully when you develop your views of Christ's death. May you not then, my dear sir, notwithstanding all the truth which you utter concerning presumptuous sins and sins of ignorance, in which I presume, as now explained by both of us, we agree; I say, may you not be too rash in affirming that "if the saints from Adam to Christ were pardoned, and purified from sins by faith in his blood, it could not have been from any knowledge they had of it"? True, indeed, they may have looked for redemption in Israel, and by the [22] Messiah too--the son of Eve and the son of Abraham, without fully, or at all, understanding him; or by what means, or to what extent, this redemption was to be effected.

      I am sorry to hear you say that one of my most prominent assertions is with you doubtful. Your words are, "Your broad assertion that no sin of any description was ever pardoned but by shedding of blood." Am I not backed by Paul? "Without shedding of blood there is no remission." You ask with confidence of a negation, "Is there one instance on record, from, Adam to Christ, of one person being justified by the blood of Christ"? You must mean, in so many words, I presume. I would also ask you how was it that Moses, when near the throne of Egypt, "esteemed the reproach of Christ above all the wealth of Egypt, and endured as seeing him that was invisible"? How was it that Isaiah said, "By the knowledge of him my righteous servant shall justify many whose iniquities he shall have borne." And Daniel, After so long a time, "shall Messiah he cut off, but not for himself," &c.--"He was wounded for our transgressions," &c.--"He brought in an everlasting righteousness," &c. Do you think no one believed those things! All your questions in this section suppose that unless daily offering up sacrifice the Jews could not be pardoned by blood. Cannot our sins be pardoned through faith in a blood shed two thousand years ago!

      You say you have accepted "Paul's simplified plan or sacrifice." I suppose, then, you have left me Paul's complex plan! He reduces them, you say, to a few points. The points of his simplified plan are--

      1st. An annual and daily remembrance of sin.

      2d. The purgation of all things, including persons; for as "all things were made by him" includes all persons, so almost all things being purged by blood, means almost all persons.

      3d. "By law without shedding of blood there is no remission;" but by the gospel there is. Yet Christ has not shed his blood in vain; for those sacrifices were typical of his blood. Sin is seen, remembered, and condemned by it. The death of Christ does three things In Paul's plan, as simplified:--Condemn sin, exhibit sin, and remember sin. This is the whole matter? Then come your remarks upon honoring the law, taking vengeance on the Son, and the substitution indispensable to orthodox atonement, first invented by the Catholic Archbishop Anselm in the 11th or 12th century, according to Professor Murdock. In giving the simplified plan it is presumed you intended to give not a part of it, but all. I think you have forgotten some of it, and will not regard this as your view of the whole matter till I hear from you distinctly again on the subject. [23]

      In prosecuting the development of this simplified plan you make passing comment on the words "to make an atonement for," which you say, in your second number, you have proved to mean "to cleanse, to purge"--in a figure I presume; as when the tailor says, 'I have made a coat for A. B.,' he might mean 'I have warned him.' But, in Reason's name, are making a coat and warming a person identical expressions! As much as atonement and cleansing.

      By the way, Professor Murdock's reading and mine are very different. He certainly has forgotten the history of the first four centuries, else his guides and mine are very different. But, my dear sir, what have you or I to do with any professor or with "the system of orthodox atonement?" We are in pursuit of Paul's view of atonement. I care as little for what is "indispensable to orthodox atonement" as for what is indispensable to heterodox atonement. But I can excuse my aged and venerable correspondent when I reflect on the wars he has waged against orthodoxy in the days of his youth. Like an old acquaintance of mine, long engaged in the border wars with the Indians, if in his old days he unexpectedly heard a rifle, he would involuntarily exclaim, "The Indians are there!" So father Stone, when he thinks of honoring the law by the wicked crucifixion of the only begotten Son of God, "who suffered the just for the unjust," he thinks of Archbishop Anselm and his orthodox atonement. All these allusions we can excuse in our aged and amiable friend, believing that as the discussion advances he will dissipate all theories, orthodox and heterodox, and come out as large as life in the language and ideas of Prophets and Apostles.

                  Sincerely and affectionately yours, &c.

A. CAMPBELL.      

[The Millennial Harbinger (January 1841): 12-24.]