FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

NEW SERIES.

VOL. V.	B E T H A N Y,   V A.   MARCH, 1841.	NO. III.

      Dear brother Campbell--I HAVE finished the four numbers on the Atonement which I at first designed to publish. I now proceed to notice your objections and arguments against my views, in the order in which they are written. I shall commence with our first and second letters, and shall always quote from the Messenger in order to avoid confusion.

      1st. In the very commencement of your first letter to me I was startled indeed. You say, "I most cordially concur in opinion with those brethren who have persuaded you that your fears were groundless, or would never be realized, concerning the discussion of those points which you called for, under date of your letter of November 11, 1839, published page 21 of the current volume." Did I, brother Campbell, ever call upon you for a discussion of those points? I never seriously thought of such a thing till yourself suggested, and publicly invited me to it. You have certainly mistaken me; for such an idea cannot be found in the letter alluded to above, as you will see by re-examining it. I wish to remove from the minds of our readers the idea of vanity and fondness for debate, as attaching to my character, now when I am on the verge of the grave. Those things commonly attach to youth, and dotage.

      2d. On page 247 you have made a number of assertions respecting the death of Christ, which would require volumes to attempt to prove, and as many to defend. 1st. "That the death of Christ is interwoven with all the designs of the universe. 2d. That Christ crucified is the most transcendent mystery in the moral dominions of God. 3d. That its power is the mainspring of all heavenly impulses. 4th. That it is itself the consummation of all wisdom and prudence. 5th. That the deep and high counsels of God issue in this mysterious fact, and emanate from it, "as all earthly waters arise from the ocean and descend to it."

      Whence my brother got all this information, I cannot conceive; certainly not from the divine revelations we have received. They are too high for my limited intellect to grasp, and too deep to fathom. How do we know "all the designs of the universe"? Countless millions of them may exist in the Infinite Mind never yet developed, and may not be for endless ages to come. How, then, can we know that the death of Christ is interwoven with them all? How little do we know with certainty of his revealed designs in our little speck of creation! How can my brother say that Christ crucified is the most transcendent mystery in the moral dominions of God? Can we measure the full extent of those dominions, and know all the mysteries in them, to enable us to make the comparison? How can we know that the power of the death of Christ is the mainspring of all heavenly impulses? Is it the mainspring to move God to be propitious to men? Is it the mainspring that moved God to create angels and worlds? Is it the mainspring to move angels to worship their Maker? Can we safely say, "that it is the consummation of all wisdom and prudence?" [113] The ultimatum--the very end of wisdom, that can rise no higher, and progress no farther! My dear brother, humility becomes us, poor, little, ignorant things. Often in your answers to my essays, you kindly apologize for me. I am bound to reciprocate the kindness. Your mind has been called to so many subjects of importance, that you have neglected to examine this old relict of your faith received by tradition of your fathers, and therefore have unguardedly expressed it. I cannot for a moment think that you, by this speculation, designed to forestall the sentiments of our readers.

      3d. On page 250 you apologize for my misapprehension and misquotation of an expression in your "Christian System," pages 48 and 49, which I quoted in my first number. I cannot see that I have either misapprehended or misquoted you; but am glad to hear you disavow the sentiment I apprehended from the expression. The words in your "Christian System" are, "In bringing many souls to glory, it soothes and delights the wounded love of our kind and benignant heavenly Father." My quotation is, "The death of Christ soothes and delights the wounded love of our kind and benignant heavenly Father." Your quotation of it is, "The death of Christ in bringing many sons to glory, soothes and delights," &c. If there be a misquotation of your "Christian System," which of us is guilty? It may be you quoted from the first edition; mine is from the second. Yours cannot be from the second edition. Yet I cannot conceive how you could be so startled at my quotation, that every sin wounds the affection of our heavenly Feather, and that the death of Christ soothes and delights the wounded love of our kind and benignant heavenly Father, when you so strenuously contend that his death propitiates him. I can see no difference of ideas in the expressions. Your language is strange, and might lead your less informed readers to conclude that the Father's wounds were soothed and healed by blood. Many such yet devoutly sing--

I know you spurn the ideas stated in this language, yet I cannot see how you can avow expressions conveying the same idea, as that the blood of Christ propitiates.

      4th. The burden of my second letter is, to prove that the verb kaphar, translated to make an atonement, signifies to purge or cleanse, and that this was the design of sin-offering. This sentiment you do not deny nor oppose directly; for truly our translators, and Paul, the commentator of Moses, have set this matter beyond dispute, or fair debate, as I have shown in Letter II.

      5th. I will also state another idea which may have escaped the penetrating mind of my brother. It is this, that the Hebrew word kaphar is an active transitive verb, and, according to all grammatical rules, must have an object upon which the action passes. Now, this object cannot be, God; for kaphar, the active verb, signifies to cleanse. [114] This action of cleansing cannot pass on the object God; for he is undefiled, and needs no purification. For the same reason, the action of cleansing cannot pass on the holy law, nor on the government of God, because they are pure like their author. When, therefore, we so frequently find this expression, "He shall take a lamb, or goat, and make an atonement for his sin"--we should read it, He shall cleanse himself [not God] for or on account of his sin; the object of the action cleanse being plainly understood. Unless his sin be purged or cleansed, the political union between the defiled sinner, and his God, and the congregation, is broken; but when he is purified, the union, or at-one-ment, is restored between them.

      6th. The same ideas hold good with respect to the word reconciliation. It is translated from the same word kaphar, and therefore signifies the same as at-one-ment; and the ideas just stated as attaching to at-one-ment, equally attach to reconciliation. They are one, and not that at-one-ment is the cause of reconciliation, and reconciliation the effect of at-one-ment, as my brother asserts, and thinks that in this I agree with him. I am sorry to disagree with a dear brother; but in this I am obliged to dissent. Nor can I conceive how you took up the idea of my believing that reconciliation was the effect of atonement, when, throughout the second letter, I was laboring to establish the idea that they were one. You must have gotten the idea from the quotation I made from Calmet, page 290, to show that atonement meant at-one-ment. In the quotation are these words, "By whom we have received the at-one-ment, or means of reconciliation." I quoted this, not as approving the divinity, but for establishing the meaning of a word.

      7th. The same ideas contained in the 5th and 6th items, also apply to propitiation. Its scriptural meaning is purification. With this my brother accords, page 296, when he says, "Propitiation or purification is also an effect of atonement. So we find it applies to God, Ezek. xvi. 63. 'When I am propitiated (exhilaskesthai, com. version, pacified) to you for all that you have done, saith the Lord.' So prayed the publican--'God be merciful to me a sinner.' Hence we find the word hilasmos twice in the first epistle of John, applies to Christ's blood--the propitiation [purification] for our sins; Messiah, as foretold by Daniel, will make propitiation [purification] for iniquity."

      8th. How you can make propitiation and purification the same, and to be the effect of atonement, I cannot see; and still it is more strange that you should say that these apply to God, and adduce Ezek. xvi. 63. as proof. Upon your own definition of propitiation, as meaning purification, it evidently follows that the effect of atonement is to purify God himself. I do not impute to you the idea, but to your language. My brother must know that the word exhilaskesthai, which you have quoted from the Septuagint, is the very word by which uniformly they translate the Hebrew kaphar, and which our translators have rendered to make atonement, to reconcile and cleanse, Num. xxv. 33, &c. properly, to cleanse or cover, which are active transitive verbs.

      9th. God is represented by the Psalmist as "a Sun and a Shield." The natural sun shines invariably and unchangeably the same, and gives light, life, and comfort to all, creatures on earth. A dark cloud [115] intervenes, and obstructs the enlightening, warming, and quickening rays of the sun from us. But this cloud has no effect on the sun--he still unchangeably pours forth his undiminished rays of light and heat; but the cloud obstructs them from us--they cannot penetrate it; and as long as that cloud remains we are cut off from all influence of the sun, and must be miserable. So God is a sun, and shines invariably and unchangeably the same, for the light, life, and comfort of all holy beings. But our sins, as a thick cloud, have risen between us and our God, and obstructed the rays of light, life, and comfort from flowing to us; and in this miserable situation we must remain forever, while that cloud of sin remains. Whatever removes this cloud, removes the separation between us and our God, and takes away the obstruction of his divine rays of light, life, and comfort, and restores them to us again. Now where, or in whom, does the obstruction exist? Not in God, all must agree; but it exists entirely in man.--Jesus came into the world, sent by the Father to remove this obstruction to his love, grace, and mercy flowing into the sinner. This has Jesus done by his life, death, and resurrection; for his blood cleanseth from all sin. By faith, repentance, and obedience, we are reconciled to God, sanctified, washed, and purified from all sin.

      10th. Suppose while the natural cloud obstructed the rays of the natural sun from falling on us, a wind should arise and dissipate the cloud. We then would say, the wind has restored to us the light and heat of the sun, and caused it to shine again for our comfort. This would not be true in philosophy, for the wind produced no effect on the sun--it only removed the obstruction of its rays to us. So the blood of Christ had no effect on God, but only removed our sin, which obstructed his divine rays from shining into us. So may we say, that God is at-one-ed, reconciled, and propitiated to us by the blood of Christ. But with whom is he at-one-ed, reconciled, and propitiated? Is it with the unchanged impenitent sinner? Impossible, for the holy nature of God can never be at-one-ed, reconciled, or propitiated to the unholy nature of man--there must be an eternal enmity between them; nor could all the blood of the universe effect such a union. But God was always, and will forever be, in union with his own divine nature; and when we, through the blood of Christ, become partakers of the divine nature, we become one with him, and he one with us. In this sense God may be said to be at-one, reconciled, propitiated, and pacified to us, when we are changed into his divine nature, without any change in himself. The whole change is effected in us. Is it any where in the Bible stated that God was atoned to the impenitent, irreconciled, disobedient sinner? How, then, does my brother so strenuously contend that the atonement, which he believes is effected in God by the blood of Christ, is the cause of the reconciliation made in man?

      11th. My brother's criticisms and speculations on the difference between the words atonement and reconciliation, are novel, and entirely unsatisfactory to my mind. I view them perfectly arbitrary, and unsupported by one divine writer in the Bible. Our translators have rendered the words atonement and reconciliation uniformly, if not universally, from the same Hebrew word kaphar. In the New Testament they have translated the Greek word katallagee, atonement and reconciliation, invariably. It seems never to have entered their minds [116] that there was a difference of meaning in the terms, or that one was he cause, and the other the effect, as you have stated, page 296.--There you say, "Originally, literally, and properly, atonement (hilasmos) is that which makes one, and reconciliation (katallagee) is made one. The one is the cause, and the other is the effect. If this be doubted, we have a superabundance of evidence to offer." My dear brother, I do most sincerely doubt it, and greatly need that superabundant evidence. But I will wait patiently till you shall give it. I do hope that the evidence to be given will be more convincing than the one you have adduced as a sample, viz. "That things which cannot be reconciled are said to be atoned; such as the tabernacle, the altar, and their furniture. Surely my brother has forgotten that these very things are said to be reconciled, but never atoned; for the word atoned is not once named in the Bible. What this your argument has to do in support of your strange proposition, I cannot see.

      12th. I really begin to doubt whether I understand you, when you speak of so many things being the effect of atonement--as purification, or expiation; propitiation, or purification, page 296. You must mean in these cases by atonement, the victim by which the atonement was made. If this be your meaning, we are agreed. I have formerly admitted that the victim for sacrifice might be called the atonement; but as I find it nut so called in the Bible, I have dropt the idea, and advise you to do the same. If by atonement you mean the effect of sacrifice, and believe that atonement, expiation, propitiation, and purification, are synonyms, how can you say that they are effects of atonement? As well might you say that atonement is the effect of atonement. Your mind appears to be a little confused, as you think mine once was.

      13th. On the same page 296, you say, "Do I misconceive my brother Stone, when I interpret his views of atonement as excluding the idea of propitiating or pacifying our heavenly Father?" I answer, You have not misconceived me, as you will see in the remarks above. I do hope, brother Campbell, that I have misconceived you; for you say, page 297, "Well, I am glad to be in such good company as that of brother Stone, who concludes with me then, and not till then, of course--'then is God, his law, and government pleased, or reconciled with the person,' &c. &c." Yes, then, and not till then, is God, his law, and government pleased or reconciled with the person, &c. This I acknowledge to be my language. In this, you say, I conclude with you. I am glad of it; yet this conclusion as yours I have never seen nor known, till you have here expressed it. I had always before thought your conclusion different. Had the sentence been fully quoted, our readers would have better understood our agreement. The person of whom I was speaking was sanctified, cleansed, and made holy--then, when made holy or sanctified and reconciled to God--then, and not till then, is God pleased and reconciled to him. The same idea I have fully stated on the preceding page. Does brother Campbell thus conclude? If so, why does he say that I must ultimately concede that sacrifice has an effect on God? p. 26. In conclusion of the present letter, I ask my dear brother Campbell, where in the scriptures is atonement, reconciliation, or propitiation ever said, to be directly effected in God by blood of sacrifices? [117]

      May the Lord lead us into all truth! As ever, your old and loving brother,

B. W. STONE.      

BROTHER STONE:

      My dear Sir--YOUR recent reviews of matters one year old, are so far in your rear, and so far off date, that neither myself, nor many of my readers, will be able to see where they strike. Neither does your No I. touch any point in discussion. As to how the discussion commenced, I refer our readers to your letter of November, 1839, and to my reply in February following. They will be found in pages 21 and 81, vol. 4, 1840. The next item in the first review is upon my style of speaking of Christ crucified: I give it too much consequence, and speak too extravagantly of it, you seem to think. But my style, or your style, is no argument; and our brethren desire argument and evidence on this subject. You except to my saying that Christ crucified is the most transcendent mystery in the dominions of God--that the death of Christ is interwoven with all the designs of the universe--that it is the consummation of all wisdom and prudence, &c. &c.

      Paul may, or may not, have authorized me to use those identical words; still I feel that he justifies my style. He says, "Great is the mystery of godliness!" 'God was manifest in the flesh,' &c. What mystery can surpass this! "All things were created by him and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Is not the death of Christ interwoven with all the designs of the universe! Angels desire to look into this deep and wonderful scheme. "In him dwells all the fulness of the godhead bodily"--"In him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited."--"He is the wisdom and the power of God." "He upholds all things by the word of his power." "God will gather all things together in him, both in heaven and in earth." He is "the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last." If my sayings are not sustained by these, and many such, let them be repudiated. "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."

      As to the imperfect and incorrect quotation from the "Christian System" to which you allude, it is a matter to me of no moment. If any one doubt the sense of the passage, I refer him to the first edition of the work. These, my dear sir, are very small matters. The phrase expresses my view in the sense of its own context--not in the context in which you happened at first to place it.

      In your second review you recur to your peculiar and favorite acceptation of t he active transitive verb kaphar, to cover with blood or water, and metonymically to cleanse. Your argument from this word is precisely that of the Paidobaptists on the word immerse. Dr. Bucher, Jun. says that baptize signifies to purify, and a thousand others go for washing, cleansing, &c. because such are sometimes the effects of immersion. But they greatly err as philologists, as logicians, and as Christians in substituting a metonymy of the effect for the cause, and making the apple the definition of the word tree. The lad who would define the term tree by saying it meant an apple, would be quite as learned a philologist in the case, as he who would say that the term baptize means to cleanse, to wash, or to purify. If a man should be [118] immersed in mud, who would say that he must be clean, because the word immerse means to cleanse! This is no speculation, as you very good humoredly answer some of my gravest points, calling them "a speculation"--"ingenious speculation," But really I am a little surprised at your mode of interpreting and applying such words as kaphar and nasa, &c. Still there is nothing gained on your selection of meanings; for we sometimes speak of vindicating and justifying God; and might, in the same latitude, speak of cleansing and sanctifying him. Indeed, the scriptures of truth speak of justifying and sanctifying God, and use these terms as active transitive verbals--"That thou mayest be justified when thou judgest"--"Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts"--"I sanctify myself," said Jesus, &c. But what say the Lexicons and Concordances on this word kaphar? Do they sustain you? They show that "to cover" is the original and radical sense of this very common verb; that the covering of the ark is called kaphporeth, a derivative from kaphar. The Arabic shows its ancient and common acceptation by the verb kafara, to hide, to conceal; so does the Syriac and the Chaldea, as our best Lexicons demonstrate. It is rendered, as you say, by the Septuagint hilaskesthai, to expiate; and by John, hilasmos; and among all the Greek writers, sacred and profane, no religious word is more definitely clear and express than this one. It is found, Dan. ix. 24; Heb. x. 4; John ii. 2. and indicates propitiation, expiation, atonement. In Genesis vi. 14., it is first found indicating the cover of the ark. In Genesis xxxii. it is rendered appease; but indicates, "I will cover myself from the anger of my brother." See Parkhurst on its various acceptations; all of which, down to the Hebrew and Greek ransom, and to the Arabic and Turkish caphar, or tax on travellers, show that it means any thing that hides, conceals, and consequently appeases, reconciles, and propitiates. So that among ten or a dozen figurative meanings of the word, cleanse is but one, So wide are its figurative applications, that we find it including the cypress tree, and the pitch which shuts out the light and covers from the water.

      Now I pray, Father Stone, not to send us away into foreign countries and ancient times and languages, old as the flood, to decide the bearings of the sacrifice of Christ upon the throne of God, and the conscience and character of sinners.

      I object, brother Stone, as much to your manner of quoting my words, as to your use of Dictionaries and translations. You say under item 7th of your review, "Its scriptural meaning is purification;" and then you make me agree to it by saying, "With this my brother accords, page 296, where he says propitiation or purification is also an effect of atonement." Now I ask, in the fair and veritable construction of language, are you justified not merely in saying that its "scriptural meaning is purification," but in using the above sentence to show that I so understand it. Then may I say in reply, 'Its scriptural meaning is pitch;' and with this brother Stone accords, for he knows and will admit that it is so found in Gen vi. 14!

      Many of our readers might pore over these criticisms a lifetime, and be as wise on the subject when dying as when being born. I put it to your good sense if we had not better keep to the English and common sense. After reprobating my making atonement the cause, and [119] purification, reconciliation, propitiation, &c. the effects of it, you come to the same conclusion yourself. You very justly say, "I really begin to doubt whether I understand you when you speak of so many things being the effect of atonement--as propitiation, purification, expiation. You must mean in these cases, by atonement, the victim by which the atonement was made." You are perfectly right, my dear sir, in this conclusion. And if you had suspected it sooner, you might have saved the most part of your present review.

      I presume the majority of Christendom calls the death of Christ the sacrifice, the atonement, the ransom. I never suspected that either in the current language of Protestants, or in the sacred style of the book of the New Covenant, I could be misunderstood in calling the death of Christ either the atonement or the reconciliation, viewed as a cause of our reconciliation to God, or of his being well pleased with us.

      When Paul says that "we have received the atonement," or reconciliation, by Christ, does he only mean that we are reconciled to God by Christ, or that by him has come to us the reconciliation, viz.--that which does reconcile us to God, and which makes it just and honorable for him to be propitious to us. The Apostles' style in other places indicates the latter to be his meaning. Heb. ii. 17. he says, "He made atonement, or reconciliation, for the sins of the people"--That this is the meaning of the original term, all classic Greek, all synagogue Greek, all ecclesiastic Greek amply testify. And what is all this but saying as he does in another place--"Once has he appeared in the end of the world to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself"! Sin was in the way--"sin lay at the door," and prevented the friendly intercourse of the parties; but he came and took it out of the way. It was just as much in God's way of showing mercy, as it was in our way of receiving it.

      I cannot see how your figure or analogy between a cloud and sin, and wind and blood, reaches this case at all. The wind that removes the cloud, you say, "produces no effect on the sun;" neither does it on the man! But the removal of the cloud shows to man the sun. Well, does it not also show man to the sun! It affects the one just as much as the other. And here I am sorry to see you for the first time unequivocally say that ,the blood of Christ had no effect on God." Will you please attempt to reconcile this singular saying with Paul, Rom. iii. 25, 26. "Whom God has set forth a propitiatory, through faith in his blood, (a covering, or mercy-seat,) to declare his justice in remitting past sins," &c. "To declare (continues the Apostle) at this time his justice--that HE MIGHT BE JUST and the justifier of the believer," &c. You have, then, no faith in Christ's blood as affecting God, but only as affecting men! But this declaration, singular though it be, is excelled by one at the close of the preceding paragraph. You say, "By faith, repentance, and obedience we are reconciled to God, sanctified, washed, and purified from all sin." Now I had been accustomed to teach that none but the reconciled could acceptably obey God. But you make obedience, equally with faith and repentance, a condition of personal reconciliation. Now, strange as it may appear, I cannot think that your words definitely convey your ideas on this subject; for surely you have faith in Christ's blood! Now the person who has no use for [120] Christ's blood but to be reconciled by it, can have no faith in it; for why should he rely upon the death of the Messiah, as it can have no effect upon God!

      Having yourself suspected the reason of your misconception of my placing reconciliation, expiation, purification, &c. &c. as the effect of atonement; it is unnecessary for me to prove that I am right in the sense for which I contend for it. You agree with me. The death of Christ is a sacrifice, the effects of which, believed, are, expiation, purification, reconciliation, justification, sanctification, &c. You say you "hope the evidence to be given will be more convincing than the one you have adduced as a sample--viz. that things which cannot be reconciled are said to be atoned; such as the tabernacle, the altar, &c. &c. "These things, you inform me, are all said to be reconciled, but never atoned." Your not observing that I use atone as the translation of hilasko, and reconciliation as the translation of katallagee, was no doubt, my dear sir, the cause of your thus representing me; which, without the slightest intention on your part, amounts to a misrepresentation. Now an altar cannot be reconciled, but it may be atoned in the sense contended for.

      Brother Stone, I blame not you, but your memory, for this presentation of my views on this point. The time was, no doubt, that you knew, that in every place, without a single exception, where reconciling the sanctuary, altar, place, &c. &c. is spoken of, katalasso, to reconcile, is never found; but hilasko, to atone, to propitiate, occurs in every place. So that my sample is perfectly correct. You forgot that I had the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint before me while you were thinking of the English!

      I am greatly delighted to see that the "Christians" of New England are reforming their views of the death of Christ, although some of those of the West are yet tenacious of their old speculations. The "Christian Herald," of New Hampshire, has furnished some excellent articles on this subject, from the pen of my friend Elder P. Russel.--While one of its Editors is madly violent in opposing us in some points--rather, in grossly misrepresenting us--another of them has seasonably introduced the subject of the Atonement, and read a good lesson to his brethren East and West on this momentous subject. In the present essay, as I have nothing farther of any importance to notice, I will give an extract from Elder Russel's No. II. on the Atonement.

      Among other ends of Christ's death, brother Russel says, "But the main design, the primary, and principal object had in view in the death of the precious Lamb of God--a design to which all others are subordinate, and around which they revolve as the grand attracting centre of the plan of salvation, was that he might become a sin-offering for us, and by his blood cleanse us from all unrighteousness, and render it possible for God to maintain his law, vindicate his authority, and at the same time be "the justifier of him that believeth." But as this point will need more extended proof and illustration than we can well give in this number, we will leave this point till another week."

      Now, my venerable Father Stone, if you will give us a few more reviews one year after date, I will set about giving you some defences from your "Christian brethren" of the East. As I am leaving home [121] for some two or three months, and as I may not see your reviews during my absence, I leave an essay on Atonement from brother Russel, of the Christian Herald, instead of a formal reply to your reviews, which I request you to place upon your pages.

                  Sincerely and devoutly yours, &c.

A. CAMPBELL.      

[The Millennial Harbinger (March 1841): 113-122.]