FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

NEW SERIES.

VOL. V.	B E T H A N Y,   V A.   APRIL, 1841.	NO. IV.

      My dear brother Campbell--I AM glad to find that we appear to be approximating to each other in some of our views on the subject under discussion; yet there are a few ideas in your third letter to which also I do object. They are contained in your seven propositions, and what follows, pages 391, 392.

      Prop. 1. To the first part of this proposition I find no objection; but from the second part I must dissent. You say, "The sacrificial system was indispensable to any fallen man's approach to God." I reply, Of this I have no certain testimony, nor information from the Bible. Your proof of it, that Abel offered a bloody sacrifice in faith, plainly shows that sacrifice was a divine appointment, and of great antiquity, but it does not confirm your proposition. Abel was a shepherd, and of him God required the firstlings of his flock for an offering. Cain was a tiller of the ground, and of him God required the fruit of the ground for an offering. We have as good authority to believe the one requirement as the other; for this of offering the fruits of the ground was continued in the Mosaic institution, as well as that of bloody victims. Had both Cain and Abel offered in faith of God's appointment, would not each have been equally acceptable in their approach to God? Are we prepared to deny this?

      But my brother's proof turns out to be a mere conjecture--a may be so; for he says, "Pious Jews may, therefore, like the pious patriarchs Abel, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, &c. &c. have had views superior to the legal economy." Your argument is this--As [156] the patriarchs Abel, Enoch, Noah, and others, when they offered sacrifice, saw by faith the blood of the Messiah to be in future shed for the remission of sins; so pious Jews, like them, may have had views superior to the legal economy; they also may have seen and believed in the blood of Messiah to be shed in future for remission of their sins, in their approach to God; while those not pious under the law, could not see nor believe in it. This is taking for granted what needs proof. It cannot be proved that Abel, Enoch, or any of the patriarchs or pious Jews had these views of the blood of Christ, or faith in that blood in their sacrifices.

      Paul made no exception in Israel when he said that "the children of Israel [pious or not] could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: but their minds were blinded." 2 Cor. iii. 13, 14. Christ was the end of the law, and we shall presently see, that it, with all its types, ended in his death. Even his Apostles, who were sanctified by the truth, did not see the end of the law in its types and sacrifices till the event of his death proved it, and the Spirit at Pentecost confirmed it. We have generally admitted, without a doubt, that the path of the just is as the dawning light, that shineth brighter and brighter unto the perfect day--that the first ray of divine light on fallen man, increased to the just in every succeeding age, till the Sun of Righteousness arose. Therefore we cannot admit that from Abel, onwards to Christ, divine light decreased.

      Prop. 2. To this proposition I do not object.

      Prop. 3. With this proposition in general I cordially agree. It contains the sentiments I have advocated for many years. You say, "The life and death, the blessing and curse of the law, were merely fleshly and temporal, and therefore the virtue of its sacrifice could extend no farther than to temporal life and temporal blessings.--When, therefore, a Jew had forfeited these, the sacrificial law had no blessings in store for him. Deut. xxviii. 1-68." I am glad my brother has at length conceded the point of difference between us; for you say, "When a Jew had forfeited these, (one of which is temporal life) the sacrificial law had no blessing in store for him." Every Jew, therefore, who had forfeited his life by committing a sin worthy of death, had no blessing in store for him in the sacrificial provisions; therefore my conclusion is true, that the idolater, the blasphemer, the murderer, &c. must die without the benefit of sacrifice. You have in this also relinquished your idea, that all sins of every class, except apostacy, were annually purged from all Israel in the great day of atonement by sacrifice. You will no longer contend, that if the virtue of sacrifice only extended to the purging away of sins of ignorance, or errors, or sins not worthy of death by law, that they could not be typical of the sacrifice of Christ, seeing you admit that sins worthy of death were not by law permitted to be purged with blood. In your own words, "I truly admire your candor in giving up this opinion, as irreconcilable with truth." p. 392.

      But my brother seems to be too precipitate in his conclusion. This is common, and hardly to be avoided when a truth first glares upon the mind. We then are ant to speak unguardedly. This you have done in saying, "When a Jew had forfeited these (temporal blessings) the sacrificial law had no blessing in store for him." Now we [157] know that many of the Jews, by sins of ignorance, errors, and ceremonial defilement, forfeited many temporal blessings, as union with the congregation, the worship of God in the sanctuary, &c. yet they were admitted the privilege of sacrificing for their cleansing, by which the at-one-ment was effected between them and the congregation, and their God.

      Prop. 4. This proposition contains but one idea against which I object. It is this, "That the legal sacrifices, in order to sanctify its subjects, must be accompanied with repentance, and the previous qualifications." This is true with respect to remission of sins, both under the Old and New Testament. But there are many cases in the Old Testament where sacrifice cleansed or sanctified persons, of whom repentance could not be required; as the leper, the man with a running issue, a woman after child birth, and many others.

      Prop. 5. This is admitted, without one exception.

      Prop. 6. You say that "no transgression or sin, even that of ignorance, or of mere ceremonial defilement, however trifling, could, without sacrifice, be forgiven. No repentance, nor amendment of life, without shedding of blood, could obtain remission." In a note appended you say, "David guilty of murder and adultery, was pardoned, and certainly not without sacrifice; for without shedding of blood is no remission."

      My dear brother, we may be too positive in our opinions, even to the contradiction of plain scripture declarations. You have made several declarations in this proposition indefensible by the scriptures, and apparently contrary to them; as you affirm, "that no transgression or sin could, without sacrifice, be forgiven." Do, my brother, read Numbers xiv. 19, 20. Moses prayed for rebellious Israel thus:--"Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people, according to the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people from Egypt until now. And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word." On what grounds was this pardon granted? Not on the ground of sacrifice; but according to the greatness of thy mercy through the means of Moses' prayer. On what grounds were the captivity in Babylon pardoned, when for seventy years they offered no sacrifices, seeing their temple, altar, and city were in ruins? Or will you say there were none pardoned? On what grounds were they pardoned for whom Solomon prayed at the dedication of the temple, 2 Chron. vi? On what grounds were those pardoned who ate of the passover in the days of Hezekiah, not cleansed nor sanctified by sacrifice. "But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary. And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah; and healed the people." 2 Chron. xxv. 19, 20. I ask again, on what grounds were the Ninevites pardoned? I might multiply cases, but one more shall suffice. On what ground was David pardoned for murder and adultery? Not on the ground of sacrifice; for we have agreed that for a Jew who had forfeited his life by committing a sin worthy of death, that the sacrificial law had no blessings in store--and David himself, when confessing these very sins, says, "Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it--certainly implying that he had not given it. Yet my brother asserts, he [158] was pardoned, "and certainly not without sacrifice, for without shedding of blood is no remission." The pardon David received was not legal nor carnal, but spiritual. This we agree was never obtained by legal sacrifices; but David obtained it of the Lord for his name's sake, or for his mercy's sake, as he frequently declares. To these queries you appear to have given but little attention.

      You assert again in this 6th proposition that no ceremonial defilement, however trifling, could, without sacrifice, be forgiven." This is truly the most unguarded expression I ever saw from the pen of my brother Campbell. A man under the law became unclean by touching an unclean person or thing, or even a dead body. Now I ask, was it a sinful act to bury the dead, or to touch even accidentally an unclean person or thing, so sinful that he must repent and offer a sacrifice for forgiveness? In such cases neither repentance nor sacrifice was even required. The law in such cases is, that the person bathe in water and wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening.

      Prop. 7th, and last. "That the legal institution was typical. Its covenant, altar, priests, victims, all were but shadows of good things to come, through a greater and more perfect tabernacle; therefore, faith, repentance, baptism, prayer, and all acts of obedience, without the blood of the new institution, cannot obtain the remission of the least sin in the universe of God."

      This proposition is to me more curious than logical. Had my brother proved that the covenant, altar, priests, victims, were types and shadows of faith, repentance, baptism, prayer, and all acts of obedience under the new institution, your conclusion might have appeared logical. But if this cannot be proved, and it is thought to be impossible, then your conclusion contains more than the premises: in fact, there appears to be no connexion between them. I had thought that we agreed on this point, that the blood of the new institution was the object of faith, and the ground Of repentance, reconciliation, and obedience; and, consequently, of pardon. To talk of faith, repentance, reconciliation, obedience, and pardon, without the blood and resurrection of Christ, is to talk of effects without a cause. With you I certainly believe, that without the blood of the new institution, the remission of the least sin could not be obtained; for the reason already given, because none without that blood could be led to believe in him--none to repent, or be reconciled to God; and therefore none would be pardoned.

      My brother does not seem to bear patiently the idea that I should call his opinion a new doctrine. p. 392. Had you examined the sentence a little more closely you would have found that I did not call it a new doctrine. My words are these: "This, to me, is a new doctrine." There may be a thousand doctrines new to me, yet old and familiar to others, and they may be true. I doubt not there may be some doctrines taught in the world, and even in the Bible, new to yourself. The imputation of new doctrines in this cavilling age, is sufficient to sink the reputation of any man. But what harm is it to discover a new doctrine or truth in the word of God, and make it known to our fellow-creatures? If there is any thing offensive in my words, you have sufficiently retaliated in your reply: for you say, "Yours is indeed a new doctrine." This is positive enough. Let us leave to our readers to [159] determine which doctrine is new or old. My doctrine is, that the law admitted no person worthy of death, or who had forfeited his life by breaking the law, to offer a victim for sin, and so obtain pardon by law. Your doctrine is, that the law admitted sacrifice for all sins of every description but one--the sin of apostacy.

      My doctrine is, that sacrifice was only admitted for sins of ignorance and ceremonial defilement. By sins of ignorance, as by me explained, I included errors, or such sins as by law are not pronounced worthy of death. Your doctrine is, as I understand you, that if sacrifice was only admitted for such sins, it could not be typical of the sacrifice of Christ. This is what appeared to me a new doctrine. I leave this matter sub judice.

      On page 392 you say, "I can sympathize with you in your morbid excitement about certain terms, such as expiation, pacified, propitiation, &c. and can bear with all good feeling your admonition about living up to my maxim about the pure speech and language of Ashdod." You cannot, my brother, sympathize with me; for I do not suffer under such a morbid excitement about certain terms, as expiation, pacified, propitiate, &c.; your &c. implying others not named, as objected to. I object to no Bible terms; I never objected to the terms pacified or propitiation, for these are Bible terms; but to the word expiate I have objected, because it is not once named in the Bible.

      On page 393 you say, "But is expiate an unscriptural term? Open your Cruden's Concordance, and see the opinion of that greatest of verbal interpreters. But does Cruden, or Butterworth, or any other who have made a Concordance of the scriptures, write the word expiate in their catalogue of words, and refer to the texts where it may be found in the Bible? But Cruden uses the word expiate. Yes, and so does he use many of those words you have renounced as the language of Ashdod. Receive the language of these greatest of verbal interpreters, and you must expunge your chapter on the language of Ashdod.

      On page 393 you ask me, "And is atone for an unscriptural phrase? You immediately ask, What is the difference between atone for and to make an atonement for? please explain to me, for I do not appreciate any!" And how does my brother know that I have made any difference between the two phrases? By the help of critics you have come to the conclusion that expiate, atone, propitiate, are scriptural terms, if not found in our English Bibles, yet they are according to the Septuagint, and New Testament Greek. So I conclude, and will thank brother Stone to show me any error in this conclusion." This I view as an entire aberration from the point in hand. But I am glad my brother has made a concession in his remarks on expiation, from which, it is hoped, he will never recede.

      "Hilaskomai," you say, "a word found in the Greek of both Testaments, often in the Old, is, by all good Lexicographers, rendered atone, expiate, propitiate. So Parkhurst, Green, Rob, Schre, &c. &c." This word my brother has found but twice in the New Testament; and in the Old I have found it very seldom, but once as I remember. But its cognate exhilaskomai is of very frequent occurrence in the Old Testament, being generally the Septuagint translation of kaphar, which, in our version, is rendered to make an atonement, or to cleanse. I have [160] said, in the Now Testament hilaskomai is found but twice, and once translated to make reconciliation for iniquity. Heb. ii. 17. According, then, to your criticism, it should be rendered to expiate or purge away sin, and in Luke, xviii. 13. "God, be merciful to me a sinner"--according to your criticism, it should read properly, O! God, make an atonement or purification for me a sinner--that is, purge me from sin. So its cognate hilasmos, 1 John ii. 2., and iv. 10., translated propitiation, means that Christ is he that cleanses from all sins. The text in Ezek. xvi. 63., you by examination will find a mistranslation. "When I am pacified to thee, saith the Lord." You will find the word kaphar there in kal, or active voice, and in the perfect tense. It would then read, 'When I have made all atonement or purification for thee, God is not then the person purified, pacified, or expiated, but defiled Israel. Will any Hebrew scholar deny this?

      On page 394 you ask, "And does my brother Stone teach that the blood of bulls and goats had virtue to expiate sins of ignorance--errors, but no virtue to expiate other sins? From this I do not wholly dissent. I do not believe that all the blood of all the animals on earth were it all poured out at the foot of one altar, could take away one onoeema, one sin of ignorance--one of the errors of the people." In this we are agreed; for I have before stated that it was God himself that took away or pardoned sin, and that the blood of the offerings was the means appointed through which he did it. Our Pedobaptist friends have frequently used your argument against baptism for remission. We do not believe, say they, that all the water in the world can wash away one sin--the least sin. We have simply answered them, that the water, or immersion in it, was only the means by which God remitted sin; yet we hesitate not to say in the language of Peter, that "baptism now saves us." So the Physicalists say to us, when urging the gospel as the power of God to salvation to every one that believeth--O, say they, we do not believe that all the Bibles in the world will save from one sin, the least sin. We reply that God alone is the Saviour; but that he saves through the means of his word believed and obeyed. Now can these people seriously think we are such fools as to believe that the gospel or baptism can save any from sin--from the least sin, independent of God? And does my brother think that I am so ignorant as to believe that the blood of beasts could take away even sins of ignorance or errors? Especially when I have so plainly taught the contrary in this very discussion? I have gone farther than you on this subject; I have said in my last letter, that all the blood of the universe, the blood of Christ not excepted, could not take away our sin--the least sin. His blood was only the means through which God did the work. Yet of the sacrifices of the law, we say with Paul, that they sanctified to the purifying of the flesh; and with John we say, the blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin.

      On page 394 you say, "I do moreover regard the contrast between sins and errors to be purely speculative and imaginative. If I am called upon, I will prove it by a list of quotations, in which those errors are called sins." If to make a difference between presumptuous sins and errors, as I have done, be speculative and imaginative, then have I been misled by Moses himself; for he makes a marked distinction between them in Num. xv. 22-32. Do, my dear brother, [161] read this paragraph again with attention, and you will see cause to retract your Words. Our blessed Lord once said, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures;" but had they known them, their sin must have been presumptuous and wilful. Do we not commonly make a difference in our frequent communications with one another? You yourself say, "On reconsideration you will perceive the error"--i. e. of calling yours a new doctrine. You did not charge me with committing a sin, but of error through ignorance of your meaning. Mark the difference in Psalm xix. 12, 13.

      On page 394, you say, "Might I ask you, my dear sir, to read and consider again Heb. ix. 15. Mark these words: The Mediator Jesus by means of his own death for the redemption of transgressions, not transgressors--not sinners, but sins committed by the called under the first or former Testament." You add that I was "unfortunate in a former allusion to this chapter; but you have said nothing more. I have your judgment of the matter, but you have given us no argument upon which that judgment is formed. Let us read the whole text--"And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions of the first Testament, they that are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."

      Two things are here stated to be accomplished by the death of the Mediator. 1st. The redemption of the transgressions under the first Testament. 2d. That the called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. The first referred to the Jews only, for they only were under the first Testament, Now, how were the transgressors of that first covenant redeemed? You wish me to mark that the Mediator, by the means of his death, did not redeem transgressors--nor sinners, but the transgressions, and sin. Surely my brother does not believe that the death of Christ redeemed transgressions and sins, and not the transgressor, nor sinner. To redeem transgressions, and sins, strictly speaking, is as impossible as to expiate or cleanse sin. To cleanse an object, is to purify it from defilement; but sin is all defilement in itself, and therefore admits of no cleansing. Yet we say to expiate sin; by which is meant, to cleanse the defiled person or thing front sin. So doubtless Paul meant, that the Jews were redeemed from the transgressions of the first Testament.

      But how did the death of Christ redeem the Jews from the transgressions under the first Testament? His death disannulled that Testament: it put away the first, and established the second. By means of his death the priesthood was changed: so of consequence the law--the first husband [the law] then died; then the Jews became dead to the law, that being dead wherein they were held, being nailed to his cross--he was the end of the law in his death, and by it the first covenant waxed old, and vanished away. Christ hath redeemed us (Jews), from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us by hanging on a tree, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, and that we (Jews and Gentiles) might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Gal. iii. 13. By means of death, then, he put an end to the first Testament, or redeemed and delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held. In redeeming from the law, of course he redeemed from the transgressions of the [162] law, for where there is no law there is no transgression. "Mark this, my dear sir." Moreover, by redeeming from the law, of course they were redeemed from the curse, of it.

      The second thing accomplished by the means of his death, is that "the called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." To the Galatians the Apostle speaks in similar language: By means of the death of Christ, the blessing of Abraham came on the Gentiles, and the promise of the Spirit. This is equivalent to receiving an eternal inheritance. I know my brother wishes from this text to establish his opinion, that all the saints, who died before the death of Christ, were pardoned by his blood to be shed in future. To disprove this opinion, I have said enough in a former letter.

      There are a few more items in your third letter, which I design to notice; but for want of room must defer at present. They shall receive due attention from your old brother and fellow-laborer,

B. W. STONE.      

      P. S. I am pleased to find we so cordially agree in the designs of the blood of Christ--had I only added another item, that it was designed to cleanse and purify from sin, you would have admitted that I was entirely correct in all. Now, my dear brother, did you seriously think that I intentionally omitted this, when I had made it the burden of my preceding numbers and letters! How often have I stated the effect of his blood in cleansing, purifying, and sanctifying from sin! Doubtless whatever was effected by his blood, was designed. Of this hereafter,

B. W. S.      

From the Christian Herald.      

      The sufferings and death of the Son of God are every where in the scriptures spoken of, or referred to, as the procuring cause of our salvation. His "BLOOD," the emblem of his agony and death, is said to "cleanse us from all sin," and "without the shedding of blood," we are told, "there is no remission." That the sufferings and death of the Messiah are a sine qua non in the plan of salvation, can be denied by none, who honestly believe the Bible to be the only infallible standard of Christian faith. But there are those who are disposed to undervalue the atoning sacrifice of the Lamb of God. Instead of attributing the pardon of sin and eternal blessedness to the death and mediation of Christ, as the procuring cause, they dilate upon the mercy of God, forgetting the testimony of Jesus when he said, "No man cometh to the Father but by me." They acknowledge that Christ died and rose again; but this death and resurrection are not a sine qua non, absolutely, in the very nature of things, indispensable to the pardon and final salvation of sinners. They say Christ died for us as General Warren died for his country,--that wicked men murdered the Messiah, that he fell a martyr to the truth, and that he deservedly stands at the head of that illustrious troop of martyrs, who have cheerfully, in every age, sealed the truth which they loved and preached, with their blood.--Against this low, Socinian, God-dishonoring view of the sacrificial offering of the Lamb of God, we enter our solemn protest. And the following are some of out many reasons:-- [163]

      1. To represent the death of Christ as only martyrdom, is equivalent to denying that Christ is the Saviour of sinners. If he dies as a murdered victim of the wrath of men--a martyr, and nothing more--then he does not any more than Stephen or any other holy man of God who has died fur the truth, procure by his death and sufferings, our salvation. How, then, is he a Saviour? By his example and teachings only; and this is the sentiment usually entertained by Unitarians. According to this sentiment Christ may be a Saviour, but he cannot be THE SAVIOUR, "the only name given under heaven among men whereby we must be saved." He is a Saviour as the Prophets and Apostles were saviours. They taught the truth, and most of them died for the truth, and they were instrumental of bringing thousands to the knowledge and service of the living God. Is this all that Jesus has done for us? then he stands on a level with good men, if indeed this Socinian notion would not degrade him much below some of the luminaries of the church. If Christ is a Saviour only because he preached the truth and died as its witness, then Paul and Peter far excelled their Lord as saviours; they were longer and more successful in their ministry. They were indefatigable and most successful preachers of righteousness some thirty or forty years; but his ministry could not have been more than three years and a half. They planted many churches and received many thousands of happy converts, but Christ is supposed to have made but a few hundreds, some suppose one hundred and twenty disciples--up to the time of his ascension. They both died happy and willing martyrs to the gospel; and according to the hypothesis of our Socinian Doctors, Christ has done no more. It appears evident, therefore, if Christ is a Saviour only by virtue of his example and teachings, and not by virtue of an atoning sacrifice, that he is not THE SAVIOUR of the world, but only a Saviour, one among a multitude of Saviours. How appalling, may we not say, how blasphemous is this sentiment to the soul of him who loves the Son of God, as the "propitiation--(ilasmos) atonement for our sins, and not ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world?" 1 John ii. 2.

      2. This view of the death of Christ impeaches both the wisdom and goodness of God. In all the works and appointments of Jehovah we behold order and congruity; the best means employed to accomplish the best ends. But if the death of the Holy, Dearly Beloved, and Only Begotten Son of God was not indispensably necessary as an expiatory sacrifice, where is that wisdom which always secures the best ends by the best means? How can wisdom be seen in "sparing not his only Son, but giving him for us all," to die the most agonizing ignominious death? Did the truth need a martyr's blood to attest its heavenly origin and its power to save? Where were the prophets? Many of them had been sawn asunder, had been stoned, and wandered about in sheep's skins and goat's skins, were afflicted and tormented. Would not this answer? Where was John the Baptist? His head had been presented to Herod in a charger. His blood had borne witness to the truth. Behold Stephen, James, Peter, and Paul. These are mortals. They must die, and they are all ready to seal the truth with their blood. Why, then, must Jesus, the immaculate Son of God become "exceeding sorrowful even unto death." It was not necessary to bear witness to the truthfulness of Christianity. There were [164] witnesses enough already. Why, then, does God make such a sacrifice? Why pay such an exorbitant price? Why sacrifice the most precious blood in the universe, if the honor of the divine law can be maintained and souls redeemed without it? And where is the goodness, to say no more of the wisdom of God, in permitting his Dearly Beloved Son, in whom he was always well pleased, to endure so much undeserved and unnecessary sufferings? We are sinning mortals, and deserve to die; but this cannot be said of the Lamb of God. He was holy, harmless, and separate from sinners. He merited not the displeasure of his heavenly Father; and if his Father so far withdrew his divine protection from his Only Son, as to give him up unnecessarily into the hand of a murderous rabble,--if he so far closed his ears to the cries of his Dearly Beloved, as to leave him to be mocked, scourged, buffeted, and crucified, where, heaven and earth ask with distrust and amazement, WHERE IS THE GOODNESS OF GOD? Let such a sentiment as this obtain, and the universe would revolt and withdraw its allegiance from a throne too weak and too indifferent to protect the loyal and innocent.

      3. We object to the Socinian views of the atonement, because the scriptures attribute our salvation to the death and mediation of Christ, but not to the death of any others who have died martyrs. Now if Christ died as a witness to the truth only fell, by the hands of his enemies; if such a death could have any thing worth naming, to do with our reconciliation to God, we should find our salvation referred not to the death of Christ alone, but to all the saints who have sealed the truth with their blood. It is frequently said that the liberties of our country were purchased by the blood of our fathers. General Warren is much distinguished for the part he took in that perilous struggle. But no one thinks of attributing the liberties of his country to the death of Warren. We Speak and think of him only as one among many who suffered or died to deliver their country from the infatuation of Great Britain. But when we come to the Records of our faith we find no one of all the suffering and martyred saints sharing with Christ the honor of redeeming us to God by their blood. The language of the word of God is, "All we, like sheep, have gone astray * * * the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all." * * * "He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows." * * "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed." We are said to be "justified by his blood," and when enemies "we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son," and by his "blood we are said to be cleansed from all sin;" and the redeemed in heaven are represented as ascribing their salvation to the death of Christ. In their choral songs they say, "Thou art worthy to take the book and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, tongue, and people, and nation." Isa. liii. 3-6: Rom. v. 9, 10: Rev. vi. 8.

      4. We protest against the Socinian views of the atonement, because they imply that the death and sufferings of Christ were all inflicted upon him by his enemies, which is not true. This sentiment is not only implied by the hypothesis that the blessed Redeemer died only as a martyr, but it is fully and frequently expressed by those who [165] stumble at the cross. That the enemies of the Saviour laid wicked hands upon him, and were engaged in crucifying him when he made his soul an offering for sin, is true; but that they had power to take away his life, or that they inflicted the mighty aggregate of his sufferings, is not true. Hear the Prophet Isaiah on this point:--

      "It pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief, when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands." Isa. liii. 10. Hear the testimony of the Faithful and True Witness:--"I lay down my life that I might take it again: NO MAN TAKETH IT FROM ME, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." John x. 17, 18.

      Besides, if the death of Christ was wholly inflicted by his enemies, what mean those dreadful agonies in the garden when no mortal was near? There we behold the Lamb of God prostrate on the ground, in deepest mental agony. So intense were his sufferings that he was bathed in a bloody sweat, and exclaimed, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death." This agony, which seems to have been the most dreadful which he ever endured, was not inflicted by the hands of wicked men. To say it arose from the apprehension of the near approach of his murderers, is to charge the holy Jesus with almost deplorable imbecility and cowardice. There is another difficulty here which is worthy of serious consideration. It is this: If the death of Christ was a death inflicted only by his enemies, his sufferings must have been physical. Men can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul. But how was it when the Lord Messiah died? Was his death confined to the body? Hear his dying groans: "My SOUL is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." Matth. xxvi. 38. Mark xiv. 34. "He hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his SOUL an offering for sin." Isa. liii. 10. Here then the soul of Christ is represented as suffering death, being made an "offering for sin." But we cannot see how wicked men could make the SOUL of Christ an "offering for sin."

      5. We will name one more objection to the hypothesis under consideration, and leave this subject for another occasion. It is this: If Christ died only as a martyr, he died the most ingloriously of all Christian martyrs. It is a distinguishing trait in the death of those saints who have fallen by the hand of violence, as witnesses for the truth, that they have been wonderfully, almost miraculously sustained in the dreadful conflict. Read the history of the death of Stephen. How calm! How heroic he falls asleep! He bends his knees in prayer--he sees heaven open; and, wrapt in beatific vision, He prays for his murderers, commends his spirit to Jesus, and falls asleep! Look at the Apostle Paul. He died a martyr at Rome during the reign of Nero. Hear the triumphant notes which he raises, as he nears the scaffold: "I am now ready to be offered; the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished in course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give me in that day; not me only, but all who love his appearing." Look into the book of Martyrs, and see how calm and triumphantly those saints who have fallen by wicked hands, have fallen asleep. With their last breath they have smiled upon their enemies and cried, "Welcome the [166] cross of Christ!" "Welcome eternal life!" But when we contemplate the Redeemer in his death and sufferings, behold what a contrast! He is overpowered with mental agony. Before his enemies approach him, he falls agitated upon the ground, and shrieks out, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death." He sweats, as it were, great drops of blood, falling to the ground, and ejaculates: "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN ME!!

      Why is the Lamb of God agitated? Why so swallowed up in view of death, if that death is only the death of the body? Is Jesus afraid to die? Does he shrink from the prospects of the eternal world? No--blessed be God, he is himself the Resurrection and the Life. The secret of this overwhelming agony is, "HIS SOUL WAS MADE AN OFFERING FOR SIN." Isa. liii. 10. More hereafter.

R.      

[The Millennial Harbinger (April 1841): 156-167.]

FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.

NEW SERIES.

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

      Dear brother Stone--MY absence from home on a laborious tour of two and a half months, has interrupted the consecutive order of my replies, and has placed you on my pages one month in advance of me. The advanced stage of the present number on my arrival at home leaves not sufficient room for a full reply to your Review of my 3d Letter, or your No. VII. While I regret the very immethodical manner in which this correspondence proceeds, and the consequent unintelligibility of much of the matter introduced, I am indeed glad to hear you so fully avow in your postscript to your No. VII. that you did not designedly leave out of the enumeration of the designs and uses of Christ's death, that of taking away sin. I sincerely thought you did so in not including it in your summary. But it seems you thought that in your previous essays it was fully stated. Whether or not may be disputed; but since you now admit that "his blood cleanses, purifies, and sanctifies from sin," and that "whatever was effected by his blood was designed," I gladly place it in your synopsis of the designs of his death. I do assure you again that I rejoice in this avowal, because of the conclusions which many were beginning to draw from the ambiguity thrown over the whole subject of the scripturality of your views on this grand and vital subject, by your omitting it in your enumeration of the designs of Christ's death.

      But it will be asked, What, then, Is this controversy about? What the points in discussion! Is this design of Christ's blood to cleanse from sin, essential to the remission of sin at all? It is essential in some cases only, or in all cases? I do not understand you. I have said, "The sacrificial system was indispensable to any fallen man's approach to God." You oppose this. You say I have not proved it. Well, still you have one door of escape open. Perhaps you intend to say you can prove it, but I have not proved it. True, indeed, I did not allege the evidence you adduce in proof of that proposition. My proof is [234] quite of another sort. It is logically whatever proves the two following theses:--1st. The death of Christ is the sacrificial system perfected in one sacrifice. 2d. That sacrifice is, was, and always will be, indispensable to any fallen man's approach to God. The allusions to Abel, Enoch, Noah, &c. were not relied on as proofs of these theses.

      If any one admit that it is or was necessary in one case, it is indispensable in every case. If God can honorably forgive one sin, and accept one sinner without sacrifice, he can do so in every case. I contend that the whole Bible teaches sacrifice, faith, and repentance as essential to forgiveness. God cannot forgive sin, any sin of any transgressor, without these. If it is proved that it is necessary in any one case, it is necessary in every case; for whatever justifies God in forgiving one sinner, will justify him in forgiving every other sinner. If it be true philosophy that because heat and moisture are essential to the germination of one grain of wheat, they are essential to the germination of every other grain of wheat in the universe; so if the blood of Christ be essential to the remission of one sin, it is necessary to the remission of every other sin. I am not now attempting, nor will I hereafter attempt the proof of any of these propositions, until an issue be formed on some of them. I am specially desirous to be understood on the vital question--the necessity of the blood of Christ to the remission of sins.

      Whether in the way of reprisals, or jocosely, my venerable brother, in referring to my third proposition, has said, "I am glad my brother has at length conceded the point of difference between us; for you say, when a Jew had forfeited these, one of which is temporal life, the sacrificial law had no blessing in store for them." From what motive this is alleged I judge not; I only say, I have conceded nothing in this for which I ever contended--not even the shade of a thought. When a man has forfeited his life under any law, moral, ceremonial, or judicial, that law cannot give him life. But I do not say that a sacrificial system, in prophecy or in history, may not do that for him which that violated law could not do!

      But the circumstances which introduced such concessions (!) give quite a different version to the matter. I am contending against a theory that required blood for the remission of minor offences, and dispensed with it in great offences. That is the naked point divested of all foliage. Brother Stone admits blood and sacrifice for simple errors, but will have the great offences--such as murder and adultery--forgiven without blood or sacrifice! If I mistake you, my dear air, it is a venal sin--a simple error of the head--and I shall be thankful to have a definite proposition or issue from your pen on this subject.--Thou you will comprehend my "candor in giving up an opinion"! [235]

      As I note only the main points, or notice the chief misapprehensions, I hasten to the 6th proposition. I have asserted in one sentence that "no repentance nor amendment of life, without shedding of blood, could obtain remission." This I re-affirm as my full conviction. My brother Stone supposes he has found a few exceptions; but so long as there was, besides the special sacrifices for special occasions, and the various trespass offerings under the law, one annual sacrifice, one great annual sin-offering, for "an EVERLASTING STATUTE to MAKE ATONEMENT for the children of Israel"--FOR, ALL THEIR SINS, once-a-year, it is illogical and inconclusive to cite a hundred or a thousand sins forgiven when this atonement is not mentioned.

      If I prove baptism in one or two instances to have been by authority preceded by faith and repentance, should a Paidobaptist bring up a hundred instances in which neither are noted, I say it is idle and inconclusive. That such has been established once, twice, or three times, is enough in all logic and good sense forever. So I say to my venerated father Stone: When I adduce two such broad and clear authorities as, "Without shedding of blood there is no remission," and "This shall be for an everlasting statute to you [Jews] to make an atonement for all your sins once-a-year"--could you adduce a thousand instances of remission without any allusion to these, you have done nothing at all--nothing more than the ingenious and sophistical Paidobaptist, that tells of Lydia, Cornelius, and Stephanas, with their households, in opposition to a profession of faith and repentance as prior to immersion.

      The most unguarded saying you have ever heard from brother Campbell is, that "NO SIN of ceremonial defilement, however trifling, could, without sacrifice, be forgiven;" but you have made it unguarded, not I, by a new version: you read it, No ceremonial defilement, &c. You make no difference between a sin of ceremonial defilement, and an accidental touch of a dead body! But this is not exactly trifling, though very near to it.

      The radical difference (I begin to suspect) between our views on this point is sketched by yourself in an effort to neutralize my 7th proposition. You say, "Without the blood of the new institution the remission of the least sin could not be obtained, because none without that blood could be led to believe in Christ, to repent, or to be reconciled to God; and therefore none could be pardoned." Then you affirm, if I understand you, that the blood of the new institution is necessary to pardon--only so far as it is necessary to faith and repentance!! This being true, "atonement for sins," "expiation of sins," "reconciliation for iniquity," "purification of sins," "redemption of transgressions," [236] "bearing our iniquities," "becoming a sin-offering for us," "a propitiatory to declare his justice that he might be just in justifying the ungodly," &c. &c. are all phrases without meaning.

      To say that Christ died for our faith, is more consistent and intelligible than to say he died for our sins. He died for our repentance, is more rational than he suffered the just for the unjust. He bare our faith in his own body on the tree, is, therefore, the true version of he bore our sins in his own body, &c. Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the infidelity of the world. The glorified saints then, indeed, should change their language, and sing, 'Thou has redeemed us to God by thy blood, giving faith, and hast washed us from our sins in the laver of faith obtained by thy blood,' &c. I will not, until I hear from you, farther expose the massacre which such an interpretation would necessarily make of a thousand passages of scripture. I trust you will prove that I have misunderstood you, and that this is not your meaning. The minor points of the present epistle will fall in my path in the sequel.

      Sincerely and affectionately yours through the blood, not through the faith only, of the everlasting institution,

A. CAMPBELL.      

[The Millennial Harbinger (May 1841): 234-237.]