In compliance with the solicitations of some friends and brethren, I shall proceed to recite a few particulars respecting Elder Barton W. Stone, deceased, in the /121/ early part of his ministry. In the year 1797, I was a member of the Presbyterian church, or congregation at Caneridge, Bourbon county, Kentucky-- adjoined thereto was the congregation of Concord. Those congregations were at that time vacant, their former pastor having been displaced. They were large and respectable, and were visited by several preachers that were unsettled. Of them, B. W. Stone was most generally approved, and was invited to settle, and employed by those congregations in conjunction, as their preacher. He was young, but his preaching was correct and interesting: and his deportment was amiable, pious, and unassuming; so that he secured the affections and esteem of the people generally. In general, he believed and preached the Presbyterian doctrine, but he was liberal, charitable, and inoffensive. In the year '98, he received a call from those two congregations, to take charge of them as their pastor. He was then a licentiate, and soon after a session of the Presbytery was appointed to be held at Caneridge, when his ordination was expected. He was a Presbyterian, and disposed so to continue, but he possessed an independence of mind and a freedom of thought, which could not be bound. Upon examination he could not receive the Confession without reserve, agreeably to the form therein prescribed. Of this I speak certainly, because near the same time I was chosen as a ruling Elder, and to be ordained also; and we conversed freely on the subject. In general, we believed the doctrine of the Confession, and wished to remain Presbyterians, but we could not, in good conscience, adopt any system as infallible truth, which was formed by uninspired and fallible men. Finally it was so modified, that he did adopt the Confession, so far as he believed it contained the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures. He was a man of research, and endeavored to preach the truth, as he found it in the Bible; but he was sparing of the feelings of others--he seldom made any allusion to, or direct attack on, the sentiments or doctrine of those who differed from him. In his /122/ public preaching, the first deviation from the Calvinistic system which I recollect, was on the subject of faith. He showed that faith was the act of the creature simply believing God's word--that it was the first thing requisite--that it preceded regeneration. Soon after, a good old man, an Elder, mentioned the subject to me. He could not receive it. Faith before regeneration would never do. I had little to say. Stone's preaching appeared to be straight and scriptural, and yet it was in my mind, faith is the gift of God, and wrought in the heart by the Spirit of God. However, I went home, and proceeded to search the Scriptures. I soon lighted on the text--"Born again not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible by the word of God," &c. I perceived at once that the word must be believed in order to produce the effect, consequently faith must precede regeneration. But still I could not see clearly. The idea that faith must come from God- -that it is wrought in the heart by the Spirit, made a puzzle.

Soon after this the great revival commenced in Tennessee and Kentucky. As I expect brother Stone has been particular on this subject in writing his biography, let it suffice for me to say, that I entertain no doubt that it was a glorious work of God. Christians who had been languid and lukewarm were stirred up, and became fervent in spirit, serving the Lord. They abounded in love--they flowed together in one--they united in their prayers and breathings of soul for the salvation of sinners, and many were converted to God. Sectarian names and principles seemed to be forgotten. I admit that some enthusiasm and even fanaticism did prevail. But as respects that, brother Stone was clear. He was faithful, zealous, and spiritual; yet sober and temperate, holding fast the faithful word. Some talked of extraordinary views and spiritual illuminations. I mentioned that matter to Stone. He replied--" I cannot rely on any teaching from God, otherwise than through his word." The preachers and people who were truly engaged in the work, appeared to have no use for their /123/ peculiar creeds; and especially the Calvinistic doctrine of election, &c., could not live in the fire of gospel truth and Christian love. Stone moved steadily along, but not rashly; he preached the gospel to every creature full and free, but for a considerable time did not show the contrast between the Scripture and the Confession of Faith. And when he came out clearly, showing that faith came by hearing the word of God--that it depended on testimony--and that God had given sufficient testimony, he was charged with denying the operations of the Spirit. This was not true. He believed and taught that the gospel was adapted to mankind, in their lost estate--that they were capable of hearing and believing and calling on the name of the Lord, and that God will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him. There were a few members of his congregations who were like the elder son, who was in the field, and never appeared to partake of the spirit of the revival. But the main body of his people gladly received his word, and rejoiced in the glorious liberty of the gospel of Christ. It appeared that some were truly his enemies; but "they hated him without a cause." His doctrine they might think was evil, but as to his Christian character and conduct, they could have no evil thing to say of him. "A bishop must be blameless." This indispensable trait of character he did possess; his enemies themselves being judges. He was a man, and liable to err; but he was honest. In proof of this I will state one fact. After his settlement in Caneridge, he visited his friends in Virginia. He brought from thence two negroes, which I understood he obtained by inheritance, and could have had money in lieu of them; but philanthropy and good conscience were more to him than gold; therefore he brought them to Kentucky, broke the yoke, and set them free.

It is unnecessary for me to detail particulars respecting the separation from the Synod of Kentucky. Those preachers who became separate, namely, Marshall, M'Nemar, Dunlavy, Thompson and Stone, having constituted /124/ as a Presbytery, received me forthwith, and set me forward as a fellow-laborer with them. The congregations of Caneridge and Concord were declared vacant by order of the Synod; but the main body of the people adhered to Stone, and desired him to continue as their pastor. Soon afterwards he proposed to them to receive me as a co-partner and fellow-laborer with him; to which they agreed, which is another proof that he was not actuated by worldly interest, and the love of pre-eminence. From that time till the year 1807, when I removed from Kentucky to Ohio, we lived and labored together in perfect harmony and brotherly love. His manner and talent and mine, were somewhat different. He would preach the word and substantiate the truth, but seldom directly attack the opposite error. When error appeared to stand in my way, I was inclined to expose it; and upon a review, I think I was sometimes faulty in not being as tender of feelings as I ought to have been. At least I was not as much so as I am now in my old age.

Stone and I once attended a meeting of days together near Lexington. On Saturday I preached; I took for my text, Acts x. 34.--"Then Peter opened his mouth and said, I perceive of a truth that God is no respecter of persons." In the discussion of the subject, I handled Calvinism without gloves. Next morning Stone told me, that he thought my preaching yesterday was too hard; (said he) I met a certain woman after meeting, who said she would go home--she would not stand such preaching. After we had left the meeting, I said to him, that I would not repent for that sermon, for it was the truth, and I believed the Lord helped me. Well, said he, I suppose it was right, for that woman could not stay away; I saw her back again. More than a year afterwards, the woman met me at another big meeting. She reminded me of that sermon, and said she never got over it till she gave up Calvinism. Severity is sometimes needful. Saul spared Agag, but good old Samuel hewed him to pieces. For sometime /125/ after the separation we believed in the Calvinistic plan of Atonement; we only differed as to its extent. Calvinists hold that Christ, as surety for an elect number, satisfied all the demands of the law, and that they all (and not one more) must certainly be saved. We held that he satisfied law and justice in the room and stead of all men. They argued that if the debt was paid for all, Universalism must be true. We answered that unbelief, or the rejection of the proffered salvation, was the condemnation. They argued that if Christ died for all sins, of all men, unbelief must be atoned for as truly as other sins. Finally, we were led to question and examine the doctrine of vicarious suffering. When the subject was first talked of among us, Stone appeared to be slow and cautious. He felt the weight and importance of it, and being a man of deep study and research, he outwent the rest of us.

The first sermon he preached clearly on the plan of free grace, without payment, was at a big meeting at Concord. He preached from Rev. v. 9.--"THOU ART WORTHY:----Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood." He showed that sinners were alienated and lost from God. That God loved them and sent his Son to redeem from sin, from death, in one word, from all evils, and bring them home to God in heaven. To me it was as clear and vivifying as the morning sun; and the people appeared to be universally delighted with the discourse. I was glad to see them pleased; but thought few of them perceived that the doctrine would up-root their scheme of vicarious sufferings, for he said nothing directly on that point. We all continued rather on that reserve, until Stone's letters on the Atonement were published in the year 1805. On that doctrine he has been tried as with fire, and I thank God that he has been sustained through it. I have read his writings on the Atonement, and also those on the opposite side, and my deliberate belief is, that his arguments have never been refuted or fairly answered. He has been assailed with reproachful epithets, and his doctrine /126/ misrepresented; but it stands and lives, while his body sleeps in the ground.

Early in the year 1805, I went to North Carolina, and was absent from home nearly two months. During that time the Shakers from New York came into our settlement. Before I came home, they were gone to Ohio. I found our people in a commotion; some of my best friends and brethren were much shaken. They represented those Shakers as a very sanctified people; filled with wisdom and godliness. Others believed they were imposters, and were warm in opposition to them. I hastened to see Stone. They had been at his house; he had examined them calmly and deliberately; he said they spoke with great confidence--that they were insidious and artful, but he was confirmed they were imposters. He said many people had the notion that they were possessed of superior wisdom and talent, and that we could not compete with them. But, said he, we must not be afraid of them--we can confute them. They came among us several times afterwards, but Stone was firm, and had fortified me. We withstood them to the face. Some complained that they were not building on the sure foundation, we were decisive in our testimony against them, both in word and deed. And the churches there sustained very little injury from them.

The case was different in Ohio. Two of our preachers, viz: Richard M'Nemar and J. Dunlavy, were carried off by those seducing spirits, and their congregations much injured. The shock was severe, and our adversaries seemed to expect our entire overthrow. But some good resulted to us from the disaster. M'Nemar and some others had become somewhat wild and fantastic; their hearts were puffed up before they were caught in the Shaker snare. We took warning to watch and pray, and cleave the Holy Scriptures; realizing that Jesus was our king and law-giver, and that trusting in him and abiding in his doctrine, his church could not sink.

/127/ In the midst of our trial with Shakerism, some of us became convinced that infant baptism was not taught in the Bible. We had so many trials and so much opposition to encounter, that we were cautious in speaking on the subject. With some confidential brethren we conversed privately, and found that there was a diversity of sentiment among us. John Thompson, who was a leading and very influential preacher, was a strenuous advocate for infant baptism. Many others believed with him. However, we rested quietly till in the year 1807, a young woman, who professed faith in Christ and joined the church, applied to Stone for immersion. In pursuance of which he published a meeting at a certain water on a day future. At the time and place appointed, a large congregation assembled. Reuben Dooley preached, and afterwards Stone immersed the young woman, and one or two more. I had not a thought of being baptized on that day when I went to the place; but during the exercises of the day I realized that it is a command of God, and I am bound to obey. I called Stone and Dooley aside, and made known my mind to them, and asked Stone to baptize me; to which he consented. I remarked to them that the way of duty appeared plain, but I was sorry to hurt the feelings of the brethren. Dooley said the best way to please brethren is to please the Lord. I then addressed the congregation publicly. It was the first time the subject had been publicly named amongst us. We went to the water: before we went in, Dooley said to me quietly, as soon as you are baptized, I shall want you to put me under the water. Accordingly, as soon as I was on my feet, Dooley came forward, and a number more followed, whom I baptized before I came up out of the water. Stone was not baptized on that day. None of us urged the matter. We exhorted the people to search the Scriptures, and act according to their faith, and to forbear one another in love. And, in general, peace and harmony continued to prevail. Stone studied the peace of the church; and his character for candor and /128/ honesty was so well established, that by pursuing a prudent course, he preserved the people in the unity of the Spirit, and retained their confidence. In some churches there was opposition, and some prejudice appeared.

In the month of September, 1807, I emigrated from Kentucky to Ohio. John Thompson was the leading preacher in Ohio, and though he was adverse to immersion, he and I associated and labored together. I had full confidence in him, and no suspicion that he was in the least degree disaffected. But from a review of certain occurrences, I now think that from the time some of us were immersed, Thompson and some others began to look back. The first point of much importance he mentioned to me was, in speaking of the Atonement, he said he thought we had been wrong on that subject. I had so much confidence in his wisdom and goodness, that I was ready and anxious to hear all he had to say on the subject. I found afterwards, that he and Robert Marshall were working together on that subject, and by their influence the main body of the preachers were shaken.

And had it not been that Stone remained firm and unmoved, and was able to maintain and defend the truth, the consequence must have been disastrous. I became much embarrassed. I was led to think there was something penal pertaining to the sufferings and death of Christ. But there were objections to the doctrine of vicarious sufferings which I could not get removed. For instance: If Christ bore the full penalty, in the room and stead of Adam and his posterity, why did Adam suffer death, and why must we all die? If full satisfaction was rendered, the debt fully paid, what room remains for forgiveness? Jesus says, Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, &c. He never speaks of bearing the wrath of God. Other objections I might mention, but I desist. However, I was earnestly engaged to find the truth, and after months of labor came out decidedly with Stone, and more confirmed and established than I had ever been /129/ before. I had uniformly looked to Thompson as my superior, and paid great deference to his judgment; but I learned that I must call no man master. Marshall and Stone were the oldest and leading preachers in Kentucky; Thompson and I, in Ohio:--and of necessity, I must withstand him to the face. I appeared to be set for the defence of the gospel; and the Lord being my helper, I found the task not difficult. The yoke was easy. I still respected and loved Thompson, but after he drew back, his locks were shorn--his influence was small.

Thompson once said to me, that we had become so diversified, we had better dissolve and join the different sects, as we could be best suited. And I have no doubt that the aim of Marshall and Thompson was to abolish the Christian Church (so called.) And it was a happy circumstance that Stone and I had become separated, he in Kentucky, to defend the truth and guard the church against Marshall's influence; and I to do the best I could in Ohio. Upon the whole, they effected but little. Barton W. Stone has been much reproached for the name of Christ, but I have no doubt that he is happy, having entered into the joy of his Lord. It is known that difficulties have existed, and some divisions have taken place in the church, in the latter part of his life; but I verily believe if all the preachers had been endued with as much of the wisdom that cometh from above as he possessed, a separation could not have been made. I have differed from him on some points, but while I have a spark of true religion, I cannot be separated in heart, from as good a man as Barton W. Stone.

June 5th, 1845.

DAVID PURVIANCE.