Thomas Campbell's Letters to Barton W. Stone:
• Letter No. 1. Millennial Harbinger 4 (August 1833): 421-425.
• Letter No. 2, "To Barton W. Stone." Millennial Harbinger 4 (September 1833): 439-445.
• Letter No. 3, "To B. W. Stone." Millennial Harbinger 4 (October 1833): 503-509.
• Letter No. 4, "To B. W. Stone." Millennial Harbinger 4 (November 1833): 548-503.
• Letter No. 5, "To B. W. Stone." Millennial Harbinger 4 (December 1833): 594-598.

Related Texts:
• Thomas Campbell's "Worcester on the Atonement," Letter to William Z. Thompson. Millennial Harbinger 4 (June 1833): 256-262.
• Barton W. Stone's "To Elder Thomas Campbell, Senr." The Christian Messenger 7 (July 1833): 204-210.
• Barton W. Stone's "No. II. To Elder Thomas Cambell." The Christian Messenger 7 (August 1833): 225-230.
• Barton W. Stone's "An Apology." The Christian Messenger 7 (October 1833): 293-294.

BETHANY, Brooke co. Va. August 6, 1833.      

BARTON W. STONE:

      Respected Brother--I AM sorry to find that you disapprove of my remarks upon N. W----'s view of the Atonement. That I did not acquit myself better, you impute to a deficiency in my commencement as a reformer. You say: "You appear, when you entered on reformation, to have had your eye so fixed on a few prominent principles, that you had not time to examine some doctrines that you had before received as truth; and, therefore, have brought them along with you from that vortex in which you had been tossed for years." I must confess myself quite at a loss to perceive how you came to this conclusion from my letter to brother Thompson; and sure I am, had you seen and considered our Declaration and Address published in Washington Pa. 1809, you could not suppose, as you have done, that I "had my eye so fixed upon a few prominent principles, that I had not time to examine some doctrines I had before received as truth," &c. To have acted thus in a matter of such vast importance--of such sacred responsibility, would be highly censurable, indeed. This document, however, is still public property; and to it I can, and do appeal with pleasure, as an insuperable defence against all misrepresentations of the Reformation, for which we constantly and earnestly plead. From this it will appear, that not "a few prominent principles," but a complete scriptural reformation, is urged and defined; having for its specified object, "to inculcate and reduce to practice, that simple original form of Christianity, expressly exhibited on the sacred page; without attempting to inculcate any thing of human authority, of private opinion, or inventions of men, as having any place in the constitution, faith, or worship of the Christian church;--or any thing as matter of Christian faith or duty, for which there cannot be expressly produced a 'Thus saith the Lord,' either in express terms, or by approved precedent." See the said Declaration, page 4. And now, after twenty-four year's opportunity afforded the public to examine the above document, and our practice upon it, we are happy to find none so hardened as to attempt to prove that the proposed reformation is objectionable; nor yet so much as one that has attempted to prove, that we have in any instance departed from it. Moreover, it will appear by the examination of said document, that, instead of bringing with us some doctrines that we had not time to examine, we brought no doctrines with us at all into the area of the proposed Reformation; but, instead of so doing, we assumed the proposition above [421] quoted, as our platform--our fixed dimensions, inclusive and exclusive. So much to prevent and correct mistakes.

      I now proceed to notice the confessed subject of your sorrowful regret on my behalf. You kindly say: "I am sorry to find my old brother, who has so zealously and successfully plead for reformation on Bible facts alone, now attaching so much importance to his opinion of the sacrifice of Christ;--so much, that you believe it impossible, that any of our race can be saved without the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, as you have explained it; for this must be your meaning." Dear brother, when you speak of Bible facts, do you not consider the "sacrifice of the Lamb of God" the chief? and have you no opinion about it? and do you not attach much importance to it? even so much "that none of our race can be saved without it, as you have explained it? for this must be your meaning."--See p. 208.--"Had he not died, then the plan of infinite wisdom for the redemption of man, would have been prostrated; the prophecies respecting his death would have failed; his own predictions of his death and resurrection would have been nullified; and the world's last and best hope forever cut off." So be it, say I. And what have I said, more than this? I have only said, in the conclusion of my letter, "that, believing as I do, that it was not possible, that any one of our race could be saved without the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, I must hold every attempt to explain it away into a mere moral example, or display of love without regard to justice, as tending to subvert the basis of the divine government, and to rob the gospel of all that glorifies the wisdom and power, the justice and mercy of God in putting away sin, and in saving the sinner." It is not, then, the degree of importance that my opinion attaches to the death of Christ, either as it respects the glory of God, or the salvation of man, in which we differ; but about the express scriptural reasons of its vast importance. And here, dear brother, permit me to express, in my turn, my sincere regret, that having lifted up your voice for a pure scriptural reformation, predicated upon the Bible alone, you should ever have been led off that divine platform into the arena of sectarian controversies. But what is past cannot be recalled: and had you not anticipated me in the expression of your kind concern for my inconsistencies, you would, no doubt, think yourself justly entitled to return the compliment, having found me engaged in criticising N. W----. However, in this, I hope I have not transgressed the prescribed bounds; for while we are divinely prohibited from teaching as doctrines the commandments and opinions of men, we are commanded to contend earnestly for the faith formerly delivered to the saints: and this is all I have attempted, or intended, in the letter under consideration; namely, to state and maintain the Scripture account of the cause, nature, design, and effects of the death of Christ, as expressly declared in the Holy Scriptures, in opposition to the false and imposing statements of N. W----.

      But before I proceed to notice your remarks on my humble efforts, I should give you credit for the honor you have done me, notwithstanding all my palpable deficiencies, in classing me with good men [422] in all ages; for you say--"Good men in all ages have done what you have done." For instance: "The Council of Nice denied salvation to all who rejected their unintelligible jargon--Luther and Calvin did the same in fact; and every sectarian establishment proceeds on the same principles." I thank you for the compliment; but cannot receive it, as you have explained it; for while I have no doubt but that good men in all ages, either implicitly or explicitly, ascribed their salvation to the blood of the Lamb; (See Rev. i. 5, 6, and v. 8-14.) yet I cannot admit that good men in any age denied salvation to all who rejected their unintelligible jargon.

      But why all this preamble of controversial subtlety--this superfluity of polemic finesse? How does it at all apply either to the party or the subject? Is it the avowed principle of the "Old Reformer" to make any human opinion a term of communion, much less of salvation? or are the scripture declarations he has cited respecting the cause, nature, design and effects of the death of Christ, unintelligible jargon!!! We hope not. Why then this unmeaning, gratuitous preamble? Gentle reader, it has a meaning; it means to prepare you for what is to follow, by forewarning you of the character of the author and of his performance, which your courteous and faithful polemic guide is about to expose and condemn, that you may be the better prepared to hear with a prejudiced partiality, and so with him to concur, and enjoy the victory. But, dear brother, you will pardon me, if I have given you credit for more than you intended. I do not pretend to, insist, that in these prefatory addresses you were actuated by evil motives; especially as you inform me that you write not as a controversialist, but as a lover of truth. Yet, after all, what use in these hard charges? Were they all true, they would neither prove nor disprove a single point that may be at issue between us. They can have no meaning nor leaning but to the prejudice both of mind and character. Wherefore, if we have happily made our escape from the arena of vain janglings, and strifes of words, into the sacred and peaceful enclosure of the holy Apostles and Prophets, let us leave behind us the weapons of that unprofitable and pernicious warfare,--imbibe the spirit, and adopt the phrase, of our divine instructors; that, practising and speaking the truth in love, we may be conformed to them in all things, and thus adorn our holy profession. But to proceed to your animadversions upon my letter.--

      You seem to blame me for not admitting the whole of N. W's proposition respecting the sufferings of Christ; viz. that "in the sacrifice of Christ there was a display of love, not of wrath." The affirmative clause of this proposition I heartily admit; the negative I refuse; and to meet the argument adduced to support it, namely, that "if God has no pleasure in the death and sufferings of the wicked, he surely could have none in the sufferings of his Son," I quote Isaiah liii. 10. "It pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief." To this quotation you take exception, as if it were not to be understood literally, or did not mean what it says; yet after a variety of attempts to establish your hypothesis, you come in the close of the investigation to concede all that the said text was quoted to prove; namely, that "for love to the world Jehovah chose his Son to be their Saviour. He inclined to humble him by being born of a woman; suffering the hatred and persecution of the world; enduring the [423] agonies of death; in being buried, and continuing three days under the power of death. He hath caused him to travail in pain, as a woman in parturition. Such were the sorrows of Immanuel on account of the sins of the world." This is conceding all, and more than was intended in the quotation; yes, and much more than the text alone would prove or was intended to convey; for, as appears from the immediate connexion, it is particularly restricted to his crucifixion. Nor does it appear from your appeal to the original that Jehovah was less efficient in the sufferings of his Son; for, according to it, he inclined to humble him; he caused him to travail in pain; yet, strange as it may appear, after your translation and comment, you tell us once and again, that "God had no direct nor indirect agency in the death of his Son." How can this be? Can a person be acquitted of any agency, direct or indirect, in an event which he inclined, and actually caused to come to pass, because he was not the actual and immediate efficient in its accomplishment? If, so, then David, and Joab his chief captain, had no hand, either direct or indirect, in the death of Uriah; because they neither killed him themselves, nor put it into the hearts of those that did it. Neither had God any hand, direct or indirect, in chastising and humbling his people by the agency of the Assyrian monarch, because he acted freely in doing so, without any respect to the divine intention; for he neither meant to do the thing that God intended, nor so much as thought of it; yet God expressly declares himself the author of the calamities which that tyrant inflicted, and that he was but the instrument in his hand; saying, "O, Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation." See Isaiah x. 5, 6, &c. And here, let it be noted once for all, that this same principle of the divine government, most explicitly avowed and explained in the 10th chapter of Isaiah, will obviate all the supposed difficulties, and afford a key for the just and consistent interpretation of all the texts quoted in the first section of your letter, against the literal interpretation of Isaiah liii. 10. And not only so, but this same avowed principle of the divine government will also solve the apparent difficulty of admitting the literal meaning of certain passages of holy scripture which seem to ascribe the efficiency of moral evil to God; such as the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, (Ex. iv. 21.)--the hearts of the Egyptians, (Ex. xiv. 7.)--blinding the eyes and hardening the hearts of the Jews to their destruction, (Isaiah vi. 10. John xii. 40.)--deceiving the prophets, (Ez. xiv. 9)--deceiving the people, (Jer. iv. 10. Ez. xiv. 4, 5.)--giving them bad statutes and judgments by which they could not live, (Ez. xx. 25, 26.)--sending them strong delusions that they may believe a lie, that they all may be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness, (2 Thess. ii . 11.) The infliction of all these evils, which, in relation to the persons affected, we are wont to call moral evils, the Scriptures ascribe to God; as well as the infliction of all physical evils, (Amos iii. 6. Isai. xlv. 7.) and all on account of sin; for God sometimes punishes sin with sin. See Hosea viii. Rom. ii. 24, 26. 2 Thess. ii. 11. and this of all punishments is the most dreadful. What shall we, then, say to these things? Is there unrighteousness with God?" By no means; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man; but every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed. Jos. i. 13, 14. Hence we see that God neither is, nor can be, the author of moral evil, inasmuch as he neither does nor can instill, suggest, or excite evil dispositions or desires, but only makes use of one sinner to bring about the punishment or destruction of another in this way, as in the case of David and Ahab. The former we are told the Lord moved to number Israel and Judah, because his anger was kindled against them. 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. But we learn that he was provoked to do this by the agency of Satan. 1 Chron. xxi. 1. In the case of the latter, we have the whole of the divine procedure narrated in the same page. See 1 Kings xxii. 16-23. I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him, on his right hand and on his left. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that be may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I [424] will persuade him. And the Lord said to him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also; go forth, and do so. Now, therefore, behold the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." Now this explains the whole mystery of the divine management in the use of evil agents for accomplishing the just and holy purposes of his moral government: and thus is verified that saying, "The Lord has made all for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Prov. xvi. 4. The deceived and the deceiver are his. Job xii. 16. He frequently makes use of the one to punish the other: and whenever a people through wickedness are ripe for an evil day, the Lord has in readiness wicked agents to inflict the deserved punishment; and, like the Assyrian monarch, and the lying spirit, only wait for permission. Nor can we think so meanly of the Governor of the Universe, as to suppose than any can act, or that any thing can be done under his government, without his permission; much less that he should permit any thing to be done against his will, whose sole prerogative it is to do whatsoever pleases him in the armies of heaven, and amongst the inhabitants of the earth; especially, and least of all, that any thing should have befallen his beloved Son but according to his determinate counsel and previous approbation. "For of a truth, against his holy Son Jesus, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, to do whatsoever his hand and his counsel determined before to be done. See Acts iv. 27, 28.

      These things duly considered, what comes of your few appalling questions? of your allegation against my quotations, as if meant to prove that God himself killed his Son? Have I any where said so?--except in quoting the words of Zech. xiii. 7. which immediately follow?--"Awake, O sword! against my Shepherd," &c. But do you not know that wicked men are the Lord's sword? Psal. xvii. 13. "Arise, O Lord! deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword." This is in complete accordance with the key furnished in Isai. x. 5, 6. &c. "O, Assyrian, the rod of mine anger," &c. Your objection to the above quotation as inapplicable, because it is said, "I will turn my hand on the little ones," is of no force; for if this clause means the subsequent persecutions of the disciples by the same wicked hands that crucified their Master, it only goes to show that it was a part of the divine plan, that the disciple should be as his Master, and that these same wicked who were the Lord's hand (Psal. xvii. 14.) in inflicting punishment upon his beloved Son, should be permitted to afflict his followers, though not for the same purpose on God's part, yet with the same disposition on theirs.

THOMAS CAMPBELL.      

[Millennial Harbinger (August 1833): 421-425.]

BETHANY, Brooke County, Va.      

Respected Brother,

      IN my strictures upon your notice of my remarks on N. W's book on the atonement, published in the preceding number, which I intended as a reply to the first, second, third, and fourth items of your letter--my intention was to meet your objections, and obviate your supposed difficulties, not by a formal reply to each of them; but by adducing certain revealed principles of the divine government which go to obviate them all; hoping that I have succeeded to the satisfaction of all concerned, I now proceed to what remains.

      In your 5th item, elicited by my quotation of Heb. ix. 22. and x. 4. you grant "that the blood of Christ does effect the remission of sin, is an undoubted truth. But how? is the question." I answer, By its redeeming efficacy. Rev. v. 9. "Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood." "Forasmuch as you know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation, received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. You ask again, "Does the blood of Christ remove legal obstructions, existing between the forgiveness of God and the guilty?" I answer, Yes. "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; as it is written, Cursed is every one that [439] hangeth on a tree." Gal. iii. 13. The curse of the law, justly denounced against every one that continued not in all things written in the book of the law to do them, was a legal obstruction to the enjoyment of the divine forgiveness, till it was taken out of the way; but this the death of' Christ has accomplished; for "he has put away sin by the sacrifice of himself;" and is, therefore, become the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes in him, whether Jew or Greek; for all the world is guilty before God; consequently there is but one way of justification, or acquittal for any; that is, by faith in his blood. "Justified by faith in his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." See Rom. v. 8, 9. with Heb. ix. 26. Rom. x. 4. and iii, 19-31. But you deny that sin is a legal obstruction to the enjoyment of the divine forgiveness, because that sinners are the only subjects of forgiveness. According to this, sinners have nothing to fear; for forgiveness is an essential attribute of divinity, "an eternal perfection of the divine nature," and therefore must necessarily be exercised; and sinners being the only qualified subjects, it can be exercised upon none else; consequently, sinners have nothing to fear; no, not one of them; for God is no respecter of persons--there is no partiality with him; also, the greater the sinner, the greater the forgiveness; and, of course, the greater the glory of the forgiver; for surely if the forgiveness of a small injury, of a small debt, be a display of kindness, of generosity, of liberality, of compassion, or of any perfection, the forgiveness of one ten thousand times greater must be a display of that perfection, greater in the exact proportion of 10,000 to 1. for we know both by reason and experience that the gratification and glory of any perfection is in exact proportion to the exercise and display of it. Yet, after all, you seem to grant that there may be a legal obstruction. "Not, indeed, the truth of God's word," but his justice may stand in the way of forgiveness, and that not on account of the intrinsic evil and illegality of sin, but merely on account of the disposition of the sinner; for you say, "If the subject be an impenitent sinner, every perfection in God, as well as justice, would oppose his forgiveness." Consequently, if penitent, no perfection in God would oppose his forgiveness; neither wisdom, goodness, justice, truth, nor holiness. Though we learn from his holy word, that all these glorious attributes are opposed to sin, and that three of them, especially, are glorified in the punishment of it: namely, justice, truth, and holiness; and wisdom in the invention of the deliverance--"I have found a ransom." Hence Christ crucified is styled the wisdom, as well as the power of God to salvation, to every one that believes. Now if, as you say, nothing on the, part of God stands in the way of the forgiveness of the penitent sinner, what is the use of the gospel dispensation--of the Christian religion? Were there no penitents, no forgiveness for the 4000 years previous to the gospel? And if there were, what was wanting either to the glory of God or to the salvation of sinners? What need of the gospel--that is, of Christ, and him crucified? for this was Paul's gospel. [440]

      But to return to your second and third answers under consideration; I would ask, have the justice and truth of God nothing to do directly and immediately with the transgression of his law, irrespective of the after-thought, or postfactum disposition of the transgressor? Is not his authority rejected, his justice violated, his truth challenged, his holiness insulted, his wisdom and goodness impugned, whatever may be the subsequent disposition or conduct of the malefactor? And has wisdom and goodness, justice, truth, and holiness nothing to do with all this? Surely, if God's law is holy, just, and good; if eternal righteousness is in all his testimonies, and his law is the truth; then must all his moral excellencies be naturally and necessarily enlisted and pledged to vindicate and defend it. It is a physical axiom, that "every thing acts as it is;" that is, according to its nature. From this rule there can be no exception, as long as any thing, justly called nature, is to be found in the universe. It is upon the certainty of this fundamental truth and the perfection of the divine nature, that we predicate the immutability of God. If, therefore, his law may be broken with impunity, that is, without the infliction of a just recompense of reward; then, either the above scripture attributes of the law, or of the lawgiver, are false; or, the above axiom is not true. Here is a trilemma. The objector may adopt what side he please. From this triple choice he has but one conceivable alternative; namely, to assert that the divine law has no penalty but for the impenitent transgressor. But this would do away forgiveness altogether; for such a law would equally justify the obedient subject, and the penitent transgressor. And this, indeed, is that milder evangelic law, which many contend for, who deny the real divinity, and legal substitution of Jesus Christ. In the mean time, I am sorry to see, that this supposed modification of law is, indeed, the alternative you seem disposed to adopt: for finding fault with the supplement "guilty," in the king's translation, (Exod. xxxiv. 7.) you supply the term "impenitent;" and in the sequel admitting Christ's substitution for argument sake, you come to the same conclusion respecting forgiveness that I have done, and must do, by admitting your supplement "impenitent;" namely, that by so doing, there could be no forgiveness at all. But, with what force of argument have you come to this conclusion? Why--If they were cleared from their debts by a surety paying them for them, then they ceased to be subjects of forgiveness, for they had nothing to be forgiven, &c. This we grant would be true in matters of a pecuniary nature, amongst fellow-creatures, under a law recognizing this principle, and who, except by voluntary compact, were mutually independent of each other in these matters: but this is by no means the case between God and his guilty creatures; for they are, first, his absolute property; they owe themselves and all they have to him; absolute unbounded subjection to his will is their indispensable duty; his law recognizes this, consequently makes no provision for any alternative in case of failure, but the absolute endurance of the threatened punishment: therefore, in case of transgression, they have nothing else to expect, having nothing left that is not forfeited--nothing [441] to offer by way of reparation; wherefore they lie absolutely at the divine mercy. But there are also the divine justice, truth, and holiness to be maintained and displayed as well as mercy, if mercy be exercised. To maintain truth the sentence of the law must be executed; to exercise justice, the execution of the sentence must be apportioned to the demerit of the crime; to the display of holiness, the divine aversion to moral turpitude must also be adequately manifested. Now God himself, of his own free love, having or made ample provision for all this, in and by the mediation of his own Son, independent of every creature, freely and graciously exhibits and confers his pardons for Christ's sake, and through him;--whom he has set forth, a propitiatory, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God--to declare at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus. Thus we see God has glorified his justice as well as his mercy in the salvation of sinners by the blood of his son; by whose obedience to death, even the death of the cross, he has magnified his law and made it honorable; thus evincing to the whole creation the infinite evil of sin, and also his infinite justice in suffering no instance of disobedience to pass without the infliction of a just recompense of reward. So that the Apostle finds himself authorized, upon the exhibition of this awfully glorious demonstration, to challenge the whole creation; saying, "Do we then make void the law through faith? By no means; but we establish the law." How? By pardoning the penitent? If so, the forgiveness of such must be a part of the law,--it must be law: consequently, the penal clause must read thus;--"Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them, except he repent." If this were the case, not to pardon the penitent would be a violation of the law--to pardon him would be to establish it. Nay, there would be, properly, no pardon in the case; the requirement of the law being fulfilled, the penitent would be justified by the law and not by special favor--not by grace, contrary to the express testimony of the Scripture. And who would willingly commit himself to the protection of such a law! Where would be his safety for life, character, or property? Blessed be God, there is no such law, either in heaven or hell!

      But my respected friend and brother seems difficulted with King James' supplement, Exod. xxxiv. 7. "the guilty," in place of which he would supply "the impenitent:" but as supplements are in a great measure arbitrary, making no part of the text, we are at liberty to reject them, and ought to do so, where they seem to involve insuperable difficulties, as in the present case. In this way the text will read, "The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth; keeping mercy for thousands,--forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin; and that will by no means clear;--visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children to the third and fourth." In the second commandment we have the definitive adjunct--"of them that hate [442] me." Now according to the grammatical structure of this long complex sentence, it may, and ought to be pointed as above; by which it is divided into three grand clauses, the second and third of which are divided by a dash (--) into antecedent and consequent; the antecedent expressing what the Lord will do with his people; the consequent showing how he would do it--the latter being explanatory of the former. Thus the Lord would "keep mercy for thousands--by forgiving their iniquity, transgression, and sin;" "and that he would by no means clear;" (that is, absolve or acquit,) which he would do by visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children to the third and fourth [generation] of them that hated him." Understanding the passage thus, your first difficulty vanishes. Your second, respecting the phrase, "by no means," affects not the present argument, and is the result of laying an undue stress upon the form of the, expression, which is equivalent to 'not at all'--expressing a strong negation, without any respect to "means," as you may see by consulting the original;--literally, "And that acquitting does not acquit," a Hebraism like that, Genesis ii. 17. "dying, thou shalt die." Upon the whole, the Lord, in this glorious declaration of his great name, gives his people to understand that, notwithstanding he is merciful and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping covenant and mercy for thousands--forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin: yet he would by no means suffer sin to pass with impunity--that those who rejected covenanted mercy, that is, remission through blood, he would account and treat as enemies from generation to generation. We know the event has proved this interpretation true; therefore we are sure we have not mistaken the Lord's meaning. Facts are, the infallible expositors of divine predictions, promises, and threatenings.

      Again, dear brother, while I agree with you, that "we must repent or perish;" that "to the impenitent neither the life, the death, the blood, the intercession, the word of Christ, nor any other means, can ever effect remission of sins;" yet I can neither agree with you nor N. W. that "these means, just stated, can avail us nothing farther than to lead us to repentance;" for, as I have already shown, there was acceptable repentance in the world four thousand years before those means were exhibited: nor do I, in so saying, "condemn the doctrine of the moral influence of the blood of the Saviour," nor of any of the means above stated. I only assert that they avail us something farther than merely to lead us to repentance; the blood of Christ leads us to justification through faith in it. Rom. iii. 24, 25. without which repentance could avail us nothing. Then comes adoption through the same channel. Gal. iv. 4. and iii. 26. Then the spirit of adoption. Gal. iv. 6. Then sanctification by the same means. Heb. xiii. 12. Lastly, eternal redemption. Heb. ix. 12. So that Christ crucified, as Paul preached him, "is made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." 1 Cor. i. 30. And as righteousness under the divine government entitles to all good, therefore he is emphatically styled "the Lord our [443] righteousness." Jer. xxiii. 6. For, by virtue of our relation to him, we are actually entitled to all good. Rom. viii. 15-17. and 1 Cor. ii. 22, 23.

      And now why should my dear brother, who has so long and so strenuously contended for a pure scriptural reformation, join issue with N----. W----. to degrade the mediation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, into a mere moral argument to produce repentance, like the ministry of John, that great Elijah of the New Institution, who also sealed his ministry with his blood? You declare you do not approve of all he has written even upon this subject--much less should I suppose you approve of his other writings; but let me tell you, that this doctrine of the mere moral influence of the mediation of Christ upon the salvation of men, is the very summit and superstructure of them all. Why, then, should you concur with him, in vindicating a doctrine which goes to condemn the redeeming and justifying influence of the blood of Jesus, and which in the article of remission goes to justify both God and man? [see again Rom. iii. 24-26.] without the shedding of which there was no redemption of transgressions from the foundation of the world. Heb. ix. 22. and x. 4. "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new covenant, that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, the called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." In my former quotation of this text you objected to the insertion of the word "called," after the explanatory clause, (namely, under that covenant) supposing that I meant to affirm that the first covenant called those that were under it to an eternal inheritance. Howbeit, I neither said nor thought any such thing; but only that many of them were expectants of such an inheritance, (see Heb. xi. 13-16.) and that those came to the enjoyment of it by virtue of his death, without which they must have been disappointed. But let us review the text: "And, for this cause, he is the mediator of the new covenant." For what cause? Is it not for the peculiar efficacy of his priesthood in purifying the conscience from guilt, which no other priest had ever effected? (See the preceding context, from the 6th verse to the 14th.) "That by means of death"--for what?--"for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant." Does not this mean the transgressions that were committed under it? "The called might receive the promise," &c. What called? Why, they that had been called--not those that should be called hereafter. Does the perfect participle passive ever signify future time? and when immediately connected in construction with an adjunct of the past time, must it not be rendered by the sign of the pluperfect tense? And is not this exactly the case here?--"The transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that had been called might receive"--What? Why, the very thing they were looking for; namely, "the promise of the eternal inheritance." For "all these having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise, God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." Heb. xi. 39, 40. Let us see now how you understand it. You say, "The Mediator by death redeemed from the [444] transgressions of the first Testament." Redeemed whom? You must mean persons; for such only are, or can be, redeemed from transgressions: but, observe, the text says the redemption of the transgression, not of the transgressors; these were dead and gone, consequently past redemption; but their sins were on file, recorded in blood, according to the law for remission, and the blood of Christ, that is, of the new covenant, balanced the account; so that all the redeemed, from the protomartyr Abel to the end of this world, will all eternally sing one and the same song,--"Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation!" No matter when or where they lived or died. They are all bought with the same price, and are joint heirs of the same inheritance. Glory to God and the Lamb forever and ever!

      Dear brother, my sheet is done. I must take my leave for the present. I hope you will impartially consider what I have written in reply to your favor. You "have long since lost your pride of opinion." I hope so have I. You profess to love and seek the truth; and so do I. May the Lord lead and keep us in the truth!

THOMAS CAMPBELL.      

[Millennial Harbinger (September 1833): 439-445.]

BETHANY, Brooke County, Va.      

Respected Brother,

      IN the close of your letter under consideration, (C. M. page 210,) you object to my refusing to admit N. W's position against the vicarious sufferings of Christ for the sins of his people. Your words are--

You combat another sentiment of Noah Worcester, who refuses to admit that "any being in the universe can be properly said to have a right to transfer a just punishment from the guilty to the innocent." You think differently; i. e. you think that God has that right, and has exercised it in transferring the just punishment of guilty sinners from them to his innocent Son. To prove this you quote Isaiah liii. 6. and 2 Cor. v. 21. "All we, like sheep, have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. For he has made him a sin [503] offering for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the justified of God by him." Your opinion is, that Christ was not actually guilty of our iniquities, but was treated as if he had been so; the Father inflicting upon him the just wages of sin; namely, sufferings and death. He laid on him the punishment due to us all.

--All this I believe and avow, and must, therefore, of necessity, combat the above sentiment of N. W. And, indeed, his first rule of scripture interpretation will amply justify my so doing. [See "Bible News," page 217.]--"The Scriptures were inspired to instruct common readers, by using words according to their common acceptation, and not to confound them by an abuse of language." Now let any one read the above quotations according to this rule; and must he not admit "that God has transferred the just punishment of guilty sinners from them to his innocent son" Nay, let him, read the whole 53d chapter of Isaiah, and say if it can mean any thing else than this.--Then let him read all the correlate passages in the New Testament, one of which I have quoted above, and he must admit, that if language has any common acceptation, any fixed meaning at all, then did Christ, "the holy one of God, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners," having nothing in common with them but the human nature, "suffer for sins, the just for [or on account of] the unjust, that he might bring us to God." And this he did not accidentally, as Uriah suffered for the sin of David; but on set purpose, and by a divine appointment; for "he was made a sin offering for us;" "the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all; and now once in the end of the world has he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." And here I would appeal to N. W. and his advocates;--Shall we depart from the plain common sense meaning of the concurrent testimonies of the Holy Scriptures, concerning the nature and, intention of the death of Christ, to make room for his assumption? I hope not. "Let God be true, and every man a liar," who ventures to contradict him; for--"he laid on his innocent Son the iniquities of us all;" and "by his stripes we are healed." Yet you say, "Were I in this sentiment I would boldly avow myself a Universalian:"--for--"If Christ bore the punishment due to us all, that we might be made the justified of God, who shall condemn one of the human family?" Dear brother, is this supposed consequence a sufficient argument to prove that the Scriptures do not mean what they say upon this all-important subject? I say, all-important; for "whom he justified them he also glorified;" consequently, if not justified, then not glorified. Now God has but one way of justifying the ungodly; namely, "through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiatory through faith in his blood--to declare at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus." Rom. iii. 24-26. and iv. 4, 5. Wherefore, "being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Rom. v. 9. I say, then, shall we concede this all-important point, which lies at the very foundation of our salvation, to give place to N. W's position; or to avoid the supposed consequence of "Universalianism?" For my [504] part, in order that we may hold this all-important truth, I see no occasion either to admit the latter or refute the former, unless it be granted that we are to hold no thing as certainly true, as long as there are objections brought against it, that we cannot answer. But this, we presume, will not be granted.

      All we shall say, however, in the meantime, with respect to the former, is, that if there can be no just right to transfer a punishment from the guilty to the innocent; then, in justice, there can be no such thing as suretyship: every law that admits it, and every judgment that inflicts it, must be essentially unjust. But it may be said, the surety makes himself guilty, that is, responsible, for he does it wittingly and willingly: we answer, so did our Surety--our Enguos, Heb. vii. 22. our God, Job xix. 25. "Then, said I, Lo! I come to do thy will, O God." Heb x. 5-10.--And, as for the latter,--the avowal of universalism, I must confess I cannot see how the Scripture account of the vicarious sufferings of the Saviour leads to such a conclusion; seeing we are informed by the Saviour himself, that he laid down his life for the sheep,--for those that the Father had given him, for whom also he explicitly prays. John x. 15. & xvii. 2, 9. 20. Now, certainly, to infer the salvation of all these would be scripturism, not universalism: for the Saviour himself says, "All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me: and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.--And this is the Father's will who hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day," &c. John vi. 37, 39. Farther, if we are desirous to know who these happy folks shall be, we are told, verse 40, "This is the will of him who sent me, that whoever recognizes the Son, and believes on him, should obtain eternal life, and that I should raise him again at the last day." So much for the latitudinarian alternative.

      I now proceed to notice your last difficulty in the letter before me: namely,--

It is admitted that the government of God is perfect; and must be, therefore, a perfect model for all governments on earth. Let it be considered as a principle in the divine government, that it is right for the innocent to suffer in the room of the guilty, and that the guilty be released from punishment on this account; then should not the same principle be admitted in all civil governments?

I answer, the word perfect is a relative term; and, therefore, supposes a rule by which the alleged perfection is to be tried: consequently, what would be a perfection in one government, might be an imperfection in another. If so, we presume it will be readily granted in favor of the divine government in the case before us; the relations of the Governor and governed, as well as the variety both of the subjects and objects of the divine government, being so vastly different from those of earthly governments. But, as this might be supposed a kind of begging the question, we shall not insist upon it; nor, indeed, is there any necessity; for there is no such principle supposed in order to justify the substitution of Jesus Christ, nor so much as implied in it. It is quite a peculiar, preternatural, extraordinary case; and, [505] therefore, can neither be predicated upon the natural relations of things, nor afford any precedent for imitation. Before it, there was nothing like it, nor shall be after it--such a thing shall never take place again; "Christ dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him." Who, then, would argue from such a peculiar--such an extraordinary event, to a general principle? To infer a universal conclusion from a particular occurrence, everybody knows is most illogical. The case before us is most peculiar. It is that of the Father of the universe with his only begotten Son, about the redemption and salvation of a portion of their guilty creatures, to the glory of the divine nature, and of the divine persons subsisting in it; and also to the high and everlasting advancement of the creatures to be thus redeemed, and to the infinite satisfaction and delight of all the holy angels. [See John xvii. 1, 2, 22, 24. Rev. v. 9-13, &c.] Now who would think of making this most extraordinary, unparallelled case, a common example for the administration of human governments, amongst fellow-creatures, where both the parties and the objects are so immensely different as to admit of no comparison. I mean the principle adopted for the accomplishment of all this; namely, the vicarious sufferings of the Son of God. Surely, no rational mind could be so extravagant. Wherefore, I shall proceed no farther in the exposure of this absurd assumption; but go on to notice your remaining objections, contained in your second letter, now before me.

      You proceed by saying,--

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

--Thus you object.

      And now, dear brother, do you not perceive that your objection goes to make void the Scripture account both of faith and favor, in the salvation of men by the sufferings and death of Christ? and also of the justice of God in our salvation? You charge me with adding a little to the text in Rom. v. 9. My supplement, however, is both contextural and constitutional. The chapter commences with, "Justified [506] by faith we have peace With God through our Lord Jesus Christ".--"whom God hath set forth to' be a, propitiatory through faith in his blood." chap. iii. 25. Hence it is through faith in his blood that he becomes our propitiatory, our peace, our righteousness or justification; faith or belief being the constitutional principle both of union, and of enjoyment: for, "as many as received him, to them gave he power [or privilege] to become the sons of God; even to them that believe on his name." John i. 12. And is not his official name Saviour, Redeemer? Matth. i. 21. "Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he 'shall save his people from their sins."--"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness' of sins." Eph. i. 7. For--"You were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold; but with the precious blood of Christ." 1 Peter i 1.8, 19. "Being justified freely, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God has set forth to be a propitiatory through faith in his blood." Rom. iii. 24, 25. "Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation." Rev. v. 9.

      Now your statement goes to nullify, most explicitly, this whole scheme of salvation; for, according to it, there can be no price, ransom, or equivalent whatever, for the procurement of our salvation, in consideration of which God might consider it just and reasonable to pardon the guilty, without destroying both faith and favor: whereas, according to the above quotations, "we are justified freely by the divine favor [or grace] through the redemption that is in [or by] Christ Jesus;--redeemed to God by his blood;--saved from wrath through him;--redeemed not with corruptible things, as silver and gold; but with the precious, blood of Christ;--who came to give his life a ransom for many." Matth. xx. 28. But, according to your statement, if there be any price, ransom, or equivalent proposed, required, or provided on the part of Heaven, on account of which pardon is granted to the guilty, the exercise of faith on their part, and of sin-pardoning mercy on the part of God, is rendered absolutely and forever impossible; notwithstanding all that is most expressly declared to the contrary in the above passages, and in many others that might be quoted to the same purpose. Yet, after all that has been, or may be objected by erring mortals, it is declared to be a fixed and fundamental principle in the divine procedure, that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission." Heb. ix. 22. And that no other blood can effect this but the blood of Christ. Heb. x. 4. And that "now once in the end of the world he has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.'' Heb. ix. 26. And that it is by faith in his blood we have access to the enjoyment of the divine mercy. Rom. iii. 25. And that God has adopted this way of showing mercy for the sake of his justice; "that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believes in Jesus." Rom. iii. 26. Wherefore, as I said above, your objection not only goes to destroy the exercise both of faith and favor in the salvation of men, by the sufferings and death of Christ, but also of the divine justice; for the display of which, that he might be "a just God and a Saviour," he has expressly provided, in justifying the believing [507] sinner through the blood of Jesus. Rom. iii. 25, 26. Whereas, according to your statement, justice can have nothing to do with the salvation of sinners; for if there be any provision made to meet the demands of law and justice, you "see no favor shown in this forgiveness or justification." Nevertheless, it is written, "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." Gal. iii. 13. And again, " Christ once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh." I Pet. iii. 18. Consequently, our redemption is ascribed to his blood, as the price paid for it. 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. Accordingly believers are said to be bought with a price. 1 Cor. vi. 20.

      But farther, your objectional statement in the supposed case of A and B, is not a fair parallel; consequently, not to the purpose: for A and B are fellow-creatures, fellow-subjects, with neither of whom the law or government has any thing to do, but according to their respective conduct; wherefore, should the latter offer himself to suffer in the room of the former, and the law admit it, the executive governor could be entitled to no thanks, for he had no efficiency in procuring the substitute, nor any peculiar interest in him more than in any other common subject. But is this the case with the great God in the substitution of his only begotten Son for the life of the world? For, first, are not the guilty subjects his absolute property? 2d. Does he not provide and appoint the substitute? 3d. Does not his beloved Son willingly accept of the appointment, having an equal interest in the guilty subjects, and an equal love to them? And, then, have not the Father and the Son a just right to do all this for their guilty creatures if they please? And would not all this be pure favor to the guilty rebels? And would not their pardon upon repentance, through the belief of this, be to them pure mercy? And would not the making of this great sacrifice the sine qua non--the indispensable prerequisite, ground, and reason of forgiveness--and faith in it for this purpose, the sole principle of the enjoyment of this forgiveness, be perfectly consistent with, and declarative of, the divine justice, mercy, truth, and holiness? and, at the same time, equally adapted to the condition and relief of the perishing guilty, as if no such sacrifice had been required?--and also, infinitely better calculated to deter every subject of the divine government from the commission of sin, than if mercy had been exercised without any regard to, or demonstration of, its infinite demerit? For, surely, if there be no forgiveness in the case of fallen man, the mere dupe of satanic subtilty, but at the inestimable price of the life's blood of the Son of God, and that, too, exacted in the most degrading circumstances, and with the most terrible and dolorous concomitants--infinitely intense, indeed, must be the divine abhorrence of sin--infinite the inflexible and unsparing strictness of the divine justice in punishing it--and, of course, infinitely dreadful and hopeless the condition of the transgressor, in any portion of the vast dominion of God. Contemplating this awfully glorious display of the divine character, in which mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other--we feel disposed to "serve [508] the Lord with fear, and to rejoice with trembling." Ps. lxxxv. 10. and ii. 11.

THOMAS CAMPBELL.      

[Millennial Harbinger (October 1833): 503-509.]

BETHANY, Brooke County, Va.      

Respected Brother,

      TO the doctrine of the vicarious sufferings of Christ, you farther object their inadequateness to the punishments, both temporal and eternal, due to us for sin. You ask, "Have these punishments been really inflicted on Christ in our stead?" &c. &c. And, therefore, you suppose "that I must have written without due consideration of the sentiment for which I plead." Not so, deer brother; I have most seriously considered this tremendously important subject. The heinous malignity--the infinite demerit and evil of sin. I have considered it as manifested both in men and devils, according to the scripture representations or their sad iniquities; and, with these tremendous documents before me, have also endeavored to calculate its intrinsic evil, its real demerit, the enormous amount of which has appeared to me truly infinite. I have found it to be the ungrateful rebellion of highly dignified and exalted creatures, existing in glorious and blissful circumstances,--against their infinitely glorious and beneficent Creator,--whose goodness had laid them under infinite obligations to love and obey him.--Also, that in rejecting him, they had rejected all excellency, perfection, and glory; consequently, were guilty of an infinite evil. I mean an evil, in its nature and extent, in exact proportion to the excellency of the character against which it it was committed, and the obligations of those by whom it was committed. But the dignity of the party rejected being infinite, and the obligations of the party rejecting being, also infinite--add these together, and you have the sum total; but we have no terms adequate to express the amount. Thus you will perceive that I form no light estimate of sin.

      But, considering sin in its heinous nature and dreadful consequences, you ask, "Did Christ suffer the punishment due to us?" You [548] explain yourself to mean, 'Did he suffer it in its intensity and eternity,--in all the varieties of its tortures, temporal and eternal, both in soul and body?' I answer, No; for had he done so, he had neither saved I himself, nor any one else; for this plain reason--the debt had never been paid, but would have been still in paying; and, if so, justice must, and would have retained the debtors, till they, or their surety, had paid the very last mite. But, my dear friend, cannot adequate payment be made, unless it be made in kind, in quantity, or in quality? Will not five pieces. of gold, each not larger than a dollar, pay a debt of fifty dollars? Will not a diamond, not exceeding an ounce weight, be accepted as an equivalent for fifty ounces of gold, or for five hundred ounces of silver? Will not one day's labor of a Doctor, a Lawyer, a Judge, &c. be accepted as an equivalent for a month's hard labor of a common farmer or mechanic? And are not all these commutations in perfect consistency with the universally acknowledged principles of reason and justice? And is there not a greater difference between the intrinsic worth, the personal dignity of the Son of, God, and sinful creatures, than between any created objects we can imagine? Is he not a person of infinite worth? Does he not comprehend in himself all perfection, created and uncreated, divine and human? For it pleased the Father, that in him should all fulness dwell; and in him dwells all the fulness of the divinity substantially. Col. ii. 9. And, if so, may not the sum total of his humiliation, sufferings, death, and subsequent imprisonment in the regions of the dead, be justly considered as an equivalent for all the penal consequences of sin, to have been justly inflicted, forever upon the guilty creatures, that shall be saved through him?--"redeemed to God by, his blood, out of every tribe, and language, and people, and nation"?

      But to the vicarious sufferings of Christ you again object--"If he, as vicar, has paid the punishment due to us, why do we all still suffer sickness, pain, and death?" I answer--The provisions of the remedial institution do not directly and properly interfere with the penalties of the natural, but only with their duration; for, in case of failure, the natural institution provided death; that is, the separation of the whole person from the enjoyment of God; for death, simply considered, can do no more than this. Farther penalties may be added on farther considerations; or, indeed, might have been to the first offence, if the Lord, had pleased. But as it is, and was predetermined, the primitive threatening has taken its full effect; it has brought death spiritual and corporeal upon the whole human family;--first, upon the original transgressors; for, according to the threatening, they died spiritually the self-same day in which they transgressed, as was manifest by their immediate conduct; and afterward they died corporeally in due time. The remedial dispensation, then, interferes not with the execution of the primitive sentence, but only with the duration of it, which, in the mean time, makes no part of the sentence; for had God said, 'In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die for ever,' there had been no [549] remedial dispensation-the truth of God had rendered it forever impossible; but as the matter now stands, there is nothing, if the Lord please, in the way of our redemption and restoration to the enjoyment of the divine image, favor, and fellowship, which we justly forfeited and lost by our sins.

      But some may object, and say, 'According to this view of the matter, might not God, in perfect consistence with truth and justice, have restored all mankind without a Redeemer, after having first executed the original sentence upon them?' We answer, No: that for the following reasons:--First, because it did not seem good to him so to do. Second, because, that in so doing, he would have verified, at least, the full import of the serpent's temptation; namely, that by transgressing they would greatly better their condition ; which would have been true, had it proved the happy occasion of putting them into the possession of a blissful immortality. Third, because justice itself would say, that those who had rendered themselves unworthy of life, should not be restored to the enjoyment of what they had justly forfeited. Fourth, because they were guilty of an infinite evil, which nothing could justly counterbalance but a per contra of infinite value--a consideration that would justify the divine justice, truth, and holiness; that is, the governmental or regal character of God, in releasing guilty creatures from a justly deserved forfeiture--a just condemnation. But again, to obviate Isaiah's testimony to the vicarious nature of Christ's sufferings, you quote Matth. viii. 16, 17. as affording a just exposition of the Prophet's meaning, (chap. liii. 4.) which, you say, you prefer to mine, and to all others ever made by man. But why did you not also quote Peter's exposition, or rather application, of the same passage--"Who, his own self, bore our sins in his own body on the tree; that we, being dead to [or by] sins, should live to righteousness; by whose stripes you were healed. For you were as sheep going astray; but are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls." 1 Pet. We see that Peter carries out the application something farther than Matthew does; for he applies not to the miraculous bearing away, or healing of our bodily sicknesses and infirmities; but to the bearing away of our sins themselves, the just procuring causes of those evils; and this, not by miraculous operations upon the persons of the afflicted, but by the most intense sufferings, in his own proper person, upon the tree. Yet you blame my exposition; namely, "That the Lord laid on him the punishment due to the iniquities of us all." For which, you say, I have no scripture authority, notwithstanding the above quotation, and many others, equally explicit, to the same purpose. But we shall give place to your alternative. You say, "He laid on him the work of taking away our iniquities, with all their train of sickness, pain, and death." Dear brother, where is your scriptural authority for all this? Has he, indeed, taken away all the train of sickness, pain, and death, brought upon us by our iniquities? Why, then, are we still subject to, and do actually suffer, all these things? And, pray, what is the difference between [550] laying on him the work of taking away our iniquities, and laying on him the punishment due to them? Was it not by his sufferings he took them away? Was he not once offered to bear away the sins of many? Has he not been once manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself? Heb. ix. 26, 28. Did he not himself bear away our sins in his own body, on the tree; that we, being freed from sins, might live to righteousness; by whose stripes we are healed? I Pet. ii. 24. These things being so, what is the difference between us on this point? For if, according to your statement, "the Lord laid on him the work of taking away our iniquities," which necessarily subjected him to death, even the death of the cross, on which "he bore away our sins in his own body; by whose stripes we are healed;" without the shedding of whose blood there is no remission:--what is the difference between this, and his bearing the punishment due to our iniquities? Did he suffer unduly? Was there no just reason? Did the Father put into his hand a cup of mingled sorrows--of sorrows the most exquisite; and while expiring under them, withhold his comforting presence? And could any thing justify such treatment but sin? No: "he suffered for sins--the just for the unjust;--for the sins of the world--a ransom for many." May we not, then, justly call it punishment? Especially seeing it was inflicted on account of our iniquities; and did really take them away; for the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all; that is, the punishment due to our iniquity; and, "he put away sin by the sacrifice of himself"--"he has redeemed us to God by his blood"--"we are bought with a price"--"not with corruptible things, as silver and gold--but, with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot"--even "the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world." Wherefore we cannot grant your assumption; viz. that this exposition of yours accords with Matthew's view, and with the whole current of scripture.

      You next proceed to object to my answer to N. W's demand; viz. Where shall we find a promise that those shall be saved, who rely on a vicarious punishment for the remission of their sins? In answer to this, I quoted Rom. iii. 25, 26. and v. 9. and Eph. i. 7. In these quotations, justification or forgiveness of sins, by the blood of Christ, through faith in it as our redemption, is expressly declared. Now, your objection, upon the whole, amounts to this: You say, "For my life, I cannot see any vicarious punishment here; nor any promise of remission of sins to those who rely on such punishment;--nor pardon, or justification by such punishment, even hinted." You grant, however, that "we all believe that through the blood of Jesus we obtain redemption, or remission of sins;"--but how, is the question. This question you do not pretend to answer, except by maintaining N. W's position, which you do towards the bottom of the ensuing page, (228.) But I answer from the above quotation, Rom,, iii. 25--"By faith in it," because it was shed for us. This, however, you cannot admit, because it implies substitution, and, of course, vicarious sufferings. But, to these terms you object, "that they are not scriptural." To [551] speak of Bible subjects in Bible terms, is, I grant, a good and safe rule; and one which I both teach and practise as far as possible. But when we have to do with persons who either do not understand those terms in certain connexions; or attempt to impose meanings upon them subversive of their true contextural import, we are obliged to select and use such terms as will explain, maintain, and exhibit their true meaning,, Now this is exactly the case in the subject before us. N. W., and others, would explain away the scriptural import of the divinely instituted connexion between Christ and the sinner, in the article of his sufferings and death, from his entrance into the garden of Gethsemane, till he expired upon the cross, and was entombed in the sepulchre; make the whole affair a mere test of sincerity--an example of persevering I steadfastness--of self-denying obedience in suffering for the truth, as did also Stephen, and other faithful martyrs. Whereas the scriptures present us with a quite. different view of this matter. They not only exhibit Christ as a devoted lover of God and truth, and as a devoted philanthropist--willing to do and suffer every thing for the glory of God and the good of mankind--confirming his testimony with his blood, that we might believe it; and thus also leaving us an example, that we might follow his steps:--But moreover, and more especially, that he so suffered and died for us--the just for the unjust, that being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him--so to redeem us to God by his blood, that we have redemption through it, even the forgiveness of sins;--whom God has set, forth to be our propitiatory through faith in his blood for the remission of past sins.--upon whom alone, as you grant, "God laid the work of taking away our iniquities;" which he accordingly did "by the sacrifice of himself;" for he so bore away our sins in his own body on the tree that we being freedfrom sins, might live to righteousness;--by whose stripes we are healed. Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows;--he was wounded for our transgressions--bruised for our iniquities--the chastisement of our peace was upon him.--All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.--For the transgression of my people was he stricken.--Yes, though perfectly innocent, "it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he put him to grief; he made his soul an offering for sin." Now, if all this does not, to all intents and purposes, declare a substitution, exhibit a substitute, and present us with vicarious sufferings, we know not what language means; or what language could have done it to better purpose. Nevertheless, when, after all that has been said, the obvious sense of the sacred style seems to be misunderstood, we know of no terms in our language less exceptionable, or better adapted to express the meaning of the divine oracles upon this all-important subject, than those we have chosen.--For if substitute signifies one put in the stead or room of another, to do or suffer in his place; and if substitution is expressive of so placing a person; and if vicarious signifies his occupancy;--then, most surely, according to the above scriptures, may Jesus [552] Christ be justly called a substitute; his location, a substitution; and his sufferings to death, vicarious. Most assuredly, also, do the old philosophical axioms verify this conclusion--"Things that are equal to one and the same thing, are equal to one another;" and, "That to which all the attributes of a thing agree, is the thing itself." But, to the sufferings and death of which of the noble and exemplary army of the martyrs, have the scriptures any where ascribed one of the effects or predicates above affirmed of the sufferings and death of the Prince of Martyrs?--No, not one--any where--of any one of them.

      I conclude this article by observing that the very term sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, if scripturally considered, forever settles the point at issue. We know that the wages of sin, of every sin, is death; consequently, every time a person sins, he forfeits his life: seeing, however, that he can die but once; and that it is the good pleasure of God to spare his life, and, at the same time, both to chastise and teach him; he therefore calls for a sin-offering--a young bullock without blemish, which the culprit is to bring to the door of the congregation before the Lord;--lay his hand on its head, and kill it before the Lord; the blood and fat, &c. of which being disposed of according to the law, the officiating priest is then to carry forth the whole residue of the bullock without the camp, into a clean place, and burn it on the wood with fire. Thus terminates this awfully solemn and significant institution, in the complete destruction of the sin-offering, the remains of which were burnt without the camp; in allusion to which, Christ, the true antitype, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Heb. xiii. 12. In this striking contrast of the type and antitype, which the Apostle gives us, we clearly understand the one by the other. Now does not this sacrificial institution most expressively declare the deadly and destructive demerit of sin? And, at the same time, the divine mercy in providing a substitute--an innocent victim to undergo the deadly destruction, deserved by the actual transgressor? And as to the typical and figurative import of those sacrifices, does not the Apostle fully admonish us in the previous part of the epistle? [see the 9th and 10th chapters;] in the latter of which he winds up the whole matter by observing, that "every priest stands daily ministering and offering often the same sacrifices, which never can take away sins; but Christ having offered only one sacrifice for sins, through his whole life, sat down at the right hand of God; thenceforth waiting till his enemies be made his footstool. Wherefore, by one offering he has perfected forever the sanctified.--Hence in the light of these premises, we evidently see that a sin-offering, or a sacrifice for sin, is the substitution of the innocent for the guilty--the devoted victim suffering the deserved fate of the guilty transgressor, by virtue of which he stands exempted, having taken the benefit of the act passed in his favor, by complying with which he is acquitted.

            Respectfully yours,

THOMAS CAMPBELL. [553]            

[Millennial Harbinger (November 1833): 548-503.]

Respected Brother,

      I NOW proceed to close my reply to your animadversions upon my letter to brother W. Z. Thompson, concerning some prominent points in N. W's treatise on the atonement, which I consider of vital importance in the divine economy of salvation; amongst which is the scripture presentation of Jesus Christ as our Mercy Seat; to my definition of which you object; supposing that I translate hilasterion--sacrifice, because I use the English term--propitiatory, as an [594] adjective, adding the word--sacrfice, and, alternating these with--mercy seat, meaning Christ as "sacrificed for us," through which we find God propitious. Nevertheless you go on to add to the same effect, that "Paul represents Christ as the true mercy seat, from which God dispenses his favors to men--only to men who believe. From which mercy seat he dispenses pardon or remission of sins to the obedient believer; and from which mercy seat God declares to mankind that he can be just in justifying the ungodly. All this is well. But when you tell us, that "Paul represents Christ as the true mercy seat," why do you not with him tell us how he becomes so? Possibly you meant to do this, when you limit the dispensation of divine favors,--"only to them that believe." You do not say, however, what they must believe. You close your exposition of Paul's meaning by observing, that "from this mercy seat God declares to mankind, that he can be just in justifying the ungodly;" but you have not, with Paul, told us how. Now had you attended a little more closely to the Apostle's statement of this all-important matter, and availed yourself of his premises, Exod. xxv. 22. Lev. xvi. 2. Num. vii. 89. for explaining the antitype by the type, you would have perceived, that our mercy seat is also dedicated with blood, and that there is no approaching it to advantage but through blood. In short, that Christ is constituted our mercy seat only "through faith in his blood." Consequently, that without this faith, there is no mercy seat for any. Why have not the virtuous, penitent, believing Jews, and Mahommedans, a mercy seat by which they may draw near to God with acceptance and assurance? Surely it is not for want of faith towards God; but for want of the right faith,--the Christian faith; that is, faith in the blood of Christ, "which cleanseth us from all sins," having taken them out of the way; for, "he put away sin by the sacrifice of himself;" so that now they stand no longer in the way of a just God's showing mercy to an unjust, ungodly sinner; because that he can now show mercy to such upon the just consideration that Christ suffered for their sins--"the just for the unjust."--Having, therefore, made peace by the blood of his cross, by which he has redeemed, justified, and reconciled us to God, he is now become to them that believe in it, (like the mercy seat under the law,) the medium of the enjoyment of the divine favor; but to none else.--Proceeding thus, you would have also perceived how, from this mercy seat, "God declares to mankind" (yes, and to the angels too) not only "that he can be just," but that he really is so, "in justifying the ungodly."--Because, as aforesaid, he does it through the redemption which is by Christ Jesus; which redemption is his precious blood for, 'not with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ are we redeemed to God.' 1 Pet. i. 18-21. Rev. v. 9. 10. Col. i. 21, 22.--Whom he has set forth a propitiatory through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his own justice in passing by the sins which were before committed through the forbearance of God; in order that he may be just, when justifying him who is of the faith of Jesus. The blood of Jesus, then, is the justifying consideration, which justifies God, because it was shed for the sinner's [595] justification, being both appointed and admitted by God himself as sufficient for this purpose. See Heb. x. 4-10. It also justifies the sinner, who, admitting this, believes in it for his justification; so that, in the judgment of God, of angels, and of men, the sinner is justly acquitted; that is, justified, being acquitted upon a just consideration: namely, because the just desert or wages of his sin, viz. sorrows, sufferings, and death, to the full amount of its demerit, has been inflicted upon, and endured by, his surety, the Redeemer.

      In this New Testament exposition of the divine economy, we are now, at length, furnished with a satisfactory solution of that otherwise insoluble paradox, Exod. xxxiv. 7--"forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; and that will by no means clear the guilty;" or, more strictly and properly, "that will not at all acquit." Now the word guilty being a supplement, instead of which, if we supply the word unjustly, we have the solution of this paradox, Rom. iii. 24-26.--"Justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is by Christ Jesus; whom God has set forth a mercy seat, through faith in his blood, to declare his justice, that he might be just, when justifying him who believes in Jesus." Hence it becomes evident, how that God, in acquitting or justifying the ungodly sinner, does not acquit unjustly;--that is, does not clear the guilty but upon a just consideration. But if, instead of admitting the above, we retain the old supplement 'guilty,' we render the pardon or acquittal of such absolutely impossible; for if God will by no means, or not at all acquit the guilty, who then can be saved, for "all the world is become guilty before God"? Now in this scriptural view of the justifying effects of the sacrifice of Christ, we find a just and obvious answer to your apparently perplexing, or rather perplexed inquiries on the bottom of page 228, concerning the nature and objects of its efficacy; for in this we see it has something more than merely a moral or suasive influence upon the sinner to lead him to repentance, call it by what name you please, having all the influences above described both upon God and man. In short, we see it justifies and glorifies both, according to the tenor and terms of the divine plan, as exhibited in the gospel institution.

      In the last place you object to my reasonings founded upon the expressions and conduct of Jesus Christ, both in the garden and upon his trial before Pilate, which I used to prove that he considered the Father was the sole author of all his sufferings, first and last; as do likewise his Apostles afterwards. See Acts ii. 23. iii. 18. and xiii. 27. with Rom. viii. 32. &c. The Jews and Romans being but the executioners. Acts iv. 27, 28. You only attempt, however, to obviate my reasonings upon this branch of the subject, by rescuing from my "wrong exposition" a single text, leaving me in quiet possession of the full amount of proof contained in all the rest, as above. The text you select for this purpose is John xix. 10, 11. concerning which, you say, you have very different views from mine, which you submit for consideration as follows:--"Pilate said he had power to crucify him--Jesus denied that he had this power from Cesar, or from his laws: for he had committed no crime punishable with such a death. According [596] to the statutes of Cesar he was innocent. This power to crucify him, Jesus grants Pilate had; but he received it from above--What! from the Father above? No.--We have just seen this to be impossible. It was from another court this authority was given.--Not from Cesar's court,--not from the court of heaven; but from the highest court ever before established upon earth,--a court above all others, being divinely appointed. I mean the court composed of the High Priest and Elders of Israel. They, or their High Priest, delivered him to Pilate with authority to crucify him. He has, therefore, greater sin than Pilate."--Thus you explain. And to this I object in return; "Has not my dear brother given a wrong exposition of this text?" Where does the phrase "from above" signify any thing in the sacred style but heaven? Thus in the same Evangelist, chap, iii. 30. "He who comes from above, is above all." Again, viii. 23. "You are from beneath; I am from above." Rom. x. 6. "To bring Christ down from above." James i. 17. "Every perfect gift is from above," &c. &c. I would ask again, When of where is the term above, or from above, used to signify the Court of the High Priest and Elders? Again I ask, Could this court give authority to Pilate to do, what it had no authority, either divine or human, to do itself? Was it not for want of authority to inflict capital punishment, that it applied to Pilate to crucify the Saviour? Again, Does not Jesus distinguish between the power possessed by Pilate, and the person that delivered him into his hands? The former he said was from above; but not so of the latter. To the latter he attributes his actual delivery into the power of Pilate; to the former--the power wherewith Pilate himself was invested as a civil governor, which the Apostle assures us was from God. Rom. xiii.2. Wherefore, while I agree with you that it was the High Priest our Lord meant, I also agree both with Him and Paul, that neither the High Priest nor Pilate could have had the authority, which, in this instance, they so greatly abused, had it not been given them from above.

      And now, dear brother, I have done with my reply to your remarks on my letter; and can truly say with you, "It was not my purpose to attempt a reply to all you have written. A few prominent points only of your strictures have I noticed. There are a few gospel facts, which I consider as axioms; I have, therefore, doubted the truth of every doctrine, that stands in opposition to these."

      1. That God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him might not perish, but have everlasting life.

      2. That he gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father.

      3. That he has redeemed us, to God by his blood, that being justified by it, we might be saved from wrath through him.

      4. That without the shedding of his blood there is no remission.

      5. That by faith in his blood we enjoy, through baptism, the remission of all past sins, and ever afterwards, by the same faith, through confession and prayer, the remission of all such sins as are incidental to true believers. [597]

      6. That this faith has a reconciling and constraining influence upon our hearts; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; consequently, that we, who live by virtue of his death, should not henceforth live to ourselves, but to him who died for us, and rose again:--Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification;--by whose stripes we are healed.

      7. That God having so loved us as not to spare his own Son, but to deliver him up to the most bitter sorrows, sufferings, and death for us all; he will, therefore, most assuredly, with him also freely give us all things. We therefore bless God, and take courage.

      And now, respected brother, farewell. May the good Lord lead and keep us both in the truth! I little thought when I wrote to gratify friend Thompson, that it should prove an occasion for what has taken place between us; but I humbly hope it is all for good; and do, therefore, cordially submit it to the divine disposal, and to the serious consideration of an inquiring public.

THOMAS CAMPBELL.      

      Edenton, N. C. Nov. 5, 1833.

[Millennial Harbinger (December 1833): 594-598.]

      Thomas Campbell's letters to Barton W. Stone were first published in Millennial Harbinger, Vol. 9, No. 8, August 1833; "To Barton W. Stone," No. 9, September 1833; "To B. W. Stone," No. 10, October 1833; "To B. W. Stone," No. 11, November 1833; "To B. W. Stone," No. 12, December 1833. The electronic version of the letters has been produced from the College Press reprint (1976) of Millennial Harbinger, ed. Alexander Campbell (Bethany, VA: A. Campbell, 1833), pp. 421-425, 439-445, 503-509, 548-553, 594-598.

      These letters comprise Thomas Campbell's response to Barton W. Stone's letters published in The Christian Messenger (Vol.7, July 1833, pp. 204-210 and August 1833, pp. 225-230), concerning Campbell's review, "Worcester on the Atonement."

      Pagination has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. Extended quotations have been represented as block quotations. I have let stand variations and inconsistencies in the author's (or editor's) use of italics, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling in the letters. Emendations are as follows:

            Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 550:    emedial [ remedial
            [chap. liii. 4.) [ (chap. liii. 4.)
            obtain redemptin, [ obtain redemption,
 p. 597:    text?' [ text?"
            what  t had [ what it had
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 5 December 1997.
Updated 9 July 2003.