| Thomas Campbell | Worcester on the Atonement (1833) |
FROM
THE
MILLENNIAL HARBINGER.
Number VI.-----Volume IV.
Bethany, Va. June, 1833.
Worcester on the Atonement.
[The following remarks upon this work are addressed by Thomas Campbell, Sen. to William Z. Thompson, of Kentucky; by whom a copy of it was forwarded to this office. They were designed only for the eye of brother Thompson; but on reading this letter, we concluded they might be of use to some of our readers.] Ed.
BETHANY, Brooke Co. Va. April 10, 1833.
I CANNOT propose in the compass of a letter to present you with a formal review of this work; nor, indeed, do I think it necessary: for in so doing I should find much to approve; but merely to point out what I conceive to be the radical mistakes of the author, by a direct appeal to express scripture testimony.
Noah Worcester, in his introduction, page 3, declares that his principal object in writing, was, "to evince that, in the sacrifice of Christ, there was a display of love, not of wrath." Page 141, "If God has no pleasure in the death or sufferings of the wicked, he surely could have none in the sufferings of his Son." But what saith the Prophet? "It pleased the Lord to bruise him, he hath put him to grief." Isaiah liii. 10. "Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man, my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts; smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn my hand on the little ones." Zech. xiii. 7. with Matth. xxvi. 31. And again, Rom. viii. 32, "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how will he not with him also freely give us all things?" And Matth. xxvi. 38, 39. "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even to death; and he fell on his face and prayed, saying, O, my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." But we see that, according to the divine will, it was not possible;--that he suffered all that was predicted concerning him, Luke xxiv. 44. and that without the shedding of his blood there was no remission. See Heb. ix. 22. and x. 4. Here, then, we have the greatest possible [256] display of love both in the giver and in the gift--both in the Father and in the Son; connected with the greatest possible display of aversion to the sufferings, on the part of the Son, and of complacential unsparing severity in inflicting them, on the part of the Father; for "it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he put him to grief;" when he made his soul an offering for sin, "he spared him not." Moreover, it seems impossible to have been otherwise, if sin were pardoned, "for without the shedding of his blood there was no remission;" therefore it was shed for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, that the called, namely, under that covenant, might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance. Heb. ix. 16. This being the case, it necessarily follows, that, in exact proportion to the divine good pleasure to pardon sinners, the Lord was pleased to bruise his Son; and also with his Son for voluntarily enduring the necessary sufferings: and also, that in exact proportion as the Lord was ]eased with these things, he was displeased with something else, on account of which these sufferings were inflicted, and endured; and what could this be but sin, which, without these sufferings, could not possibly be remitted; for he said, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me;" and, "his blood was shed for the remission of the sins of many."
Now, certainly, in exact proportion as any just, good, and wise being inflicts sufferings for the removal of any evil; and also in exact proportion to the dignity and loveliness of the person who voluntarily submits to endure them; in the very same proportion must be his abhorrence of the evil to be thus removed. If, then, according to this infallible rule of judging, we form our estimate of the heinous nature, and dreadful consequences of sin, how enormous will the amount be!
In pages 38, 39, our author concedes that "any being who has a right to make a penal law, must be supposed to have a right to remit its penalty, in whole or in part, whenever he sees reason for so doing; and on such conditions as, in his opinion, will have the most salutary influence." Grant this just concession, and it will amply justify the divine procedure in the mediation of Jesus Christ, as above stated; but he immediately recedes from his concession, by refusing 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." Now what saith the Prophet? "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 offering for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the justified of God by him. Isaiah liii. 6. 2 Corinthians v. 21. He made him who knew no sin a sin offering for us; the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all. How did he do this? Was it by making him actually guilty of all our iniquities, or by treating him as it he had been so, by inflicting upon him the wages of sin; namely, sufferings and death--the just wages of sin? that being justified by faith in his blood, we might by saved from wrath through him? Rom. iii. 25. & v. 9. [257]
In his Appendix, p. 233, he asks, "Where shall we find a requirement to believe that God laid on his Son the punishment due to us all?" I answer, In the 53d chapter of Isaiah, quoted above. He laid on him the iniquity, that is the punishment due to the iniquity of us all. He further asks, "Or where shall I we find a promise that those shall be saved who rely on a vicarious punishment for the remission of their sins? I answer, in the above citations, Rom. iii. 25, 26. & v. 9. "Being justified by his blood, (that is, by faith in his blood,) we shall be saved from wrath through him." "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." Eph. i. 7.
In page 240 he alleges that "Christ has wholly omitted to teach any such doctrine, as a ground of justification, or as an evidence of discipleship." If so, what does our Lord mean, when he says, John vi. 51-58, "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." Are not these the happy effects of faith in his death, which he endured for our redemption? And does he not teach this doctrine as a ground, not only of justification, but also of eternal life?
As for the terms vicar and substitute, against which our author excepts, when applied to Christ, I have only to observe, that he either suffered deservedly on his own account, or on the account of others, to redeem them from suffering: for he assures us himself, that he ought to have suffered as he did. [See Luke xxiv. 26.] Now certainly his sufferings actually redeeming those for whom he suffered, and without which they must have suffered forever, may, with respect to them, be justly called vicarious, or substitutionary; but this is actually the case with respect to all those who are, or shall be, saved from their sins; for without the shedding of his blood there is no remission. See the proof above cited.
Upon the whole, according to the views and reasonings of this author, all sacrificial blood has been shed in vain; for he ascribes to the sacrifice of Christ only a moral influence upon the remission of sin; that is, by its effect upon the mind, producing repentance and love; which he also declares to be the righteousness which God requires for the remission of sins. See p. 147 and 152. The righteousness of God;--the righteousness of faith, pages 63 to 65. Now if these things be so, what need of the sacrifice of Christ; for good men before the coming of Christ, as well as since, possessed this righteousness; and, of course, were justified independent of the moral influence of his example, either in his life or in his death; and surely, if they could and did attain to righteousness, independent of the living and dying example of the Saviour, they might have done so independent of the death of brute animals; for as far as symbolical purification might be conducive to moral purity, or be emblematical of its importance, the purifying stream was a better symbol than blood.
------When I undertook to address you upon N. W's views of the atonement, I thought I should be able to expose and refute his [258] principal and dangerous misrepresentations in the sheet I had intended for that purpose; but I find that, notwithstanding my studied brevity, there are two or three other topics that ought to have been noticed, viz. the proper and primary intention of sacrifice, and of faith, in the remedial economy; and how these, in the administration, tend to affect the character both of God and man.
According to the revelation with which we are favored, the attributes of the divine character most gloriously displayed in the creation and sustentation of the universe, are power, wisdom, and goodness. Goodness is the universal motto--"very good" the superscription of all his works. Gen. 1. 31. Next in his legislation and government we have a glorious display of his justice, truth, and holiness; and lastly, in the redemption and reconciliation of human rebels, we have a transcendant display of the divine love, mercy, and condescension. Upon this glorious display of the divine character, I intend not, now, to insist; but only it must not be tarnished in our salvation. For this all-important purpose has God now, under the gospel, "set forth his Son for a propitiatory sacrifice, or mercy seat, 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 justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. Rom. iii. 21-26. Now as all the typical sacrifices were predictions and prefigurations of this, we see in it the proper and primary import of them all; namely, the vindication of the divine justice in justifying him that believeth in Jesus; by clearly and fully evincing that he did so upon just principles. But it is asked, How does this appear? I answer, "Through the redemption that is by Christ Jesus." Rom. iii. 24. It is this that justifies the divine procedure, in justifying the ungodly who believes in Jesus: that is, in acquitting him from his obligation to suffer, on account of the sufferings which Christ endured for his sake, by the divine will and appointment. John x. 18. with Heb. x. 10. 5. Now, this being the case, it becomes a righteous thing for God to justify those for whose justification Christ died according to his will. Nor has God slighted his law, or invalidated its authority by this procedure, as he would have done by letting sin pass with impunity; he has rather magnified his law and made it honorable by the obedience of his Son, and his endurance of its penalty in behalf of his people. See Gal. iii. 13, 14. iv. 5, 6.
If, however, our author's allegation against a right to transfer a just punishment from the guilty to the innocent, and, of course, against all substituted sufferings, be correct, then, not only the above quoted scriptures, but all others that ascribe salvation from justly deserved punishment, to the deep humiliation and terrible sufferings of the Saviour, are preposterous and unjust. Did not Christ do and suffer all that the scriptures assert? Was he perfectly innocent? Did he do and suffer these things for the guilty that they might escape condign punishment? And had his doings and sufferings the desired effect? These questions must be answered in the affirmative, or we contradict almost every thing that is written concerning Christ and his salvation; [259] and if they be thus answered, all the objections and arguments that have been brought against the vicarious and substituted sufferings of the Saviour, fall to the ground. Still, however, not only the justice of such a procedure is called in question, but it is also branded with the epithets of cruelty, of revenge, of an unmerciful, vindictive disposition; and the disposition and conduct of the Son in the article of his sufferings, is, upon the above supposition, contrasted with, and greatly extolled above, that of his heavenly Father. See page 208.
But, after all his declamation against this view of the subject, has our author attempted to clear the Father of a designing and efficient agency in the sufferings of Christ? Confessedly he has not. Indeed, how could he, with any semblance of respect for the divine testimony? Seeing it is expressly declared that "it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he has put him to grief; he has laid on him the iniquity of us all; he spared not his own Son, but delivered him up to the death for us all." Accordingly the Son, upon his trial before Pilate, explicitly ascribes his sufferings to the Father; as he had before implicitly done in his prayer in the garden; saying, "O, my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done;" for when Pilate said to him, "Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and power to release thee," he replied, "Thou couldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above." Wherefore, during the whole of his trial he seeks no favor, he never attempts to procure any indulgence, or to excite the sympathies either of the populace or of his judges; thus practically refusing to acknowledge, or to have any thing to do with, any inflicting or mitigating agency in his sufferings, but that of his heavenly Father, either first or last. In prospect of his sufferings he first addresses him in the garden;--at the close of them, he last addresses him upon the cross. Hence it is evident that he considers his heavenly Father, first and last, as the sole author of all his sufferings; as does likewise his Apostles afterwards. See Acts ii. 23. & iii. 18. & xiii. 27. with Rom. viii. 32. &c. The Jews and Romans were but the executioners. See Acts iv. 27. 28.
Now as the proper and primary intention of animal sacrifices for the remission of sins, (for "without the shedding of blood there is no remission,") was to manifest and inculcate the heinous nature and deadly effects of sin, and that God would actually pardon the sins of the guilty on account of the sufferings of the innocent; and as no sufferings were of any account for that purpose but the sufferings of Christ, on account of the dignity of his person; he therefore suffered for our sins that he might redeem us from this present evil world, according to the will of God our Father. Gal. i. 4. And now God has set him forth for a mercy seat, that we might have access to his mercy, through faith in his blood; to declare his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believes in Jesus. But, according to our author, justice has no concern with our salvation. Yet, were I to philosophize, I would say with Young,
| "A God all mercy is a God unjust." [260] |
But he has declared himself a "just God and a Saviour." And that he might be so, the Apostle informs us that he has appointed faith in the blood of his Son for our justifying righteousness. (see Rom. iii. 25, 26.) to the utter exclusion of all boasting, (ver. 27,) and therefore opposed to, and contradistinguished from, all works. Rom iv. 4, 5. And this not only for the glory of the divine justice, but also for the security of the believers--"that the promise might be sure to all the seed." (verse 16.) Now this faith, or reliance on the blood of Christ, for a full and final acquittal from all the penal effects of sin, puts the believer into the actual enjoyment of all the blissful privileges specified in the 5th chapter, from the 1st to the end of the 11th verse. See Rom. v. 1-11. And also glorifies not only the love, mercy, and condescension of God, so transcendantly manifested in the gift of his Son for our salvation; but his justice also, in inflicting the punishment due to the sinner upon the surety, the substitute which his love had provided for that purpose. John iii. 16. with Heb. vii. 22, &c. By the inflicting of which he has most strikingly manifested the just demerit of sin, and of course, the justness of the punishment awarded to the sinner; and lastly, his own rectoral justice, in not suffering an evil so horribly ruinous to pass with impunity in his dominions: and, consequently, to prevent forever, as far as possible, the commission of this horrid evil, at least with any possible hope of impunity.
Thus God has manifested the most harmonious and perfect consistency between the natural and remedial institutions; he has shown them to be equally the effects of wisdom and goodness--equally planned and executed injustice, truth, and holiness; that is, that the love, mercy, and condescension of the latter, perfectly harmonizes with, and actually sustains the justice, truth, and holiness of the former: so that instead of making void the law through faith, it really establishes the law. And as for the righteousness of the divine appointment of the Son to be a substitute and surety, how can we reasonably call it in question? Had not the Father a right to dispose of his Son, with his own consent, just as he pleased? And had not the Son a right to do the will of his Father?
To conclude, if we could be saved in a way honorable to God, without the sacrifice of his Son as a sin offering, we certainly could have been saved without his peculiar doctrines and example, and consequently without his birth, life, or death. I think, upon a candid and impartial view of all the premises, reasonings, and conclusions of this author, the manifestation and death of the Son of God were wholly in vain and unnecessary. But 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 a 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. That the author did not intend this, is to me no apology for the tendency of his work, while it allows me to regard him as having simply mistaken [261] the true intention of the mission of the Son of God. These reflections are tendered, I trust, in the spirit of all good will to the author, and in sincere affection for yourself as a brother beloved for the hope's sake, which is laid up for us in heaven.
THOMAS CAMPBELL.
[Millennial Harbinger (June 1833): 256-262.]
ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC EDITION
Thomas Campbell's "Worcester on the Atonement" was first published in Millennial Harbinger, Vol. 4, No. 6, June 1833. The electronic version of the essay has been produced from the College Press reprint (1976) of Millennial Harbinger, ed. Alexander Campbell (Bethany, VA: A. Campbell, 1833), pp. 256-262.
This review was the subject of an exchange of letters between Barton W. Stone and Thomas Campbell, published in The Christian Messenger and Millennial Harbinger, respectively.
Pagination has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. I have let stand variations and inconsistencies in the author's (or editor's) use of italics, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling in the essay.
Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.
Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA
Created 30 November 1997.
Updated 9 July 2003.
| Thomas Campbell | Worcester on the Atonement (1833) |
|
Back to Thomas Campbell Page Back to Restoration Movement Texts Page |