By Barton W. Stone
We have been thus particular in giving our views of the gospel, which we preached prior to separation from the Presbyterians, that the world might be able to form a correct judgment respecting our course. After we had stated our views of the gospel, we next proceeded at the request of Synod, to state our objections to their confession of faith. We deem it unnecessary to notice particularly those objections which we made and published in our apology; for by attending to our views of the gospel, any one may at once see their discrepancy with the confession of faith. We objected to all the rigid doctrines of Calvin, contained in the confession. We also stated our objections to all human, authoritative confessions; as being separating walls between christians from their first introduction to the present time. - We determined therefore in order to promote christian union, to cast all such books to the moles and bats, and to take the Bible alone as the only standard of faith, practice and discipline. This was then considered a daring and dangerous step indeed. For this we were ranked among the atheistical Illumineers of Germany, and derided, reproached and persecuted as the enemies of God and man. The pulpits were disgraced with invective, and the presses groaned under the weight of opposition to us.
In the mean time we were earnestly and successfully engaged in preaching the gospel, and churches were multiplied. We ordained to the ministry David Purviance, who had long served his country as a legislator. His labours were then, and still are, a blessing to the church. We listened to objections made against us by enemies as well as friends, and determined to correct our errors, and receive truth by every means. While we were denouncing partyism and urging christians to union, it was frequently cast up to us that we were as much a party as others, having assumed a party name, the Springfield presbytery. We felt the force of the objection, and determined to free ourselves from this cause of offence. We therefore met in Bourbon County Ky. June 28th, 1804, and agreed to cast off our assumed name, and power, and to sink into the general body of christians, taking no other name than christians, the name first given by divine authority to the disciples of Christ. This we announced to the world in a small piece, entitled "the last will and testament of Springfield Presbytery."
The manner in which this piece was written, we confess, did not then meet with our entire approbation, but the matter of it we see no good reason yet to reject. As it has been the cause of much declamation and censure, we have determined to present to the public the substance of it.
1. In the first place, we agreed that as a party and legislative body, the Springfield Presbytery be dissolved, and sink into union with the body of Christ at large: for there is but one body, and one spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling.
2. We relinquished the power of making laws for the government of the church, and of executing them by delegated authority; that the people might have free course to the Bible and adopt the law of the spirit of the life in Christ Jesus.
4. We advised candidates for the gospel ministry to study the holy scriptures with fervent prayer, and to obtain license from God to preach the simple gospel without any mixture of philosophy, vain deceit, traditions of men, or rudiments of the world; and that none take this honor to himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron.
5 & 6. We yielded to the church her right of government, and to try her own candidates for the ministry, to choose her own preacher, and support him by a free will offering; admit members; remove offences, and never henceforth to delegate her right of government to any man, or set of men whatever.
7. We recommended to the people the Bible as the only sure guide to heaven.
We then gave our reasons for dissolving as follows; "With deep concern they viewed the divisions, and party spirit, which have long existed among professing christians; principally owing to the adoption of human creeds and forms of government. While they were united under the name of a presbytery, they endeavored to cultivate a spirit of love and unity with all christians; but found it extremely difficult to suppress the idea, that they themselves were a party separate from others. This difficulty increased in proportion to their success in the ministry. Jealousies were excited in the minds of other denominations; and a temptation was laid before those, who were connected with them, to view them in the same light. - As they proceeded in the investigation of church government, they soon found that there was neither precept, nor example in the New Testament for such confederacies as modern church sessions, presbyteries, Synods, general Assemblies &c. Hence they concluded, that while they continued in the connexion in which they then stood, they were off the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, of which Christ himself is the chief corner stone. - Therefore from a principle of love to christians of every name, the precious cause of Jesus, and to dying sinners, who are kept off from the Lord by the existence of sects and parties in the church, they have cheerfully consented to retire from the din and fury of conflicting parties and to sink out of the view of fleshly minds, and die the death - yet they will preach, and aid the brethren by their counsls, when required, assist in ordaining elders or pastors, seek the divine blessings, unite with all christians, commune together, and strengthen each others hands in the work of the Lord."
This piece when published increased ten fold the opposition against us. The artillery of every party was directed against us. They evidently saw if we prevailed all parties must be dissolved. They represented us as disorganizers, having no form of government, and aiming a destructive blow at all church government. Why these charges against us? Because we took the Bible as the only rule given to the church by the only law giver, who solemnly enjoined upon all to walk according to this same rule. The Bible alone was considered as an insufficient rule, as no government, by many of our opposers; and to hold up this as the standard of heaven, to which all parties should come into one body, was thought to be disorganizing, and destructive to all church government!
In the year 1804, the General Assembly of presbyterians sent a committee to endeavor to reconcile, and settle the difference between us and the Synods. We attended the call of the committee with the Synod at Danville Oct. 1804. The committee proposed to us a few queries which we answered as follows:
Question 1. By the committee. "What were your reasons for renouncing the jurisdiction of the presbyterian church?"
Answer. 1. "Because we believed that those bodies, with which we stood connected, acted contrary to their own rules."
2. Because the confession of faith or standard of that church, contained several things which we viewed as contrary to the word of God, on which account we could not retain it as the standard of our faith, or submit to be judged, and condemned by its dictates. This we saw evidently to be the design of Synod. Other reasons and the train of circumstances, which in a gradual chain brought the matter to that issue, are fully exhibited in our apology to which we refer all who want information. While we were let alone, we were willing to let the confession of faith alone; but as soon as we found our sentiments were to be brought to that standard, we renounced its authority, and consequently had no alternative but to withdraw."
"Question 2. By the committee of the general Assembly. Can any method of accommodation be proposed, which may induce you to return to the jurisdiction of that church, and heal the division which has taken place in the Synod of Kentucky?"
Answer. "To the first part of this question we answer in the negative, so long as they retain the confession of faith, as the standard of doctrine and discipline, because we cannot receive that book as our standard. When we at first withdrew, we felt ourselves freed from all creeds but the Bible, and since that time by constant application of it, we are led farther from the idea of adopting creeds and confessions as standards, than we were at first; consequently, to come under the jurisdiction of that church now, is entirely out of the question."
"We feel ourselves citizens of the world, God our common Father, all men our brethren by nature, and all christians our brethren in Christ. This principle of universal love to christians, gains ground in our hearts in proportion as we get clear of particular attachments to a party. We therefore cannot put ourselves into a situation which would check the growth of so benign a temper, and make us fight under a party standard.
"Notwithstanding we conceive we can propose a method of accommodation, which, with the divine blessing, will heal the division, which subsists between both the ministers and people throughout the bounds of the Synod of Kentucky, as follows:
1. "Let us remember that all christians are one in Christ, members of his body, partakers of his nature and heirs of the kingdom: Therefore they have no power over one another to cut off, exclude, or unite.
2. "Let us pray for more of the uniting, cementing spirit.
3. Treat differences in lesser matters with christian charity and mutual forbearance, and bend our united force in the common cause.
4. Give up the care of the church to God by constant fervent prayer - counsel, advise, admonish, reprove, comfort and strengthen one another as necessity may require, in the spirit of love and meekness. Then will be accomplished that saying, that of the rest durst no man join himself to them."
"ROB'T. MARSHALL,
JOHN DUNLAVY,
BARTON W. STONE,
JOHN THOMPSON."
Danville, Oct. 18, 1804.
No accommodation or reconciliation could be effected by the committee, between the Synod and us. The business was therefore indefinitely postponed, and we returned to our respective homes.
Three valuable Elders, who had a few years before separated with James O'Kelly from the Methodist connexion, about this time united with us. Their names were Clement Nance, James Read and Rice Haggard, the latter of whom soon after published a pamphlet on the name Christian, proving that by this time alone every member of Christs body should be called.
We were sorely pressed with the weight of another argument or objection to the doctrine we then preached. We believed and preached that the sufferings of Christ were vicarious, or in the room and stead of sinners, in order to pay their debts or to satisfy law and justice in their stead - we also preached that Christ died for all, or tasted death for every creature. If he died for all, and the design of his death was to satisfy the penal demands of law and justice in the room of sinners, then it appeared that all must be saved. On this view of the sufferings of Christ, we evidently saw Calvinism or Universalism was true; neither of which we could receive as the doctrine of the Bible. To the Bible we then applied with prayerful attention to find the truth on this point. We soon found that the sufferings of Christ were no where said in the Bible to be designed to reconcile God to sinners; but on the contrary, "that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself." - We soon found that the word atonement, was but once named in the New Testament, Rom. 5, 10.; and in this text it could not mean satisfaction to the demands of law and justice, because it states "by whom we have now received the atonement," and not that God received it. We evidently saw that the word should have been translated, reconciliation, as all the learned agree. We diligently sought for the doctrine of satisfaction to law and justice by the death of Christ. We could not find in the Bible, nor could we find a man who could shew it there. We then enquired what were the demands of law and justice against the sinner, accordingly to the popular systems of the day. We learned that the law required perfect, personal and perpetual obedience - that justice required of the transgressor death temporal, spiritual and eternal, that Christ as surety paid this debt of obedience and suffering in the stead of the sinner, which obedience active and passive, is imputed to the sinner for justification.
We admitted the claims of law and justice to be correct; but our enquiry was, did Christ as surety satisfy these claims, or pay these debts for the sinner, in his stead? - Did he in the sinner's stead, pay the debt of obedience to law, that is, love God with all his heart, soul, mind and strength, and his neighbor as himself? If so, we evidently saw that the sinner was freed from obligations to love God or his neighbor, seeing the surety had paid this debt of obedience for him. This we durst not admit. Nor could we learn how Christ could fulfil these demands for another; for admitting he was both God and man, we plainly saw that as God he must love himself infinitely; and as man he must love his neighbor as himself. We could see no surplus righteousness for another. The doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ to the sinner for justification, we found not in the Bible; though this doctrine is a prominent feature in the system so generally esteemed as orthodox, yet the expression, the imputed righteousness of Christ, is not once named in the Bible. We therefore gave up the doctrine as a human device.
We next enquired, did Christ pay in the sinner's stead, the debt due to justice, and so satisfied justice? Did he pay the debt of temporal death? If he did pay this debt fully, why do sinners of every age die, or pay the debt again? - Can it be just to demand and receive the payment twice? - Did he pay the debt of spiritual death for the sinner? Impossible; for spiritual death is to be dead to God and divine things, to have no love nor delight in God nor his ways. - Could Christ have suffered this death without being a real sinner, and guilty? Could a holy God or a holy law demand such an unholy debt? Could they demand sin as a punishment for sin? But should we contrary to truth, say that Christ has fully paid this debt of spiritual death for sinner, do they not still suffer it? Can this be just? Did he pay fully the debt of eternal death in the sinner's stead? Eternal death he never suffered, for he arose from the dead the third day, and now liveth forevermore. To say he fully paid the debt of eternal death, is a pointed contradiction - for the debt of eternal death will require an eternity to pay it - it can never be fully paid.
We had long before seen this hole in the system, but had filled it with a patch of human wisdom, which was this, that Christ suffered an infinite punishment which was equivalent to an eternal death. We admitted that God was without passions, and could not suffer, and as none but an infinite being could suffer infinitely, therefore Christ neither as God nor man could suffer this penalty. But we had been taught that the divinity was the altar on which the humanity was offered, and which gave efficacy to the sufferings of Christ. We immediately concluded that the altar did not suffer, but the human nature only - and therefore the human nature could not suffer infinitely.
For the want of Bible evidence we were compelled to give up these doctrines as the mere notions of men. This system of atonement we fearlessly affirmed was not to be found in the Bible. What is the truth on this point was one great pursuit. We enquired therefore for what purpose did Christ die?
From: THE CHRISTIAN MESSENGER, 1(25 September 1827), 241-5
