St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1881-11-25
From the Vermont Chronicle.
An Open Letter to Oliver John
son.

Dear Sir Il have received, through
the mail, your "Open letter to the
Church and Society of Peacham, Yer
mont" You may feel sighted unless
some notice is taken of it, and natural
ly you will wish to know the impress
sion it makes. This is my apology foI
addressing you. Your discourse was
preached on the Sabbath in an OrthO-
dox Congregational church during the
absence of the pastor. In it you attack
truths the church regards sacred, you
cause the same to be printed and eX-
tensively circulated. This aggravates
the offence. Feeling grieved, the
church passed resolutions reaffirming
its faith in the doctrines you had at
tackled, and charged you with having
least contempt upon the word of God
and the blood of his Son." and guilty
of ga fragrant violation of good faith
You denounce these resolutions as
"gratuitously and wickedly false" ga
lie much blacker than that for which
Ananias and Sapphira We're smitten
dead" and that "a minister who could
conceive, indite and publish an as
founding and wholly gratuitOus false
hood like this, charging me with cast
ing contempt upon the Word of God
and the blood of his Son, displays a
power of mendacity which can only be
acquired by long practice" You call
on the church to rescind its action, and
to pass a resolution branding the pas
tor as another "Ananias." YOu admit
the right of the church to pass resOlu-
tiOns. And it is one of the well known
duties of a pastor to guard his flock
from error. The whole question, then
turns upon the truth or falsity of the
charges against you. Did you, in yOul
discourse, "cast contempt upon the
Word of God and the blood of his Son p
If you did, then the resolutions of the
church are not false, but true, and yOu,
not the church and pastor, are the ag-
gressOr. They took no action till you
had preached the sermon, printed and
circulated it. Let us, then, examine
the charges, and see whether they are
true or false.
Q Did you "cast contempt upon
the Word of God p The church in
Peacham i'll common with all evangel-
zeal churches regards the Bible and
the whole Bible as the inspired Word
of God, and the ultimate authority III
all religious matters. They do not be
lieve this without reason. Moses
claimed to speak by divine authority
"The Lord spake unto Moses" occurs
hundreds of times. His divine author
ity was confirmed by miracles. Christ
confirms the same by quotations from
him. beginning at Moses and all the
Prophets, he expounded unto them IN
all the Scriptures the things concerning
himself, Luke xiv :27). This con
firms all the Old Testament. The fOul
gospels you do not doubt. Christ gave
would be made under the guidance OF
the Spirit. Paul, instead of disclaim-
ing inspiration as you assert, expressly
affirms his divine authority. ''Paul
an apostle, not of men, nor by man,
but by Jesus Christ, and God the Faith
En-" 81 certify you, brethren, that the
gospel which was preached of me is
not after man, for | neither received il
of man, neither was | taught it but by
the revelation of Jesus Christ
"Though we or an angel from heaven
preach any other gospel than that
which we have preached unto you, lei
him be accursed," Galatians il. The
other apostles claim the same for theil
writings. The divine authority and
the inspiration of the New Testament
depend not on the DEGREES of Councils
but upon their own internal evidence
And as we have said, all evangelical.
churches believe and accept the Bible
the whole Bible, as the inspired Word
of God. But what did you do in your
discourse Your object was to dis
prove the commonly received doctrine
of ga Vicarious atonement," that God
forgives and saves men on account OF
the sacrificial work of Christ. The
writings of Moses and Paul stood il
your way. They clearly teach the
doctrine you are trying to refute. You
therefore reject their writings as un-
worthy of confidence. And you not
only ignore them, but cast contempt
upon them by holding them up to rid
icule. al doubt not the honesty of the
writer, Moses, or whoever it was thai
wrote the account of that sacrifcia
system. He may have honestly sup
posed that it was formed by divine di-
The system itself is revolving and de
mOralizing," shocking to every rein.
ed feeling. The priest laid his hand
upon the animal, and the sin was sup
posed to be transferred. Then the an
imal was killed in place of the sinner
and the blood sprinkled on the altar as
an atOnement. The priest butcher
The sGRctury a slaughter house! The
blood of the altar a revolving sight y
From Paul you make no quotations
You say he twas mistaken" and Ger
red in weaving so strongly the ligature
between Judaism and Christianity, es-
pecially in teaching the death OF
Christ as the contamination of the
bloody system of Jewish sacrifices
Moses and Paul mistaken The sacri-
fetal system of Moses, whose song is
to be sung in concert with that of the
Lamb in heaven, "revOlting and de-
moraliZingw The priest a butcher
The sanctuary a slaughter house If
this is not casting contempt ON the
Word of God, we know not what is.
The resolution, therefore, of the church
on this point, instead of being "gratu-
itOusly and wickedly false" is strictly
true. And all honor to the church for
its fidelity to its sacred trusts.
(2) Did you "cast contempt upon the
blood of his Son n As is plainly evi-
dent from the discourse your object
was to disprove the doctrine of the
atonement-thatG God forgiUes and saves
ferings and death of Christ. In Oppo-
IL 40 II