text:
Mormon Classics | Spalding Library | Bookshelf | Newspapers | History Vault
A Reply, to... Iniquitous Letters
(Pittsburgh, 1824)
Transcriber's Comments
"Rigdon Revealed, 1821-23" | Campbell's first reply (1824) | Campbell's recollections of 1823
Baxter's Life of Walter Scott | Greatrake's 1824 pamphlets | Campbell's 1825 pamphlet
A REPLY,
To a series of iniquitous "Letters to Alexander Campbell, by a
Regular Baptist,"alias, the Rev. Mr. Greatrake.
AN ADDRESS,
TO THE SAINTS IN PITTSBURGH.
The Third Epistle of Peter,
A Looking Glass,
TO THE PRESENT HIRED MINISTERS.
PITTSBURGH.
Printed for the Publisher, by John McFarland.
A REPLY, &c.
Mr. Greatrake.
SIR -- Allow me, to address you, as the author of "Letters to Alexander Campbell, by a regular Baptist." Allow me, Sir, through this medium, also, to inform the public, that Mr. Campbell has called upon you, relative to those letters. At your first interview with Mr. Campbell, you refused to hold any intercourse with him, as author of those letters.
This point being settled, Mr. Campbell declared his errands; he told you he had seen your letters, & that he has read them; he told you that they certainly contained matter of very extraordinary complexion; in short, that they contained a number of misrepresentations, and that he was now present for your explanation.
He observed, that in those letters, you had charged him with hostility to the Paedobaptists, but without any grounds whatever, as a number of documents which he had long ago laid before the publick, and which you doubtless had overlooked, sufficiently demonstrated that hostilities commenced on their side. He next told you that the enormous profits with which you had charged him in those letters, as arising from the publication of his two debates with Mr. Walker and Mr. Maccalla, far exceeded the truth, as written instruments in his own possession would ultimately doscover. He told you also, that you had entirely misrepresented his sentiments on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and invited you to put your finger on a single expression, in his writings, that could afford even the color of proof for such an extraordinary assumption. He suggested to you the propriety of correcting and retracting these things publicly, but you demurred; he expressed his sorrow, and was silent. Mr. Church was present. You did not know him
When he told his name, you were surprised, you had never seen him. He then gave you to understand that he had seen your letters. That he had read them. That he was the person who was lately baptized. THat you had alluded to him in your letters. That you had made a number of misstatements, in short, that you had openly abused him, and he was now present for your explanation. He then opened your pamphlet, and charegd it with twelve misrepresentations. He told you that they were making false impressions on the public mind; that they might do him harm, and ought to be corrected. This you admitted, with a number of these misstatements, on the spot, and tendered him your promise of immediate redress.
Now, Sir, that the above and similar charges marshalled against you, in a spirit of mild behaviour, and by men too, who were entire strangers to you, should for some moments afflict you with the most terrible mental retribution, is not, I think, to be deemed very marvellous in the economy of human confusion. And could you, Mr. greatrake, think it indecorous in me, silently to direct your eye to the grey hairs of that saint, whom you had ignorantly abused? As for Mr. Campbell, that gentleman bears no other character in your letters, than that of a demon. Nay Sir, in your second you actually associate him with the idea of "Satan fondling over (as you say) his hell hounds." Mr. Greatrake, are you not ashamed of such comparisons? If this is the spirit of a Preacher, (Nolo Espiscopare,) I'll never be a Preacher. Mr. Campbell, in the whole of this interview, looked so much unlike the Devil, to whom you had been pleased to compare him -- his mild address -- in short, who whole deportment, formed such a remarkable contrast with your written description, that it could not escape even your own observation. Did he revile you, as you did him? Did he threaten? Did not conviction, Mr. Greatrake, sting you to the inmost recess of your heart? To me the interview was distressing. Your distraction could not be concealed. I was penetrated with it. I told you so, but you were become the victim of your own indiscretion. You had ruined yourself by attacking men of whose character and sentiments you were entirely ignorant -- and my commiseration was of no avail.
Mr. Greatrake, I am now to make some strictures upon your letters. I am to inspect the configuration of at least four of them. But lest any should think that I meddle in other men's matters, I must tell you Sir, that I also have grievous objections to those letters and to yourself likewise. Lest any person should say that I interfere with you and Mr. Campbell, I would ask whether you Sir, have not interfered with the Church of the living God? Whether you have not slandered the Saints of the Most High? and spouted
forth a flood of falsehood after the followers of the Lamb? Have you not, contrary to all truth and even to probability, published that some of the Church of Christ, meeting in the Court House of this city, say that they "have been regenerated, and some say there is no regeneration, that some of them admit and some of them deny the Spirit[']s influence, while others aver that the word is the Spirit, and the Spirit is the word, and no matter whether there be any Spirit or No! That meditation, social and family prayer, are for the most part esteemed a matetr of foolishness with them." I ask, Sir, whether you have not reported these things in your letters? And would you have me silent under such scandalous aspersions? Would you have me, a mute spectator of your mean efforts to vilify the Church of God, in which I am a oastor? I must now inspect four of your letters, I say, because, you have attacked my brethren most violently in your fourth letter, and because there you have foisted us in so curiously, as to make it impossible fully to expose your conjectures without first overhauling your book from the beginning. This course may appear tedious, but we cannot help it. You have imposed the burden upon us, and we must bear it.
But, Sit, I have no quarrel with your person or with your character. I am alike ignorant of both. To your own master you stand or fall. I have carefully distinguished between men and things. I have carefully discriminated between you and what you write. It is with the latter only that I have to do. It will not therefor be necessary to beplaster you with vulger epithets. -- Such things only prove ill breeding of him that uses them. As for your entire Pamphlet, Sir, whether it is to be viewed as a wanton and cruel attack upon the Church of God, assembling in the name of their Redeemer, to worship according to the commandment. Whether it is to be received as an effervescence of that priestly and malignant spirit, which has in all ages of the world opposed itself to the best interests of mankind? Whether it is to be considered as a written dosplay of your own personal hostility to Christs religion, when ixhibited in its original simplicity, and to men whose righteous efforts, in the acuse of truth, have thwarted your ecclesiastical designs in this city? Or whether your letters are to be considered in all these points toegther, it requires no great causuist, I presume, Mr. Greatrake, to determine. You then are the cause of my appearing in public, and you see my design. But think not Mr. Greatrake, that I have overlooked your design. I think I understand the proposition before you in those letters. I think I have followed you from the premises to the demonstration. I think Sir, I perceive what your object is. Nay, I am sure you
have taken great pains in the beginning, middle and end of your book, to let your professed design be explicitly known. I call it your professed design, because I think it differs from your real design. For who, in reading those letters, does not perceive that your object was not to become the honest biographer of A. Campbell? -- was not to exhibit that gentleman's character, but to destroy it? And there is something still more marvellous in those letters, that you have actually overshot the mark in both of these aims. You have done neither of them. Perhaps you have only made him a character, as other men make him a mantle. For if you intended to pourtray A. Campbell, as you say you did, believe me, Sir, there is such a ghostly dissimilarity between the painting and the original, as makes all the world stare, and many call aloud for the painter, who has wisely walked off in the dark. Mr. Greatrake, you are ignorant of the religious community for which those letters are designed. On the cover of your book you tell us so. Still you might have hoped, that some in those western districts, both could and would distinguish between proof and proposition, and who, when they read a book, are generally careful to sieze the authors design -- very careful to keep the writers object in view, as knowing that otherwise they might have but a dim perception of much of what he says. But let us for a moment, pay all attention to your professed design in those letters, and let yourself be our interpreter. Your first letter is prefactory, and when you come to explain it, you say, letter second, that in it you had given us to understand that the subject to be handled was Mr. Mr. Campbell's character, &c. In your third letter you say, "In the further pursuit of his (Mr. Campbell's) character, &c." And lastly, in your concluding letter you say, "I have had the best motives in endeavoring to pourtray Mr. Campbell's character." The object of those letters, then, or, logically, the proposition of your book, is an "exhibit of Mr. Campbell's character," and so it is unnecessary to multiply quotations. -- But now, Sir, to the demonstration. What is your plan? How do you demonstrate the proposition before you? How do you afford us an exhibition of Mr. Campbell's character? You are to proceed, you say, by "fact and conjecture." This is announced in your first letter, and when you come to conclude, you have these words, "I have had the best motives in endeavoring to pourtray Mr. Campbell's character from the fairest grounds of conjecture, and from the face of his doings." Here in the end of your book you profess to have employed fact and conjecture in the pourtraying of
Mr. Campbell's character. This plan you elsewhere define to be conformable to the gospel, and natural. You say philosophers and Christians (Divines) have both admitted it, &c. &c. You see then Mr. Greatrake. that in those interpretations of your object, and the means by which you are to attain it, you yourself have been my guide. So that when I say Mr. Campbell's character is the proposition of your book, and that fact and conjecture are the means by which you develope that gentleman's character, I only say what you have written.
And now, Sir, having got into your little city and laid its gates on our shoulders, we mad march to the mountains. Very little exertion, indeed, is necessary to bring us hither. Already we seem to be there; the clamour excited by your pamphlet is fast dying away and already we seem seated as it were upon an eminence, with plenty of leisure to contemplate the unusual excitement and its ephemeral cause.
But, Sir, permit me to make a short and grave essay on three words of very frequent occurence in your letters, viz: -- Chararcter, fact and conjecture. You profess to give us an exhibit of Mr. Campbell's character, and attempting to do so, you have been graciously pleased to involve the character of others also. Now, Sir, did it ever occur to you before, or after, or even, while writing those letters, that a man's character is a very sacred thing. Did it ever occur to you, Sir, that you had chosen one of the most delicate of subjects? We ought, Sir, to approach the character of one another with the greatest reverance. No display of industry or talent, how successful soever, will atone for the want of character in America. In a republic, indeed, character, I may aver, is all that a man wants. It is not so in the country from which you came; but even there, Sir, it has long ago been discovered that he who steals my purse, steals comparatively trash; but he that robs me of my good name, &c. makes me poor indeed. We ought therefore, Sir, to approach the character of one another only through the medium of well attested fact. But secondly, to your term fact, this word signifies an action, incident, or occurrence. Now of it so happens that we wish to appear in public as a witness against a fellow-citizen, we should ever let our appearance at such a tribunal and such a crisis be sanctified by fact; well established fact: remembering at the same time, that no accusation, however plausible, can live immortally, that is not thus established; besides, it is not the part of the witness to comment on his own testimony. This is the province of the public, who, in such matters are always the judges; but take for an instance, of dispassionate testimony or witness bearing, the blessed Evangils -- there all is fact -- there the entire narratives relative to
the Holy Saviour are mere concatsnations of fact which must live and speak to eternity. Nevertheless they are delivered without note or comment. No conhecture is admitted there, even when the probibility of the ground seemed most inviting.
But now, Sir, to your term conjecture. You are to proceed partly by conjecture. Know then that our dictionary writers define a conjecture to be a guess, and a conjecturer, says Mr. Walker, is a guesser. The term in every instance implies the possibility of being wrong. Have Philosophers and Christians admitted conjecture as a legitimate source of development in the history of the equivocal character? Philosophers are false guides, too frequently, believe me, and the christians whom you mean, for I see you point to the Divines, are far less to be imitated in their manner of handling human character. But you shall judge for yourself, how nice a thing is it to manage conjecture aright? You shall see from your own book, how much, both of delicacy and judgment is necessary to be a good conjecturer. You conjecture for instance, that Mr. Campbell is hostile to the Paedobaptists, and from this conjecture, you again conjecture that he is vain, noisy and avarcious; and I say you conjecture it because you assert ot without proof, as we shall afterwards see. You conjectured also, that that gentleman printed 6,500 copies of debate, and was legitimately entitled to the profits of them all. This was a very wild conjecture, as Mr. Campbell will doubtless discover. Again, you guessed that he denied the influence of the Holy Spirit. And again, you erred, as I heard him invite you to put your finger on a single expression in any of his writings, which afforded you the least for such a conjecture, and you could not. Again, you conjectured two little stories concerning my co-pastor. They are attended with no proof. You never witnessed the scenes they describe, and no body could tell you them. You conjecture, also, that Mr. Church has joined our society; here you are wrong again. That he holds the delusive doctrine that Baptism is salvation; he has already convinced you that you erred here. You conjecture that this delusion, may perhaps, only be dissipated in hell. This is a bold conjecture, and a false one too, if he does not hold that delusion. And of the church in the Court House you conjecture, for nobody could tell you, and you never came to hear and enquire for yourself, that it holds wrong views of Baptism, scouts at the law, the doctrines of the Holy Spririt, experience and prayer and all these conjectures, are both arrogant and false! as you may learn by coming to the Court House. You say you are ignorant of the community for which
your letters are designed; of course you had to conjecture what would suit our taste. Well, Sir, you have provided a rich repast for such as prefer sound to sense, and declamation to fact. And, now Sir, I doubt not, you are ready to agree with me, that much both of delicacy and judgment, is necessary to make a man a good guesser or conjecturer.
Having premised so much in general, we may now come to your first letter in particular. You say, it contains the subject to be handled. In your interpretation of this epistle, you say, that, in it, you had given Mr. Campbell to understand, that you were to attempt an exhibit of his character. It likewise mentions the plan or principles on which you are to proceed in the development of his character; and this is all that is necessary to be said on your first letter.
Let us therefore proceed to your second. Here you fall upon Mr. Campbell and declare him hostile to the Paedobaptists; from this supposed hostility you proceed in your conjecture, and deduce his vanity; from his vanity is next conjectured the true origin of what, you call, his unceasing declamation; from his declamation, you obtain his prospects of gain; so that, almost in the same breath, A. Campbell, by the aid of conjecture, is presented to the reader, by his honest biographer, as a hostile, vain and clamorous knave. But why did you not proceed a little further in the induction, and from his prospects of gain collect his certain riches; then, Sir, with equal propriety and some show of scripture, you could have by another conjecture determined his future destiny; that is, you might have lodged him safely with the rich man in hell. But if you were going to reason from Mr. Campbell's hostility to his vanity, noise and knavery, why did you not prove him to be hostile to the Paedobaptists? Suppose your readers deny that he is hostile to the Paedobaptists, is there any thing in your book to prove it? Not a syllable; in your book it is entirely an assumption, so that the whole train of your conjecture is founded on what logicians call a Petitio principii, i. e. You take for granted the very thing in question, and you take for granted the very thing to be proved. But by whom was hostilities commenced? Do not documents, long ago laid before the public, demonstrate that the Paedobaptists were the aggressors? Did not Mr. Walker challenge all Baptist Ministers? And is Mr. Campbell to be accounted hostile because, at the solicitation of his brethren in the Ministry, he accepted the challenge? Have not two Paedobaptists assailed Mr. Campbell, viva voce? and two of them with ink and pen? And yet you assume that he is hostile to them, but utter not a syllable of their triplacate hostility to him; know you not, Sir, that "the wisdom
which cometh from above is without partiality?" Every fool (says the wise man) is first in his own cause, but when his neighbor comes he searcheth him out. But let it be a drawn game between you and me, let us say that they are hostile to one another; and then we may proceed to your conjecture. From this supposed fact you guess that Mr. Campbell is either a vain or a revengeful man; charity, you say, forbids you to conclude upon the last of these terms and therefore your charity makes choice of the first; but had your charity been of that kind, which Paul tells us, thinketh no evil, you, no doubt, would have found more difficulty in tracing either a scriptural or a philosophical connection between his vanity and his hostility to the Paedobaptist scheme. Nevertheless you work your way with the perspicacity of a lynx through a whole host of conjecvtures and come out quite clear, that Mr. Campbell is hostile to the Paedobaptists, ergo, he is a vain man. Mr. Greatrake, it is a poor rule that will not work two ways. Now, don't you think, Sir, that I should reason just as fairly if from your extreme complaisance towards those Paedobaptists, I should demonstrate that you are a very humble man? Yet, I am very far from thinking you such. Here it can only be said, then, that you may be out in your conjecture about Mr. Campbell's vanity. You are fond of proverbs I perceive; the Italians then say, ogni medaglio ho ilsua reverso, i. e. every medal has its two sides. And so, I say, has your proposition, but it is my turn to work with your rule of fact and conjecture; you say Mr. Campbell hates the divines of an opposite order, ergo, he is a vain man. Now, Sir, is there any love lost between them? I say the divines of the opposite order hate Mr. Campell, ergo, they also are vain men; again Mr. Greatrake, hates Mr. Campbell, ergo, he too is a vain man; now push it one step further and then because you hate one another, ergo, you are all vain men. But, Sir, if you had a spark of chairty, would you not have attempted to get off your brother Campbell on the grounds of the latin saying, odium theologicum, it is all the "hatred of divines." However if Mr. Campbell has contended with two of the Paedobaptists, is it, Mr. Greatrake, a conjecture to say, that two of them must have contended with him? And if from this you infer that he is vain are we not equally to be excused, if from the same cause we infer that -- they are vain likewise. I say, then Sir, that, in this letter you have not proved Mr. Campbell to be a vain man, by any rule, that will not equally prove all who oppose him to be vain men. But as we have granted you your unproven facr, that he is hostile to the Paedobaptists, so we shall grant you your uncertain conjecture, that Mr. Campbell is a vain man; and now, to a definition of the term vanity. Mr. Blair, in his lectures
on eloquence, says, that pride makes us admire ourselves, vanity makes us wish for the admiration of others. Now who admires Mr. Campbell? Do the Paedobaptists? Surely no! Does Mr. Greatrake? Surely no! But who is Mr. Greatrake? Why, if we believe himself, he is the mouth of 10,000 Regular Baptists! So then I ask again, who admires Mr. Campbell? It seems to me, he is vain to no purpose, for Baptists and Paedobaptists alike hate him; unfortunate puer; unhappy shepherd. But perhaps Mr. Greatrake, you think there is more in your second letter, than merely that Mr. Campbell is hostile, vain. clamorous, and avaricious; perhaps you think that there is more in the letter, than one supposed fact and three enthusiastic conjectures; indeed, Sir, there is nothing more. Believe me my dear Mr. Greatrake it is exceeding bald. -- Strip it of the following ragged expressions, and what will be left to secure it from shame, "vituperance, declamation, personal pique, nothing but rail, vanity insatiate, breast stirred to revenge, storm of indignation, unceasing attack, impelling principle, assault, and a good day an appetite, obloquy, Timor, Ghengis Khan, the Roman emperor, Proteus, Ishmael, Macedon, Bucephalus, &c. &c." Strip it, I say, of those low, vulgar expressions, and then you must see with myself, Mr. Greatrke, that it contains nothing more than the supposed fact, that Mr. Campbell is hostile to the Paedobaptists; and three uncertain conjectures that he is vain, noisy and avarcious.
But now I am come to your third letter the beginning of which exactly corresponds to what I have said. Having noticed Mr. Campbell's hostility to the Paedobaptists, you say, and intimated the probable causes thereof, &c. in the further pursuit of his character, I will exhibit some of the impressions, &c. &c. I am glad, then, Sir, to have the sanction of your own interpretation to what I have already declared and shown to be the spirit and soul of your first epistle. I may now proceed in safety with my remarks upon your third letter; and here, Sir, I shall again allow you to be your own expositor. You tell us that, in this letter, you are to exhibit Mr. Campbell's character. The proposition of this letter therefore, is, by your own interpretation, the same with that of the former; but here it is to be remarked, you change your modus operandi, you change your plan of developement and no longer proceed by fact and conjecture, but endeavor to make us acquainted with Mr. Campbell through the medium of impressions which his writings and preachings, say you, have made upon the religious and irreligious part of the community. Now, Sir, this is reasoning precisely as I would do, were I to attempt to deduce the blessed Saviour's character from the impressions which his doctrines have made upon
yourself. You have read of the Nicolaitaens in the revelations; of the Adamites who assembled naked; of the Munster Baptists who practiced polygamy, and of many others who all pretended to be inspired by sentiments taught by the Saviour, and would you, Mr. Greatrake, attempt to derive a single feature of the Blessed Saviour's character from the enthusiasm of such misguided creatures? Surely no! Now this is your declared plan in this letter; through just such a medium do you propose to hold up Mr. Campbell. -- This plan, however, is of no use where the sentiments making the impressions on the community can be proved to be taught by the character in question; if sentiments are bad, they will doubtless make bad impressions, and the man whose they are, is certainly accountable for both. You speak then of Mr. C's followers, whether real or pretended, as holding "horrible sentiments," i. e. wrong views of Baptism, they scout at the Moral Law, the Doctrine of the Spirit, experience and prayer, and these, you say, exceed the whole sum of blasphemies you ever met in the character of men and devils. Now, if you intended that the plan of reasoning which you have chosen should be of any use to you; doubtless you would have been careful to identify those blasphemies the writings and preachings of A. Campbell according to your promise in the beginning of this singular Epistle. But no! On the contrary, after having enumerated a lengthy chain of horrible sentiments you say, almosr in the same breath -- let us leave "those horrible sentiments as they cannot be identified with any of Mr. Campbell's own opinions, speculations or teachings," these are your very words: Now, if none of those horrible sentiments could be identified with any of Mr. Campbell's own opinions, speculations or teachings, why, in the name of wonder, do you say any thing about them? Here you have quite abandoned your own plan; or rather you have never attempted to follow it, perhaps you did not understand it -- perhaps you did not need it -- I think you did not need it -- listen to the following sentence and tell me Mr. Greatrake, where were your condour and your wit, when you wrote it? You say to Mr. Campbell, "whether Sir, you be, or be not the teacher of such sentiments, it is of little consequence as long as they have the authority of your name," i. e. as long as his enemies attribute them to him. Now Sir, after such a memorable sentence, I am more surprised at your laying out any plan of developing Mr. Campbell's character, than at your departing from it; plan is of no use, where we are determined to have a man in the fault, whether he be or be not guilty. What, Sir, do you think it of no consequence whether the church meeting in the Court-House, do or do not hold foolish and contradictory sentiments as long as they are
attributed to us by yourself, our enemy? We think it of very considerable consequence, to shew that in this matter you have wither egregiously erred, or done something worse. It must also be of much consequence then in the proper development of A. Campbell's character to show whether these sentiments be or be not his; but if you wished only to make him a character and to put it on him as others would a mantle, then I agree with your renowned saying "that it is of little consequence whether he be or be not the teacher of such sentiments as long as they have the authority of his name, i. e. as long as you say they have the authority of his name! Mr. Greatrake, I ask you whether as a professed minister of Christ, you are not ashamed to speak so iniquitously in public? You have in this whole matter, Sir, laid yourself naked to attack on every side, but it is not my business to wound, but to heal, to revenge but to return good for evil, blessing for cursing. If these were not A. Campbell's sentiments, why all this noise? Why so much sound and no sense? Why such a mighty proposition and no argument? Why so much smoke and not a spark of fire? Did you want to put out your readers eyes? Did you wish to betray is into a bog? or do you think Mr. Greatrake, that if it had been your intention to exhibit and not destroy Mr. Campbell's character, that you would have used so much wind as blows, in this letter? But he that attempts to reason without argument must necessarily wriggle and nestle and speak as impertonently as he who attempts to do so without a proposition; so do you, after hobbling and puffing to the middle of your letter, at last lay your finger upon the same string and play the same tune you handled with such address in your first letter, viz: Mr. Campbell's hostility to the ministers. Again you conjecture from this old fashioned fact which, you say, is as tangible as the leaves of his Christian Baptist, that he loves fame, or in the words of your former letter, he is "vain;" besides this he is "impudent" and "ignorant" and "mad as the Knight of La Mancha or the Phrenzied Swede!" Nay, he is an "intermeddler," an "empirick" with "a chaotic mass of Will-o'-the-wisp theology," say you; the very antitype of the "Jews who murdered Christ;" yet a "Babylonian" who plagues the Spiritual Israel. In the first part, for it divides itself into two parts, there is a proposition and a plan proposed but without a thread of argument; in the other declamation and foul words are substituted for both; and it is to be pitied and borne with, because here you are fighting for yourself; you have something at stake here, and we would expect to hear of heavy blows. Skin for skin, says Satan, all that a man has, will he give for his life. --
Mr. Campbell has touched your sore, and in your letters you let us know that you are not a Job. A. Campbell might have been a Socinian, Arian, or any thing, and then we could have borne with him, but when he would bereave us of the Loaves and Fishes -- Ah! there it is, even the meek Mr. Greatrake could scold here. What, Sir, did you think that Mr. Campbell would ultimately arraign you for the little heir with which you tax your mutum pecus? No, Sir, you would ever have passed unmolested -- you would ever have passed unnoticed in the tickness of that obscurity to which you have been consigned. I think, however, that you may yet be immortal. I think Mr. Campbell may yet touch you with his pen and then you will live. But, Sir, why here tell us of Mr. Campbell's hostility to the ministers and of what he "intimates and asserts of their dishonesty and selfishness?" According to your own declaration you were to treat of his character, through the medium of "impressions which his writings and preachings had made upon the public;" but how do you do it? Why even this; with the formality of a profound reasoner, for one would suppose that you really intended to reason, you remind your reader of the proposition of the letter; then you tell him how you are to proceed by "impressions made upon the mind of the community," and then you do not mention a single impression made upon the community. Next, you enumerate a series of horrible sentiments and then tell us they are not A. Campbell's sentiments. Then you get on the hobby of his hostility and this awakes your own hostility until the whole composition is become fervent with glowing expressions, such a "hell hounds," "Miltons Satan," "incestuous grand children," "Knights of La Mancha," "The Phrenzied Swede," "Jews who murdered Christ," "a Babylonian," "the poisonous Upas," &c. You seem to me to have chosen for your maxim, the very reverse of the famous Latin verse, suaviter in modo et fartiter in re, i. e. soft words and hard arguments; your words are the hardest in the English language, your arguments are so soft that they cannot be felt. Is vulgarity wit? Is conviction the result of senseless declamation? If we must convince we must argue, if we would be witty we must be wise. -- What edge does it give to your account of Mr. Church, to call him "an unregenerated man," a "speckled disciple," "a vain man," "a deluded man," "an Ignis fatuus," "a Jack-o'-the-Lantern," &c. &c. You talk of "the reproach of the wicked, the contempt of the wise, and the pity of the good." Think you not, Sir, that your own mouth is become a fit model of imitation, for the first of tehse characters and that while the scripture maxim holds, you never can be associated with either of the two; out of
the abundance of the heart (saith the Lord) the mouth speaketh. -- Besides, Sir, you should know that it is no proof of the badness of a cause, that it is reproached by the wicked; the Saviour's religion has ever been treated so by them and you have reproached us grievously be we his disciples or not.
But I am now come to your fourth letter, and I am glad of it. I have long sailed on a loud sounding sea and still I have no bottom. I am at a great loss! Not sir, where to steer, but where to stop; not where I should begin; but where I am to end; pity me reader! for sure here is a letter as full of filth and falsehood as the sea's full of water. You set out by saying that you had noticed "some of the moral impressions." Now, stop sir; let me ask what impressions did you notice? Unless by impressions you mean the "horrible sentiments" before mentioned, but these you say can be identified with neither Mr. C's. own opinions, speculation nor teachings; yet you stupidly say "impressions made!" Now on whom were they made pray? Indeed sir, believe me that the only personage in this letter that is shown to be impressed with any thing that can be called Mr. C's., is yourself. Yes sir, Mr. C's. writings and teachings, impress no individual mentioned in this letter but yourself. And the only impression that is made, even upon you, seems to be the temerity of his doings. You are fully impressed, I perceive, with the impossibility of his attempts in his writings and teachings, and no doubt sir, you think this impression of yours an admirable proof, that his attempts will ultimately prove abortive! O quale caput. The next sentence introduces the Church of Christ in this city -- the "same fraternity" who hold the "horrible sentiments," so often alluded to; but it is not enough for Mr. Greatrake to say, that they hold wrong views of baptism, scout at the doctrine of the Spirit, the Law, experience and prayers; but he must proceed, says he, to raise up "other characteristics["] of the "same fraternity." Sir you have exhibited a strange contempt for truth. You proceed as follows -- "In this church there are two pastors." Why did you not name us out? Why did you not say in the church meeting in the court house?" Were you afraid of the law? Did you hope to deprive us of all certain means of redress? I called upon you for explanation, but you dare not, at least would not tender me any. All the city, however, know whom you mean by this church and their elders or pastors, I therefore, in this matter, sir, without ceremony speak what others think and know to be the fact, that you mean the church meeting in the court-house
and its pastors. You go on and say that "one of their pastors occupies an entire Sabbath in explaining a part of Scripture to his flock." Now sir, this is false and refutes itself. If one of the pastors occupies an entire Sabbath, what is the other doing? The many who attend the church, know that you have stumbled on the very threshold, and it only serves to demonstrate your consummate ignorance of our order in the court-house. Are you not ashamed sir, to be so superlatively ignorant of a thing, which you might have known by coming down to the middle of the city. No individual in the Church of Christ sir, is allowed to monpolize an entire Sabbath, that church assembles on the first day of the week "to break bread," not to listen to a pensioned preacher, besides sir, you should know from the Scripture that the flock of God, is not a mutum pecus, is not a dumb herd, like that which you tend, but being "filled with wisdom, are able to admonish one another even as they do." You next say that this same pastor surprises the whole flock with his eloquence; and when he has done they rise up to tell their neighbors and he comes to tell me. Now sir, where does he come to, in order to tell me? When he speaks in the court-house am I sitting some where else; or close by his side; and if I am close by his side as all the world knows I am! what necessity is there either for coming or going to tell me? But sir, I pronounce this story, this little story a vile falsehood. In all its parts it is the offspring of your own rash heart or who catered it for you? But sir, I forbear. As for myself I have in connection with my own subsistence, labored pretty assiduously in both sacred and natural learning for the good of my fellow citizens and their offsprings. Yes I have been five years in Pittsburgh, and now mark me Mr. Greatrake, give me five cents sir, and you are at liberty to rake my character fore and aft; and when you have fished all possible fact concerning me, sit down, give loose to your wildest airs of conjecture and then pipe them forth with all your lungs; pipe them forth to the four winds of Heaven? And we are all sure that if you had had any worse to say of my co-pastor you would have said it, all the world can see that. Your little story, sir, is a little monster defiled in all its limbs; it seems to me if I have any skill in arithmetic, to possess no fewer than seventeen members, of course that number of falsehoods stands against its father. Priests are fond of cursing, cursing things in all their parts; look, Sir, upon this rickety brat of your own, and say whether it does not deserve all the hard terms which you with so little reserve have bestowed upon others. And now, sir, you attempt to give variety to your subject by exhibiting your
pastor at greater length on the "margin of the river." This poor story is a very cluster of musrepresentations and the particulars are so numerous and stick so close to each others embraces, that I am scarce sharp sighted enough to pick them out and count them. What shall I say then of those misrepresentations? Why just this, that when taken all together they make one thumper. -- After stringing up a concatenation of obnoxious sentiments, you put them into your pastor's mouth and then end with this loud sounding stentence and a "hundred things of the same sort and a thousand others, and different sayings as irrelevant to the Gospel," is spoken to the raftsmen at their avocation; and what say the raftsmen? Why that the pastor is a "noble fellow," an "Antinomian," Antispiritist, Antichrist or Socinian; then they salute him with "my brother" until these jarring things make such a thumping on your own imagination, for it is all in your own brain, that you actually think yourself (as you say,) present with the devil, "groping his way through chaos and old night." Suppose Mr. Greatrake our situations were reversed and that you had to refute such stuff as the above, can you tell me how you would proceed? I am at a great loss. The excellent Mr. G. Campbell of Aberdeen, has this noble sentence, "Mere declamation, I know no way of refuting but by analizing it." And now sir, we are ready to hear you describe your pastor at social worship, I call him your pastor sir, because we recognize no such a queer character existing among us as you have exhibited. Here comes one of the drunkenest like scenes that ever graced a Bagnio. "See him, say you, recumbent upon some three or four chairs, with a cigar in his mouth disposing of its smoke with one respiration, and going on by breaks with a lecture on some part of the divine truth, or standing up at the fire mingling the fumes of his tobacco pipe with the breath of prayer and praise, issuing from the mouths of his professed brethren while engaged in their devotions! But here say you we shall stop." Yes stop Mr. Greatrake, what a pity you had ever moved a step in such vile misrepresentations! You never witnessed such a scene; and who is your authority for this little story? But if you had to stop in the middle of your story on account of its grossness, what must the reader think when he is told that he has the Rev. Mr. Greatrake for its father? Every person of understanding will easily perceive that such things are not the result of inquiry or of sound reason but of spleen; and with respect to Mr. Rigdon, believe me Mr. Greatrake, that he now lives among men of as delicate a sense of propriety and of optics as quick in the preception of good and evil, as those of many of your European sages; moreover sir,
I still think you are indebted to the grace of God in Mr. Rigdon. I was yesterday told by a gentleman, a gentleman sir, of elegant manners and as good nerve as any in the city, that when one of your privileged order publicly insulted him, he just as publicly knocked him down. Now I am no patron of knocking down, yet we are all inclined naturally to knock each down; and believe me sir, in this matter you owe a good deal to Mr. Rigdon's christianity. But you say you are ignorant of us as the community for which your letters are designed? You might have been silent here, nemo se accusare debet, no one is obliged to accuse himself, but I assure you sir, that some of our citizens would have horsewhipped you had you talked so vulgarly of them.
I am now come to Mr. Church's case, and a very extraordinary one it is. Here you must allow me to make a remark, which may be of some use to yourself, and to the reader. It is this "that in our disputations, we are very apt to mistake men for things." Yourself for instance can entertain no grudge at the person of Mr. Church, and others alluded to, in your letters, but only at the religious course which they advocate; instead, however, of refuting this from scripture, which is what you ought to have done, you have bedaubed us all with vulgar epithets. Now these epithets can prove nothing except the ill breeding of him of him that uses them. I ask you again, sir, what good it could do yourself or your cause to bedaub every person whom you touch, with such bad names. -- Why do you call Mr. Church a speckled disciple, a Jacko'the-Lantern, an Ignis fatuus, &c.? If Mr. Church had acted wickedly, you should have proved it, and even this which you have never attempted, you ought to have done in a spirit of meekness, if you wished to go by the directions of the Holy Spirit. You did not know Mr. Church, you had never seen him, you were not present at his baptism: no wonder then that every word of your accounr of this matter should contradict all that we saw with our own eyes. You set out, in your account, by saying that Mr. Church promised to join our society; now, sir, he never promised to join our society, neither has he joined our society, he is not a member in our church. Mr. Greatrake, I am quite confounded at your apparent rashness in this publication: Mr. Church, like ourselves, sir, has a host of religious enemies, quite near him, that hate him as heartily as you can do, besides they know him much better; believe me, then sir, that if they could have brought any thing bad against him, they would have done so long ago, and I think that you, as a stranger, might have been silent. In the end
of your first letter, you bid Mr. Campbell attribute certain things to the Caecoethis Scribendi, i. e. to your "rage for writing;" well, sir, this is one way of getting you off, and for my own part, I am agreed; but then. I have a host of other things to bring against you. You say that Mr. Church has borne the name and made the profession of almost every sect in christendom, but Mr. Church authorises me to say that you have framed a misrepresentation, just almost as large as christendom. You have put down the names of seven of those sects and Mr. Church has never made the profession of a single one of those sects! BUt if he had, Mr. Greatrake must have congratulated him on his happy escape from them all, as he himself is to be found in none of them. Who told you that Mr. Church bargained with us to discourse on baptism? If he did, he was a truce breaker, for sure he did not harangue us on baptism; but on a quite different subject, as all the world knows, viz: -- on the constitution of Christ's church and on that of the Presbyterian church. You say he spoke five hours, here sir, you are out by one hour and three-fourths, you say he recited what Mr. Campbell had wrote on Baptism; he did not speak ten minutes on this institution, and, in that time, he only read a few scriptures. You say that he has professed and reprofessed; this, also, is a mistake; but, sir, I am tired out with enumerating errors, and as Mr. Church is to subjoin a letter to this; I only remark that if you had made so many blunders, falsehoods, and misrepresentations, about a matter which occurred in your own city, and which you might have seen or might have received all proper information on, who will believe you in what you say of the character of Mr. Campbell who lives 40 miles distant from you, and whom you never saw but once about ten minutes. I shall put you in mind of a solemn promise which you made to Mr. Church to correct these misrepresentations and others, which I have passed over; yes, Mr. Greatrake, you promised first, in the presence of Mr. Campbell and myself, to correct these misrepresentations, and you failed. You renewed your engagements in the presence of Mr. Rigdon and myself' but have you fulfilled your renewed promise? You have not! Now, could any thing cancel this obligation? Could any thing relieve you from the solemnity of your promise, unless you had discovered that all you had said about Mr. Church was actually true? In a letter to Mr. Church you assign as a reason for this truce breaking that Mr. Church had afterwards bestowed some illiberal epithets upon you, at least report said so. Could this relieve you from the duty of correcting what you know is undoubtedly false? I think not! -- besides, sir, you should remember the worldly maxim, ab alio
expectes alteri quod feceris. You have bestowed many hard epithets on Mr. Church who takes the present opportubity of tendering you the following letter.
MR. CHURCH'S LETTER TO MR. GREATRAKE.
MR. GREATRAKE,
You oblige me to appear in public under very peculiar circumstances. It seems odd that I should have to defend myself against the attacks of an enemy I dont know, and yet it is not less odd, that I should be attacked by an enemy that does not know me. -- This however, we must attribute to the times in which we live, they are certainly perilous in the extreme. You are the author of "Letters to A. Campbell, by a regular Baptist;" and in those letters you have taken the liberty to speak of my baptism and of myself also. Well sir, there is nothing in such a liberty incompatible either with the institution or with my character; and had you spoken an a warrantable mannerof either, I never could have taken it amiss. But Mr. Greatrake there are certain things in your letters relative to my baprism and to myself which do not correspond to fact; and it was in respect to those things, sir, that I took the liberty to call at your house in company with Mr. Campbell and Mr. Scott. I deem it unnecessary here to enumerate these things specifically; it will be sufficient to say that in my interview with you, I told you they amounted to twelve. These, you will remember, I pointed out to yourself in the presence and hearing of the above named gentlemen. I told you they were misrepresentations; that they were making false impressions on the public mind; that they might do me harm; that they could do you no good, and consequently, they ought to be corrected. All this you acknowledged and professed yourself ready to make a prompt, and an adequate redress, or to remind you of this in the terms of your own letter, you said "I will with pleasure avail myself of the earliest opportunity to correct any such mistake and remove the consequenr impressions from the mind of the public." You asked me "if this would satisfy
me," I replied, "it would entirely satisfy me." I left your house and returned to my own in patient expectation of the appearance of your notice in the Recorder, which by the way it was agreed upon, should be the medium through which your corrections should be brought before the public. I was disappointed, your notice did not appear. The misrepresentations were still before the public; they continued to make false impressions; I knew they might do me harm; that they could do you no good; and I was aware they ought to be corrected. I returned to your house in company with Mr. Rigdon and Mr. Scott. I informed you of my errand. I told you I had been disappointed, and requested an explanation. -- You asigned a reason with which I was satisfied; and renewed your promise in the presence of the above named gentlemen to be ready with your paper of corrections against a proper day. The day arrived; again I was disappointed; no communication from you appeared in the Recorder; but on the contrary you wrote a letter to me informing me that you had heard some floating rumors about exceptionable language and illiberal epithets bestowed on you by me. This was a marvellous reason Mr. Greatrake, why you should demur -- why you should violate your solemn and renewed promise to correct what you admitted and even now know to be false; nevertheless, it was manifest from tidings brought you by your friend that I had used exceptionable language and illiberal epithets, and this you conceived was a reason weighty enough to "cancel all obligations on your part to take any public notice of my injury." And did it cancel all obligation on your part to fulfil your promise, your solemn promise made before witnesses? Have you not committed a multitude of mistakes? Have you not admitted these mistakes before witnesses? Did you not allow that they ought to be corrected? Did you not promise they should be corrected? You did, and in the presence of heaven and earth I charge you with the violation of your promise. I have subjoined your letter in which the promise and the violation of it are both recognizable.
MR. GREATRAKE'S LETTER TO MR. CHURCH.
MR. CHURCH, SEN.
Sir -- When you introduced yourself to me as an individual alluded to in my letters to Mr. Campbell, and stated upon the assumption that you were alluded to, that there existed several items of mistake or misrepresentation in these letters respecting yourself, and that the same was necessarily making false impressions upon the minds of the readers; I gave you to understand in short terms, that I would with pleasure avail myself of the earliest opportunity to correct any such mistakes, and remove the consequent impressions from the minds of the public, if this would be satisfactory to you. And your answer was, "that it would entirely satisfy you." Since then I have met with a floating rumor that you were using very exceptionable language and bestowing very illiberal epithets upon me -- that rumor I mentioned to you when last I saw you and you intimated that its origin was in the garulity or malevolence of tattlers -- in which idea I felt disposed to concur with you, and proceeded to take necessary measures for removing all false impressions about you from my letters. The few lines which I had written for this object I had delegated to a friend to hand to the printer of one of the public papers, previous to my going out of town last week -- upon my return I found the communication still in his possession, because the rumor alluded to above he found (as I have since) to be a fact. That fact was brought to him; it deterred him from proceeding agreeable to my instructions, and will I conceive justly too, cancel all obligation on my part to take any public notice of your supposed concern in my letters to Mr. Campbell, and the consequent mistakes about you -- nevertheless, if you are supposed to be alluded to in the letters spoken of, and any of my language connected with the supposition is misunderstood, or any mistake exist deliterious to your character, I still hold myself bound to correct the same -- but it shall be done in a different way to what has been contemplated. I must receive your own proper hand writing specifying on what ground you consider yourself as being alluded to at all, and then the particulars which you consider errors of injury to your character -- you may then expect, you shall have any reasonable satisfaction given you from my pen, to do what you please with it. Allow me sir, to admonish you to speak and act under the direction of your own sober and mellowed judgment, and not at the impulse of a momentary irascibility, for
which perhaps you are indebted in a measure to others, lest in resenting a supposed injury you commit a real one, and for which it will not be so easy for you to make reparation. My house is as yet, open to your visits, but to no triumvirate.
A Regular Baptist.
Well, sir, it is true, I came to your house "upon the presumption (if presumption it may be called) that I was alluded to" in your letters -- but did you not do away all presumption? Did you not by acknowledgement, and by the truce which you made with me to correct certain misrepresentations, as stated in the above letters, convert my presumption into reality? But certainly, sir, such an epistle as the above makes but little ibservation necessary. You would have me return to your house alone to make a new bargain. But what security, pray, do you offer, that more regard will be paid to [your] second than to your first engagement? Having been bold enough to violate your first promise, made in the [presence] of witnesses, there remain no grounds to believe that you would fulfil a second, amde [not in] the presence of witnesses; for your house is not open to a triumveriate, i. e. to myself and witnesses. Have you not violated your solemn truce or covenant made with me in the presence of Messrs. Campbell and Scott, on the 24th August, viz: -- that you would publicly correct the falsehoods in your letter? You have, sir, -- you renewed this promise on the evening of the 24th, before Messrs. Scott and Rigdon; but have you fulfilled even your renewed promise? You have not, sir. On the contrary, I received the above letter on the 3d of the month, without date, and with your fictitious name to it; you, as the assassin, like to plot in the dark? Did the Saviour act so? No, sir! The Lord Jesus was all openness, and commanded his disciples to proclaim on the house top, whatever they heard in secret. But, sir, I cannot vlose this letter without putting one question, and you must not think me officious in doing so: You must not think, that I meddle with other men's affairs, when I do so, for I apprehend that every person who reads Mr. Campbell's writings
is concerned in the question. Why have you wickedly and maliciously published that Alexander Campbell denies the influence of the Holy Spirit? This scandalous assumption or rather falsehood is the very foundation of your low, clamorous address to the Baptists, and you assert it boldly, for instance you say Sal of Tarsus "denied Jesus of Nazareth," you, (Mr. Campbell,) deny the Holy Spirit from Heaven. Now, sir, read the following passages from that gentleman's writings, which were in your hands at the moment you wrote your invention, No. 12, page 191. "I know of no passage in the New Testament" says Mr. Campbell, "that says that the spirit of God accompanies any of our preachers words; besides, the disciples are the sons of God and have the spirit of Christ." Now, Sir, Mr. Campbell declares it not as his opinion but as a scriptural fact that the disciples, i. e. all disciples, have the Spirit of Christ; but though Mr. Campbell believeth that the Spirit of God, i. e. the Holy Spirit is no accompanier of those men called preacher's words: What does he say of the Holy Spirit and Gods words? Why as follows. "The age of miracles and gifts has passed away and now the influence of the Holy Spirit is only felt in and by the word, i. e. (of God, the New Testament,) believed" No. 8, page 184, and are you not ashamed, Mr. Greatrake, to say with this in your hand, that Mr. Campbell denies the influence of the Holy Spirit? But, sir, are you so ignorant as not to know that all the gifts of the Holy Spirit admit of a threefold division -- that the Holy Spirit blesses men either with power, wisdom, or goodness. In the primitive ages he blessed the disciples with miraculous power and with extraordinary wisdom to understand mysteries; all these miraculous gifts have ceased, and now the fruits of the Spirit "is in all goodness," in them that believe the word of God. This, sir, is certainly no false doctrine! But Mr. Campbell has inserted a letter in his 9th No., on this very subject, and has declared that same letter to be worthy of the examination of his readers; now this number was in your possession at least four months ago, so that you had not a spark of grounds to assert that he denied the influence of the Holy Spirit, and extract this lie from your address to the Baptists and, what becomes of it. This falsehood, sir, is the very body, soul and spirit of that dirty piece. But we have now two essays on the work of the Holy Spirit, from the pen of Mr. Campbell himself; and what does he say? Why that we owe every thing in and about our religion to the Holy Spirit, that this Holy one not only established the truth but may be said to have
"made the truth" in the 9th No. it is said by the author of that piece, that his "saving influence in the production of faith and repentance, and of every other gracious effect by which we are made partakers of a divine nature, is, by the word of truth, put into the mind and written upon the heart;" and this he says, "seems to be the general opinion of, at least, all "the most eminent writers," &c.; and yet you tell the Baptists that he has attempted to rob them of the only "comforter," "the condescending Holy Ghost." Sir, I believe you wished to destroy the character of Mr. Campbell and to set aside his great usefulness; but you have missed your mark -- you have been quite premature -- your rashness has slain you -- you have fallen into your own net -- you have ensnared yourself -- your reputation is gone, and your inoquitous letters will doubtless be held in that execration which they so justly merit.
WM. CHURCH.
Your fourth letter ends in a declaration about the church in the Court-House, a "fraternity which you, in letter 5th, think worthy of imitation in the "particular of devotedness to the perusal of the Scriptures." Iam sorry, sir, I cannot return the compliment to you or to your associates. Your neglect, and sometimes your contempt of the Scriptures is exhibited on many occasions! Do you not make them a mere text book? Is he not the smartest preacher, who from a single verse or part of a verse can say the greatest number of fine things after he has triumphantly closed the book? Our tongues are now compared to the pendulum of a clock, and to the noise of a steam engine. These comparisons doubtless do great honor to your taste and to your heart, then we are regenerate -- then we are not regenerate -- there we deny the Spirits influence -- and here we do not deny the Spirits influence -- there the word is the Spirit, and the Spirit is the word, and no matter whether there be any Spirit or no! Meditation, social family and closet prayer, is for the most part esteemed a matter of foolishness with us! Now, air, you must excuse me, if I here take the liberty of telling the world that I think you are [terribly] left to yourself, in being led to give publicity to such slander. Did it ever occur to you that we are well [known] all over the city? After all this gross slander, you
say, "I shall curb the feelings of my soul." You are really a fine gentleman. Had you, sir, never given loose to the luxuriance of your licentiousness, you would have been a better man to day. Do you know any among us, who live contrary to the righteousness enjoined upon the Saints? Point out him among us who lives under the dominion of evil? That we have spots and all the children of God have spots, we shall never attempt to deny. But Mr. Greatrake, you are our enemy. Come down to the Court-House sir, look us in the face, and we are now becoming pretty numerous, look us all in the face, sir, and then say and publish the name of that person among us, who is a liar, a thief, a tattler, a drunkard, a slanderer, a blasphemer or person living in uncleanliness, &c. &c. and be sure, we shall put him away from among us, or at least exercise that discipline which Christ has established against such. No stipend which we have to pay to a pensioned clergyman, makes it necessary to retain among us, for a moment, persons of such a description.
Now. sir, I have done with your fourth letter. In the 5th, you only "retouch" as you express it, your slander of us! Call us Antenomian, Socinian, &c., but as I am quite worn out, and as some might think that I meddle with matters that dont concern me, I here resign you into the hands of Mr. Campbell, who has to account with you about the story of the books. Now, sir, I here ask you what you have said against Mr. Campbell and others alluded to in the four first letters, that can possibly affect their characters as good men. You have not produced the shadow of a fact that can injure one of them; the burden of these letters is Mr. Campbell's hostility to you clergymen; besides this you do not mention any thing that can be called a fact, far less be proved one. -- And now, sir, when you come to write again, endeavour to distinguish between men and things. If there be any thing true against the character of whom you write, produce it; if he have done wickedly, show it; if he has spoken erroneously, refute it; but never plaster men with hard names, for in this you only prove your own want of good breeding and good scholarship. -- Farewell, Mr. Greatrake.
TO THE SAINTS SCATTERED IN PITTSBURGH.
The Saints meeting in the Court-House, sendeth Greeting.
HOLY AND BELOVED BRETHREN.
We are returned from the captivity of mystery or spiritual Babylon -- we have crossed the Jordan -- we are come into the land of our Fathers, to the heavenly Jerusalem, and to the temple of the Spirit founded by the Apostles and Prophets; Jesus Chrust himself being the chief corner stone, and now enjoying rest, and walking in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, we are daily multiplied and edified in our redeemer, God. In short, brethren, we have abandoned the communities in which you are at present detained and enslaved; we have betaken ourselves to Christ, who is the only master in religion, and we have many adversaries, who, because we will not walk by their human law, impiously assert that we have departed from the law of Christ whom we honor and adore. They say we act disorderly and strengthen the hands of sinners, while they themselves are supported by sinners and retain them in their meetings, which they iniquitously call churches of Christ, so that God's holy name is every day blasphemed in our streets by their supporters; and because we are few, they affect to despise the day of small things, but the Lord will lift up the hands which hang down, he will strengthen the feeble knees, and we are persuaded that no weapon that is formed against us will prosper, and every tongue that is raised against us, Jehovah in judgment will condemn.
Brethern, would you desire to know who we are -- about whom the clergy make such a noise. We are christians then who adore God and the Lamb, and rejoice in the comforts of the Holy Spirit. Nay, we are a church of the living God, meeting in the Court-House of Pittsburgh and constitutionally different from all other meetings in this city which assume this name. Brethren, we are not a regular Baptist Church, we are not an irregular Baptist church, neither are we a Catholic, Episcopalian, Covenanting, Presbyterian, Seceder, or Union church, but a church of Jesus Christ, founded upon the only foundation stone, i. e. Jesus Christ. We are constitutionally a church of Christ, just in the very same strict sense, in which the above named societies are constitutionally Catholic, Episcopalian, Baptist, Covenanting, Presbyterian, &c. assemblies. The constitution of Christ's church is one thing, and the constitution of these churches is quite a different thing. Brethren, understand us, what we mean by the term constitution; by constitution then, we mean, that, which keeps a society together, be it a religious or a civil society: For instance, the American republic is kept together by that instrument, commonly called the constitution of the United States. The empire of Great Britain is also founded upon its constitution, and is held together by it. Let it be observed, brethren, that the constitution of these two communities, are perfectly distinct. The constitution of the United States, which is a republic, would not hold together the British empire, which is a m0narchy; nor could the American people be held together by the constitution of England, because it is adapted to that kingdom. And such a wonderful thing is the constitution, so superatively eloquent is it above all things else, that it uniformly gives the name or style to the state. If the constitution is republican, the community is named a republic, like the United States; it it is imperial in its requirements, the state is then styled an empire, as Great Britain. Indeed, it is the constitution which determines the character of a society, and it is the constitution which shows how one society differs from another; for example, the Catholic church or society, which is founded upon the [infalibility] of its clergy, is by such a constitution, easily perceived to be different from a Covenanting church, which is founded upon the national covenant, &c. of Scotland, and both these, again differ from a Regular Baptist church. But, as no person would be admitted to the freedom of the United States, without first abjuring the constitution of his former country, and subscribing to the constitution of this; so no Catholic could be admitted into a Covenanting society without first renouncing the constitution of his former church, even as a Covenanter must abjure
the national league of Scotland if he would become a Papist or a Baptist, and thus do the constitutions show how these religious societies differ from each other, or among themselves. Well, brethren, it is the constitution of a church which determines it to be Christ's church. It has a peculiar constitution, just as the above mentioned assemblies have their respective constitutions, and you are perhaps ready to ask us, what is the constitution of Christ's church? Well, we are just as ready to answer, that it is nothing more nor less, than "Faith in Jesus Christ" as the crucified, and risen Saviour of the people of God. He that confesseth the Lord Jesus Christ with his mouth and believeth in his heart that God has raised him from the dead, shall, says the Apostle (Romans 10th,) be saved.
Now, he that on the evangelical evidences, believeth and confesses the above fact, viz: -- the death and resurrection of the blessed Saviour has also, in this very deed, recognized and subscribed the constitution of the Christian church, and may and always will be admitted into it. When Peter confessed the Saviour as the "Son of the living God," the Saviour told him that this confession should form the foundation of his future church, saying, "On this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The Apostle declares that other constitution, bond of union, or "foundation, can no man lay than is laid," which is "Jesus Christm" now we could lay another foundation for a religious establishment different from a Christian church, but for a Christian church. We must say, with the Apostle, that other foundation for this establishment can no man lay than is laid, which is faith in Jesus, as the Christ, and this alone. We could draw up a confession or different constitution, and make every member bow to this before his admission, and such a church might be either a "Catholick, Episcopalean, Presbyterian or Anabaptist;" but if we could plant a Chrustian church in any town or place, the constitution is already framed -- the foundation is already laid to our hand -- it is to bow the knee to Jesus, not to human creeds and confessions.
We in the Court-House therefore are, and profess to be a church of Christ, in Pittsburgh, in the same strict sense in which the church or Epjesus, planted by the great Apostle Paul, was the church of Christ in that ancient city, or we are the church of God here in the same, sense in which the church in Antioch planted in that city by the scattered brethren in the persecution which followed Stephen's death, was the church of God in that city. Were those
two churches constituted after a christian manner? Could they, according to their constitution, admit every one into their fellowship, who professed faith in Jesus Christ? They could. So we, by the very constitution of the church, can admit every one who confesses the Lord Jesus Christ with his mouth. Our church is just the Gospel net, so framed as to admit all kinds of fish, and when they are caught, the only liberty allowed us, is to cast the bad away.
The church of Christ is so framed that no person confessing his name is to be denied admittance; this, to be sure, makes it possible for many bad persons to get in; but then Christ has endowed his Saints with such vigilance, widsom and authority, that they may always as easily again put them out, and then his church ought ever to be a holy society, a refuge for the good, the home of the Saints. As it was with the Apostolic churches so, in this respect it is with us, we admit all comers, who, on the evangelical evidences confess that the Lord Jesus is the Christ, the redeemer of his people, and we put out all, whose behaviour does not correspond to this profession. Now in this point it is evident that we differ from every other worshipping assembly in this town, and this is proved by what follows. -- In the Court-House, there is a very considerable number of people of God who believe in the Lord Jesus, who love, who adore him and walk in the comforts of his heavenly kingdom, and faith in him is the only bond of their religious peace, union and fellowship: but will the simple confession of this faith which displays itself in love to God and men, and which brings them and holds them together in their present church capacity, bring them into a Catholic, an Episcipalean or Presbyterian society? Oh, no! There we must admit the supremacy of the Pope; here the supremacy of the Bishop; there we must bow to confessions, and here we must subscribe antiquated and fantastical covenants! These societies then, beloved brethren, are, by their very constitutions, framed to divide Christ's people; but his own church is so framed as to gather them all together in one. In this respect then, we in the Court-House differ from all societies around us, and in this radical, fundamental and constitutional particular we agree with all churches of the Apostles' planting. Brethren, among the Catholics we cannot admit the supremacy of the Pope and swallow down without discrimination all the absurdities of your church in order to enjoy your communion. Brethren among the Episcopaleans, we cannot possibly overrule our judgments with all the faculties and sympathies of our natures, so as to make them uniformly tally or agree with your liturgy. Brethren of the Presbyterian society, we dare not lay the doors of the church
as wide open as those of the world; we dare not admit among us [in] the worship of God those who are merely born of blood and of the will of men, but not of the will of God. The kingdoms you know, might in this manner soon become a world of baptized heathens. -- True, the tares and the wheat must grow in the same field, and that field you know, Christ has explained to the world, Mat. 13th chapt. -- but the church is not the world, but a holy society called out of the world as her name ecclesia, in the Greek, certainly imports. If any of the old leaven, i. e. if any person like those who composed the Old Church, be found in the New Church, the Apostle tells us, to purge it out; we must put every such wicked person away from among us, and keep the feast with the new leaven, even of sincerity and truth. The constitution of your church ushers into it, as members, all who are born of the flesh, the constitution of Christ's church retains such only, as are born of the Spirit. We out out Hagar and her fleshy seed, and though at first sight it may seem cruel, yet we must remember that Abraham, the father of the faithful is our example in this matter, and we must imperiously declare that the fleshy child shall not, indeed cannot, be heir of Christ's riches, with the spiritual child. -- Besides, brethren, we cannot and will not subscribe to your Westminster confessions of faith, which is merely a religious minument of other men and other times, and adapted to a national religion and drawn up by a national assembly, neither can we subscribe to your covenants; yet we are all covenanters, and we hope covenantees too; we renew the New Testament or covenant in Christ's blood every seventh day in the holy institution of the supper; yes we eat the supper every first day and therein show forth the blood of the New Testament or covenant until the Lord himself appears. You see then, brethren, that if you dont come to the Court-House to enjoy our fellowship, we can never come through the rubbish and tradition of your churches, in order to get at yout fellowship; but you have no tradition to confess in order to obtain our fellowship, so that the Gulf, which bad men have thrown between us, is still passable from your side; you may escape it if you choose. We are standing with the Bible and with open arms to receive you. You are our brethren according to the Spirit of holiness, and our bowels yearn towards you beloved of God. Let not your Brethren, according to the flesh, impose on you, by saying, you are free in Babylon -- that you are not in bondage to any man -- mind them not when they tell you that it is your home -- that you have been long there -- that your fathers have fought for her, and died in her. For though many of our good fathers have died in Babylon, that is not
to deter you from obeying the Scripture, which speaketh to you as to children, in this wise, "Come out of her my people lest ye be made partakers of her plagues."
Out accuser, Mr. Greatrake, tells you that we are great students of the Bible and even worthy of imitation in this matter. Now he must think the Bible a very uncertain guide, if so be it leads us so far wrong as to believe the stupid things which he puts into our mouths. He says we deny the Law, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, scout at prayer, regeneration, &c. &c. Now we assure you that these are false, and we invite you to the church and to our families where alone you can have the best proof of their falsity. -- As for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, brethren, the man must think us fools if we read our Bible and at the same time deny this. This is the very nature of the covenant ubder which the Spiritual Israel exists, that the law of love is "written on their hearts" by the Holy Ghost, which is given to them. The law is no longer on two tables; but the great comprehensive gift of love to God and man is put on the christians heart and in his mind not by ink and pen but by the Spirit of the living God. This we believe, brethren, as you yourselves do, but you know that the things which are too commonly attributed to the Holy Spirit of God are out of all character; indeed they are sufficient to make all men stumble at our blessed religion. We have ever disbelieved such fables, and are bold to say, will ever disbelieve such phantasies. Indeed we have no new doctrine that we are aware of. We have no other Jesus than you have -- no other God -- no other Spirit -- no other Bible -- no other Faith. We believe your doctrine in these things to be the doctrine of Scripture. We profess to differ from all societies around us in order and discipline. We are confident, we are modled after the pattern showed us in the New Testament, and we are confident that no other in town is so. Be it known then, brethren, that on every first day of the week we all assemble together in one place to renew the New Covenant in Christ's blood -- to show forth and keep alive the memory of Christ, who is the victim by whose death, the New Covenant was sealed, or in other words, we eat the supper every first day of the week, and this is according to Apostolic practice, as all commentators of any standing unformly allow. Now this is the prominent end of our meeting too, we do not come together to listen to a preacher, but to break bread with one another! And being fond of our Bible, as Mr. Greatrake has informed you, we are most of us able to admonish and exhort one another to love, and to good works. We have Pastors to be sure, but they don't shut all
mouths but their own. In short, they have no right to do so, and therefore we don't permit them. After eating the supper, prayer and praise, as many of us as are competent to speak, rise, one by one, and endeavor to edify the body of Christ in the Scriptures. -- Our Pastors always preside and occasionally teach. We ordain them by the laying on of hands and fasting of prayer. Our ordination is the popular ordination. We have all the authority which the Pope could give the Reformers, which they gave their followers, and which their followers have given us. We could not precisely say what this amounts to, but our ordinarion seems to be partly Papish, partly Presbyterian, and partly Baptist; and by the way, it is only doing justice to Mr. Campbell, to let the public know, that instead of patronizing anarchy, as his enemies say, he is just advocating the scheme which may be seen in the Court-House of this city. Come to the Court-House and you may see at a glance what A. Campbell advocates. You think he hates Preachers. By no means! We should distinguish between men and things. He hates no man, but only endeavors to refute from Scripture things that are unscriptural. Now, his enemies should oppose him in this point -- if he is wrong, refute him from Scripture; but what good results from bedaubing him with bad names? Mr. Campbell advocates a certain course of religious order which he maintains to be Scriptural; but his enemies, instead of refuting him in this matter, all get to abusing the man, and this too is of some importance with stupid, ignorant congregations, that cannot distinguish a man from the things about which he speaks. Let it be observed, however, that the Church in the Court-House was in existence five years ago -- before Alexander Campbell ever saw it -- it was originally planted by men whom I could name if it were necessary, so that it does not owe its existence to him, or indeed any thing to him at all.
Believe us, Brethren, that many besides Mr. Campbell have got their eyes open to the popular abuses and oppressions, and many in every country, Scotland, England, Ireland and America, are just doing what we are doing in the Court-House, and if everyone had the same opportunity of publishing his sentiments as Mr. Campbell, there should be many, who, like him, are perfectly tired of the religious domination which is abroad.
A WORD TO THE UNCONVERTED.
You have lately been addressed by the Rev. Mr. Greatrake, as persons qialified to judge the characters of those who make such a pretty figure in his "Letters to A. Campbell." Listen, I pray you, to the following and then judge of his own character.
In those Letters you hear much about scouting at prayer, &c. Would you know to what Mr. Greatrake particularly alludes? I thibk I can tell you. -- Old Mr. Campbell had just recovered from a sickness which had brought him nigh unto death, when he thought good to visit some of the neighboring congregations. He came ultimately to Peters-Creek, and as usual lodged with the Pastor, Mr. Philips. When bed time arrived he was requested to make prayer, but the fatigue of preaching and the effects of his late indisposition, together with the deafness of Pastor Philips, induced him to lay it upon the next person to him, Mr. Ephraim Estep. Mr. Greatrake got hold of the story -- he alludes to it in the Letters, and he actually made it the principal ground of accusation against the Old Gentleman in the association. By such a story, and others similar, did the high minded Mr. Greatrake attempt, and succeed in getting Mr. Campbell excluded from the association. But we thank Mr. Greatrake, for Mr. Campbell had no business in such company. The association is not of Heaven, but of men.
CERTIFICATE OF MR. PHILIPS.
The report that has been officiously spread to the prejudice of Mr. Thomas Campbell's Christian character, as thro' or from me, respecting his declining to pray or give thanks in my house, is entirely groundless, as to any assurance on my part, taken up against him on that account, as if he had done so from principle of oposition to the duty or exercise of prayer. I never thought or said so; nor had I any just or obvious reason so do to [sic - to do?]. He, having upon all former occasions cheerfully and readily concurred with requests to lead in the worship of my family when he happened to be with us. Moreover, I verily believe, the reasons assigned by him to Ephraim Estep, to have been the true reasons of declining my invitation at that time; he being evidently weak, in consequence of a severe illness, out of which he was but recovering, and I at the same time exceedingly dull of hearing.
DAVID PHILIPS.
Pastor of the Church at Peters-Creek.
CERTIFICATE OF MR. EPHRAIM ESTEP.
Whereas, it has been officiously reported, and, as appears, to the manifest injury of the Christian character, of Mr. Thomas Campbell, that, when on a visit to Elder David Philips, last winter, he refused to pray or give thanks in his family; also, that in meeting with the Church, or rather a few members of the church of Peters-creek, upon that occasion (for a full meeting at that season was prevented by a deep and sudden fall of snow) he had uttered sentiments offensive to the Church. I, who was one of three or four members only then present, and who also spent the evening with Mr. Campbell, at Pastor Philip's, declare as follows:
That, on that occasion, nor on any other known to me, did Mr. Campbell utter sentiments offensive to said Church. That he did utter sentiments in public upon the said occasion, and upon the same subject in conversation with myself in Pastor Philips's that were somewhat new to me, and of which I said so afterwards, I acknowledge, but they were offensive to me or others, or to the truth, or that they were calculated to give offence to Christian ears, or that I ever said so, I utterly refuse and deny. That with respect to prayers, Mr. Campbell was asked by Father Philips to pray before going to bed, as is usual in his family, but declined it, and requested me to supply his place, is true; assigning as his reason for so doing, his personal weakness through indisposition, as not feeling able to speak sufficiently loud to be heard to the satisfaction or edification of Father Philips; upon which I consented to take his place at that time, is also true; but without any impeachment or surmise known to me, resting upon the mind of any present, that either then, or during such visit, he had declined taking part in the worship of God either from principle of objections, or disapprobation, or of any other conceived aversion to the worship of God.
Given under my hand and seal, this 28th day of October, 1824.
EPHRAIM ESTEP.
How the following Epistle came to be overlooked by the early Saints of Christendom, and by all the Fathers, or whether it was purposely suppressed by the Council of Nice, and why it was at last destined to be found with other old manuscripts among the ruins of an ancient City, by a miserable wandering Monk, are all circumstances which my limited knowledge of these subjects does not enavle me to esplain. I am answerable only for the accuracy of the translation from a French copy presented by the Monk himself. Neither can I prove the authenticity of the original; unless it be on the strict correspondence of the actual state of the Church with the injunctions contained in the Epistle; a correspondence which seems to hold with as much veracity as that which is found in the fulfilment of any Prophecy with the prediction itself.
Third Epistle of Peter.
Preachers and Rulers of Congregations.
The Style and Manner of Living.
Now ye who are called and chosen to go forth to all nations and among all people in time present and time to come, to preach the word, see ye take to yourselves marks, nay many outward marks, whereby ye shall be known of men.
Be ye not called as men are called; but be ye called Pope, Archbishop, Archdeacon, or Divine, or Reverend, and Right Reverend, or some like holy name: so may you show forth your honor and your calling.
And let your dwelling places be houses of splendour and edifices of cost; and let your doors be decked with plates of brass; and let your names, even your reverend titles be graven thereon; so shall it be as a sign.
Let your garments in which you minister be garments, not as the garments of men, neither let them be "seamless garments woven throughout;" but let them be robes of richest silk and robes of fine linen, of curious device, and of costly workmanship; and have ye robes of black, and robes of white, that ye may change the one for the other, so shall ye show forth your wisdom and humility.
Let your fare be sumptuous, not plain and frugal as the fare of the husbandman who tilleth the ground; but live ye on the fat of the land, taking "good heed for the morrow, and wherewithal ye shall be fed."
And drink ye of the vines of the vintage brought from afar, and wines of great price; then shall the light of your spirits be the light of your countenances; and your faces shall be bright, even as the morning sun shall your faces glow in brightness; thus shall you show forth your moderation and your temperance in all things.
Let the houses in which you preach be called Churches, and let them be built in manner of great ornament without, and adorned with much cost within; with rich pillars and paints; and with fine altars and pedestals, and urns of precious stones; and cloths and velvet of scarlet, and vessels of silver.
And let there be rooms for the changing of robes, and places for the precious metals and mitres.
2 THE THIRD EPISTLE
And let the house be divided into seats for the congregation, and let every man know his own seat; and let the first seats in front of the altar be for the rich, that pay by thousands; and the next for the poorer, that pay by hundreds; and the last for those that pay by tens. And let the poor man sit behind the door.
And let the seats be garnished with cushions and crimson cloth, and with fine velvet; for if the houses of players and vain people who deal in idle sayings and shows of mockery, be rich and gorgeous, how much more so should be the houses that are dedicated to him "that is meek and lowly of spirit."
The Choosing of Ministers.
When ye go out to choose holy ones to be of your brethren, and to minister at the altar, choose you from among the youth; even those whose judgments are not yet ripe, and whose hearts know not yet whether they incline to God or Mammon.
But ye are wise, and ye shall know the inclining of their future spirits, and ye shall make them incline to the good things which the Church has in store for them that are called; even those that shall be called of you.
Then shall ye have them taught exceeding many things: they shall not be as "ignorant Fishermen," or husbandman, or men speaking one tongue; and serving God only by the knowledge of his Law:
Nay, yoe shall make them wise in the things of your wisdom, yea, exceedingly cunning in many mysteries, even the MYSTERIES which you teach.
Then shall they be fitted for the "laying on of hands," and when the Bishop hath done his office then shall they be Reverend Divines.
But if any man believe that he is called by God to speak to his brethren "without money and without price;" though his soul be bowed to the will of the Father, and though he work all righteousness; and "speak as with the tongue of an Angel;" if he be not made a Divine by your rulers and by the hands of a Bishop, then is he not a Divine, nor shall he preach.
He that is chosen of you shall give you honor, and shall be honored of men and honored of women; and verily he expects his reward.
The Performance of Preaching.
When you go to the Church to preach, go not go by the retired way where go those that would shun the crowd, but go in the highway where go the multitude; and see that ye have on the robes of black, and take heed that your pace be measured well, and that your march be stately.
OF PETER. 3
Then shall your "hearts be lifted up," even as the hearts of mighty men shall they be lifted up. And ye shall be gazed upon by the multitude, and they shall honor you; and the men shall praise you, and the women shall glorify you; even by the women shall ye be glorified.
And when you go in, go not as the inordained, prepared only with a soul to God and with a heart to men, and a spirit filled with the Holy Ghost; but go ye with your pockets full of papers and full of Divine words; even in your pockets shall your Divinity be.
And let your Sermon be full of ["]the enticing words of man's wisdom," and let it be beautified with just divisions, with tropes and with metaphors, and with hyperbole, and apostrophe, and with interrogation, and with rxclamation and with syllogisms, and with sophisms, and throughout let declamation be.
And take good heed to your attitudes and your gestures; knowing when to bend, and when to be erect; when to lift your right hand, and when your left; and let your motions be graceful; even in your attitudes and in your gestures, let your grace be. Thus shall ye be pleasing in the eyes of the people and graceful in their sight.
Let your voice, at times, be smooth as the stream of the valley; and soft as the breeze that waves not the bough on its bank; and at times let it swell like the wave of the ocean, or like the whirlwind on the mountain top.
Then shall ye charm the ears of your hearers and their hearts shall be softened, and their minds shall be astounded; and their souls shall incline to you; and the men shall incline to you, and likewise the women; yea, unto your sayings and unto your persons shall they be inclined.
And be ye mindful not to offend the people; rebuke ye not their sins; but when ye rebuke sin, rebuke it at a distance; and let no man apply your sayings to his own case; so shall he not be offended.
If a brother shall raise up the banner of war against brother, and Christians against Christians, rebuke them not: but be some of you on the one side and some on the other; and tell the one host that God is on their side, and the other host that he is on their side; so make them bold to kill. And even among swords and lances, let your Black robes be seen.
Preach you not "peace on earth and good will to men," but preach ye glory to the victor, and victory to the brave.
If any man go into a foreign land and seize upon his fellow man, and put irons on his feet, and irons on his hands, and bring him across the great deep into Bondage; nay, if he tear asunder the dearest ties of nature, the tenderest leagues of the human heart; if he tear the wife from the husband, and force the struggling infant from its mother's bleeding breast, rebuke him not!
And although he sell them in foreign slavery, to toil beneath the lash all their days; tell him not that his doings are of antichrist; for lo, he is rich and giveth unto the Church, and is esteemed Pious, so shall ye not offend him, lest peradventure he withdraw himself from your flock.
Teach them to believe that you have the care of their souls, and that the saving mysteries are for your explaining; and when you explain your mysteries encompass them round about with words, as with a bright veil, so bright that through it no man can see.
And lo, ye shall bind the judgments of men, (and more especially of women,) as with a band of iron: and you shall make them blind in the midst of light; even as the owl is blind in the noon day sun. And behold, ye shall lead them captive to your Reverend wills.
4 THE THIRD EPISTLE OF PETER.
The Clergy's Reward.
"In all your gettings, get" Money, now, therefore, when ye go forth on your ministerial journey, go where there are silver and gold, and where each man will pay according to his measure. For verily I say, ye must get your reward.
Go ye not forth as those that have been sent, "without two coats, without gold or silver, or brass in their purses; without scrip for their journey, or shoes, or staves," but go you forth in the good things of this world.
And when ye shall hear of a Church that is vacant and hath no one to preach therein, then be that a CALL unto you, and be ye mindful of the call, and take ye charge of the flock thereof, and of the fleece thereof, even of the golden fleece.
And when ye shall have fleeced your flock, and shall know of another CALL, and if the flock be greater, or (rather) if the fleece be greater, then greater be also to you the CALL. Then shall ye leave your old flock, and of the new flock shall ye take the charge.
Those who have "freely received let them freely give," and let not men have your "words without money, nor without price," but bargain ye for hundreds and bargain for thousands, even for thousands of silver and gold shall ye bargain.
And over and above the price for which ye have sold your service, take ye also Gifts, and be ye mindful to refuse none, saying -- "Lo! I have enough;" -- but receive gifts from them that go in chariots, and from them that feed flocks, and from them that earn their morsel by the sweat of their brow.
Yea, take ye gifts of all, and take them in gold and in silver, and in bread; in wine and in oil, in raiment and in fine linen.
And the more that the people give you the more will they honor you, for they shall believe that "in giving to you they are giving to the Lord;" for behold their sight shall be taken from them, and they shall be blind as bats and "shall know not what they do."
And ye shall wax richer and richer, and grow greater and greater, and ye shall be lifted up in your own sight, and exalted in the eyes of the multitude, and "lucre" shall be no longer "filthy" in your sight. And verily ye have your reward.
Note: The "Third Epistle of Peter" was perhaps the joint composition of the anti-clerical, Campbellite "Bishops," Sidney Rigdon and Walter Scott. See also reprints in the Dec. 1824 Lexington Western Monitor and the July 4, 1825 issue of Alexander Campbell's Christian Baptist, (which adds this final line: "In doing these things you shall never fail. And may abundance of gold and silver and bank notes, and corn, and wool, and flax, and spirits and wine, and land be multiplied to you, both now and hereafter. Amen.")
A. Campbell's Greatrake's Calumnies Repell'd
Early picture of the Rev. Alexander Campbell
Lawrence Greatrake: Bio-data:
The Laurence Greatrake, Sr. family came to Philadelphia from Herford, England, in about 1800 and lived on Brandywine Creek in the Christiana Hundred of Delaware. in the early 19th Century. The family evidently were of French ancestory, and perhaps descended from Huguenot refugees living in the United Kingdom.
Laurence Greatrake, Sr. managed the Gilpin paper mill on Brandywine Creek. His wife was Eliza and their children were Eliza, George, Henry, Mary Ann, Lydia, Sarah and [Charles] Laurence, Jr. Laurence (or Lawrence) Jr. moved to Pittsburgh in about 1823 -- probably to find employment as a paper-maker. He may have already been a licensed minister for the Baptists: he was ordained a Regular Baptist preacher, in or near Pittsburgh, in 1823 or early 1824. Rev. Greatrake then took over leadership of the much diminished First Baptist Church in that city, replacing the Rev. John Winter in that capacity. Rev. Lawrence Greatrake was briefly hired as the church's official pastor, but apepars to have relinquished that office by the end of 1825. He was listed in an 1826 Pittsburgh city directory as a minister residing in that city. Rev. Lawrence Greatrake remained in Pittsburgh at least until 1827.
The 1820 Census of Baltimore County District 1 lists Lawrence "Greaterick" as the head of the Franklin Paper Mill, which was founded by Aaron Levering in 1807-08. There is no listing for Laurence, Sr. or his son Laurence in the 1830 District 1 Baltimore census. In 1830 the Franklin paper and woollen mills were sold to Lewin Wethered -- possibly an indication that Laurence, Sr. had died. His daughter Mary Ann married a Captain Roberts; daughter Eliza was briefly married to Franklin Peale. Laurence, Jr. married Maria Jaquett (either in 1824 or 1834 -- date uncertain).
Parish records in England provide the following information:
Laurence Greatrake / Greatrix / Greatrex / Greatorex -- wife: Eliza _____
Chas. Laurence Greatrake
b. 08 May 1793; Hemel Hempstead, Hertford, England
George Greatrake
b. 27 Oct 1794; Hemel Hempstead, Hertford, England
Henry Joseph Greatrake
b. 18 Feb 1798; Hemel Hempstead, Hertford, England
Lawrence, Sr. & Jr. Greatrake found in:
Passenger and Immigration Index, 1500s-1900s
Passenger and Immigration Lists: Philadelphia, 1800-1850
Laurence Greatrake:
Marriage Index: 1740-1920
Married: Jun 01, 1834 [sic - 1824?]
County: New Castle, DE
Spouse name: Maria Jaquett
Genealogy of the Jaquett Family, Page 112-114
VIII. 367. Peter Jaquett [1718-1772] md. Nancy -- son of Peter & Maria Jaquet
Genealogy of the Jaquett Family,, Page 114
438. Jesse, (c. 1774-99); m. Sarah Brumfield. 20 Dec 1791 in Cecil, MD; resided Baltimore, MD
children of Jesse and Sarah:
476. Maria, b. c. 1797 (Baltimore?) m. Lawrence Greatrake
477. Sarah, b. c. 1798 (Baltimore?)
Genealogy of the Jaquett Family,, pp. 129-130
May 21, 1799. Peter Jaquett, of Long Hook, apptd. guardianof Maria and Sarah Jaquett, minor orphan children of Jesse Jaquett, dec'd.
The will of Major Peter Jaquett was dated June 18, 1834... he bequeaths to his nephew Peter, son of his deceased brother Nicholas Jaquett, his Bible... he makes bequests to Maria Jaquett, wife of Lawrence Greatrake, and her sister Sarah Jaquett, adopted daughters of his late wife; -- Mary Ann Greatrake, wife of Captain Roberts, and her sister Maria Greatrake, wife of Mr. Southerland, and Sarah Greatrake and Lydia Greatrake, daughters of Eliza Greatrake;
Maria [Jacquett] Greatrake found in:
US - Census Index (1870)
County: Allegheny
Town: Allegheny Ward 1
Birth Location: Delaware
Tombstone inscription: Union Dale cemetery,
Division One, Brighton Road, Pittsburgh PA 15212, Allegheny County:
George W. Greatrake
Second Son of Rev. Lawrence and Ann Maria [Maria Jaquett],
_____ 6, 1824 - Feb 9, 1854
lived in Alleghany city, PA 1849-50
Louisa Greatrake
born c. 1830
Birth place: PA
Home in 1850 (lived with John F. COle family)
Allegheny Ward 4, Allegheny, PA
Samuel F. Cole -- b. Pittsburgh, JUne 9, 1845, son of John F. and Elizabeth M. (Greatrake) Cole. Elizabeth was the daughter of Joquett Greatrake, a Baptist minister of French extraction.
Elizabeth Davis married Henry Fink in 1819 in New Castle Hundred. They moved to Ohio later. ... a connection to Laurence Greatrake who lived in New Castle Hundred 1800-1819.
Henry Greatrake was either the son of Laurence Jr. or Senior. Laurence Jr. was a famous Baptist preacher and Laurence Sr. was a papermaker on the Brandywine. H.G.G. Brandywine Paper Mills
Reminiscences of Wilmington: 38
www.accessible.com/amcnty/DE/Delaware/delaware27.htm
Rockdale: The Growth of an American Village in the Early Industrial Revolution
by Anthony F C Wallace:
Greatrake, Lawrence, pp. 217-18:
"...in the 1820s, a steady stream of English and French mechanicians... came to America... in the Philadelphia area,among the best known were the... Greatrake family on the Brandywine.... Lawrence Greatrake [Sr.], technical manager for Thomas Gilipin" (in Delaware Co. near Philadephia)
258: "Franklin Peale (son of Charles Wilson Peale) married the daughter of the Gilipins' mechanical expert, Thomas Greatrake. The Greatrakes were Quakers and the young woman [Eliza] was a "Quaker Preacher" of extreme religious zeal... the marriage was annulled..."
the Greatrake family immigrated from Hemel Hempstead, UK to the state of Delaware, circa 1800. Lawrence Greatrake, was a well-known paper maker.
Robert Richardson
' Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, Volume II. (1869)
Another individual, who made himself quite notorious about this time, was Lawrence Greatrake, a regular Baptist preacher, of a restless spirit and strong passions, who occupied himself in itinerating through the country, wherever he could obtain a hearing, either in Baptist or P�dobaptist congregations, breathing forth misrepresentation and abuse of [99] Mr. Campbell and his teachings. The bitter spirit, however, by which he was characterized, rendered his reckless assertions doubtful to thoughtful and impartial hearers, and served rather to further the Reformation by exciting their curiosity to read Mr. Campbell's writings or to hear him for themselves. As to Mr. Greatrake, he continued his itinerant labors for a considerable time, and published a scurrilous pamphlet against Mr. Campbell; but afterward, falling into disgrace, became an apostate, and finally, in passing through a piece of woods on his way to a place of shelter, was suddenly crushed to death by a falling tree.
A Laurence Greatrake reportedly died in Paris, Tennessee c. 1830.
Reminiscences of some churches in the original bounds of the Baltimore Association:
The first Baptist Church in Maryland of which we have any account is that of Chesnut Ridge, afterwards Saters, Baltimore County... The oldest church bearing the name of Particular Baptist in the Baltimore Association was called Winter�s Run, afterwards Harford, Harford County.
In 1772, besides the main establishment at Winter�s Run, the church consisted of three other branches; one near Chesnut Ridge, which met for worship in the house belonging to the General Baptists; the second was at Patapsco; and the third near Winchester... The First Baltimore church was established in 1795 with eleven members, all of whom except Elder Lewis Richards were dismissed from Harford Church. The second church of Baltimore was constituted by Elder John Healy and a few English Baptists, and their meeting-house built in 1797. This church may be called, in the Baltimore Association, the mother of preachers, as Harford was called the mother of churches.
The first licensed in this church was Elder Daniel Dodge, after him was Lawrence Greatrake, William Brinkers, Joseph Trapnell, W. Curtis, William Reck, Joseph Cone, Bartholomew T. Welch and Joseph H. Jones.
Historical Society of Pennsylvania:
Pennsylvania Magazine of History & Biography Greatrake, Lawrence: (1956) 81:396-399, 404
Lawrence Greatrake: Bibliography:
[Letters] To Alexander Campbell, by A Regular Baptist,
30 p.; 22 cm. (9 in.)
Pittsburgh: Eichbaum & Johnston, [Aug.] 1824
[Letters] To Alexander Campbell, by A Regular Baptist, alias Laurence Greatrake,
Pittsburgh: Eichbaum & Johnston, [Nov.] 1824
CLP Main Oliver Room (Oakland) - Closed Stacks r 265 R17
The Harp of Zion: to which is added, a brief retrospective and prospective view of the Baptist society / by a Regular Baptist
Pittsburgh: Johnston and Stockton, Printers, 1827.
Sewickley Pub Lib 286 REG 1827 HIS -- zaccp2 b22674304
(See also: Classified Catalogue of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh
Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh: 1903
Page 179: Greatrake, Laurence: Harp of Zion, 1827
The Parallel and Pioneer, or, a Pocket Mirror for Protestant Christendom, by Lawrence Greatrake
100 p.; 23 cm. (9 in.)
New Lisbon: Printed at the Office of the Palladium, 1830
Indiana Historical Society, Indianapolis, IN
Lights and Shades of the Waterite Reformer and One Fact Apostle, alias Alexander Campbell
Pittsburgh: Printed for the Publisher, 1836
An anti-missionary dissertation on the commission in Mark 16, 15...
[nd 1838]
Note: The 1824 pamphlet by Elder Walter Scott is:
A reply, to a series of iniquitous "Letters to Alexander Campbell, by a regular Baptist," alias, the Rev. Mr. Greatrake. Together with an address, to the saints in Pittsburgh, and the third Epistle of Peter, or; A looking glass, to the present hired ministers.
Pittsburgh: Printed for the publisher by John McFarland, 1824
Return to top of the page
Sidney Rigdon "Home" | Rigdon's History | Mormon Classics | Bookshelf
Newspapers | History Vault | New Spalding Library | Old Spalding Library
last revised May 21, 2007