Volume 2. Number 2. September 6, 1824, pp. 87-93.

• Primitive and Modern Christianity by Philip (Walter Scott), pp. 87-89.
• Essays on the Work of the Holy Spirit in the Salvation of Men--No. II by Alexander Campbell, pp. 89-91.
• Address to the Public by Alexander Campbell, pp. 91-93.
• Remarks on Confession of Faith by Alexander Campbell, p. 93.

      A SERIES of almost 2000 years has now fled away since the gospel announced light and religious liberty to the enslaved world; since Messiah, emerging from the rocky sepulchre, destroyed Death, and delivered those who, through fear of his merciless domination, were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Strong and implacable were the enemies of Jesus; many were the foes with which the Captain of our salvation had to contend, and for a moment they seemed to prevail. They crucified him, and thought themselves secure; they entombed his murdered body, and vainly imagined the conquest was complete. Unhappy men! how blind to the future! Scarce was the palm of victory lifted to their brows, when it withered; scarce did the dawn of conquest rise upon their marshalled efforts, when it set in the midnight of everlasting dismay. They succeeded in depriving the Champion of Israel of the light of life; but in the awful moment he only groped for those pillars on which the whole temple of Jewish and heathen superstition stood. Then, indeed, he bowed himself. The grave could not retain him who made the world. The Shepherd of Israel descended into the pit, but it was only to destroy the enemy of the flock, and having seized him he slew him. When the son of God rose from the dead, and thereby brought life (eternal life) and immortality to light, ignorance, the cause of all Jewish, heathen, and anti-christian superstition fled before him; and seeing that the world were in great bondage through fear of death, and especially through their ignorance of that life which lay beyond death, it was necessary that he who gave his life for the world should deliver his children from the bondage of this fear. Having risen from the dead, and removed the cause of all uncertainty respecting a resurrection and eternal life, nothing remained but to let the children know it. To effect this, to remove all fear, to inform the body of the resurrection of its head, to let all flesh see the salvation of our God--the Lord Jesus called the twelve, and, viva voce commissioned them to go into all the world and to preach the gospel (i. e. his death and resurrection) to every creature: "He that believes shall be saved--he that believes not shall be damned." This, by the way, is the only constitution of a christian assembly, in opposition to all written instruments. Having received this gospel in charge, the apostles went forth every where preaching it, God bearing them also witness in signs and wonders, and diverse miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his will. Having made disciples in Jerusalem and every where among the gentiles, it became necessary to assemble the brethren on that fact which they had believed, in order that they might edify one another, grow in grace and knowledge, increase In every good word and work, and finally show forth the death of Jesus in the eating of the supper.

      To manage the business of the church in all ages, it pleased the Head of the church to appoint bishops and deacons. The apostles were chiefly employed in ordaining elders "in every church" on their return from their first tour through the Lesser Asia. Titus was left in Crete for the express purpose to "ordain elders in every church," and Timothy had this business in charge in the church at Ephesus. And in all those appointments the bishops and deacons were chosen from among those who believed; and they had previously assembled themselves, like others, to eat the supper. Besides this, they were numerous in every church.

      Of the elders or bishops at Ephesus, it is said that they "all fell upon Paul's neck," &c. but the word "all" is never used of one or two, but of a considerable number of persons. The epistle to the Philippians is addressed to the church there with the bishops and deacons. Two things, then, are remarkable in the choice of the primitive bishops: 1st. They were selected from among the brethren--2dly. they were numerous in every church. Two things are remarkable of modern teachers also: 1st. That they are not chosen from among the brethren--2dly. that there is uniformly but one in every church. The order established by the apostles, was the same in every church and was very simple; but the world, which perverts all things, soon began to make inroads into the beautiful and simple institution of the Lord Jesus, and from the most instructive and pure society, it has become the nest of every unclean bird. Evil men did not wait until the apostles were dead, but even while they were alive commenced their anti-christian labors, which caused the apostle to say that even now, i. e. while the all-authoritative apostles and chief servants of the Lord Jesus were present, the mystery of iniquity was a working; yes, even then there were evil men and seducers, who were to wax worse and worse; and those men were not without, but within the church, like Diotrephes, who loved to have the pre-eminence, who received not even the apostles, but prated against them with malicious words. So says John. Peter tells us that these false teachers were to be remarkable for false doctrine, for covetousness, for their contempt of the magistrates, for their corruption, for loving the wages of unrighteousness, for speaking great swelling words, &c. &c. They even dared, under the name of christians, to call in question the authority of the apostle, which occasioned him to speak as follows to the Corinthians; "Am I not an apostle?" and to say of those pretended servants of Christ, that seeing Satan himself was transformed into an angel of light, it was no wonder therefore if his ministers were transformed into the ministers of righteousness. This is a singular incident, that the sons of God, the disciples of our Lord Jesus, should really be subject to the impositions of the servants of the Devil, transformed in appearance into servants of Christ. What is the christian to do after being told so by the Spirit of his Father? Where is he to look for these transformed ministers? How is he to detect the cloven foot?

      This difficulty is greatly increased in the present age. Teachers are so numerous and so contradictory, so learned and yet so ignorant of the scripture, so covetous and yet so lofty in their requirements, that even the well meaning are at a loss sometimes how to act in regard to their claims. Is the disciple to look for these transformed ministers among those who have thrown off not only the power, but the form, of religion? Surely not! The apostle says they assume the color of servants of Christ, and therefore must be looked for among christians. When any truth in the New Testament is contended for by any number of combatants, it is possible for all to be wrong, but they never all can be right. If one man call himself a servant of Christ because he holds a license of the Pope; another, because he holds it of an Episcopalian bishop; a third, of a classical presbytery; a fourth, of an association; and a fifth, of any body that has plenty of influence with the public surely they cannot all be right when they come to contend with each other about the jus divinum of their respective ordinations. The [87] first of these tells the world he can make his God! and the disciples eat him! The second half denies this, and the rest deny it altogether. This, one would suppose, is a very delicate point to be divided upon--yet so it is; and the Lord pity the poor disciple who has to confide in any of them, for they are very wolves! O! reader! is it not a desideratum then to have a rule by which the disciple may distinguish the ministers of Christ from the ministers of Satan transformed? Surely it is; and the Bible is that rule--the bible, declared to be profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, and is given by inspiration, that the man of God may be perfect, fully furnished, says the apostle. I shall suppose myself a christian greatly embarrassed by the above saying of the apostle, viz. that the ministers of Satan are transformed into the ministers of righteousness, and feel anxiously desirous to be able to distinguish them from those who are the true shepherds or bishops of Christ's flock.

      I have no guide under heaven but the Bible. This is either allowed, or ought to be, by all. There is no legitimate authority in religion that is not derived immediately from the scriptures; they are God's umpire in all christian questions; and to them, and them alone, in the dernier resort, must we appeal; so that the only question remaining is, Whether the Bible contains descriptions of the real and transformed ministers, particular enough to enable me to distinguish them from each other. I can know this only by opening the Bible and reading it. I proceed, with respect to both, by induction of particulars, thus:--First, all the bishops and deacons in the churches of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Ephesus, Greece, Crete, &c. &c. were uniformly, without a single exception, selected from among the brethren of the particular churches in which they were to officiate; and this particular I hold to be a sine qua non in electing or ordaining a bishop of Christ. He must be chosen from among the flock. Step aside from this, and the hireling system at once enters with all its train of religious spouting, preaching, &c. If the brethren, therefore, require or desire to have bishops and deacons, it is indispensable that they look out from among themselves holy men, answering to the description of such persons, in Timothy, Titus, and elsewhere. Now in selecting bishops and deacons, a church, or a number of people calling themselves a church, may choose to depart from this uniform practice of the apostolic churches, i. e. they may hire a school or college man, who, allowing the assembly so hiring him, to be what they profess to be, a church of Christ, can never, in any sense, be said to be selected from among the brethren of said church; and for their practice in so doing it is certain that they can plead neither scripture, precedent nor precept. In such a case, then, we have great and manifold reasons to suspect the character of the church, as well as that of the minister. The first may be, and I only say may be a synagogue, of Satan, and the preacher his minister transformed into a minister of righteousness. However, it would be premature in me to say that every minister so appointed is a minister of Satan, because this would, even in my own opinion, be deducing the general conclusion for which I am searching, from too limited a number of experiments. I only say then that such a person and such a church are wrong, i. e. astray from scripture authority in the very first step, and therefore I must proceed with the induction. But here I shall turn a leaf, and look through the medium of the scriptures at the hireling or transformed minister. We have seen how any number of individuals in the apostolic churches arrived at the episcopal office, i. e. through a choice from among the members of the church where said bishops were to officiate. We are sure, then, that one so appointed "comes in by the door," i. e. in the only manner authorized by scripture precept and example. But for the hireling--how comes he in? "Verily, verily, I say to you, he that enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up some other way, is a thief and a robber." It would appear from this declaration, then, that the step which a man makes at the threshold, may finally determine his character as a minister. The reader may, perhaps, be afraid to look at things in this frightful point of view, seeing he may never have heard or seen of ministers being got by selecting them from the christians in the church where they are to officiate. We grant that this manner of viewing things bears wonderfully on the preachers of the present day, notwithstanding all their pretensions. But to go on: It may be objected that the Saviour used the above language (John x.) in reference to the Pharisees with whom he was speaking. It will be granted; but let us try to discover the meaning of the Saviour's account of the hireling in John x. First, then, he spoke this address to the Pharisees, as appears from the latter end of the preceding chapter; and when he had done so, the Apostle John makes this observation on the matter, (verse 6.) "This parable Jesus spake to them, but they understood not what things they were which he spake to them." A second matter worthy of observation then is, that these same Pharisees, whom he plainly indicated to be thieves and robbers, did not understand what he meant in this speech. In short, it would appear that those ministers were not aware of their own origin--were not aware that they had no right to labour among the flock of God, and had no authority from him. Let us see, then, how these men climbed up to the office of teachers in Israel!--how they came by the name Reverend or Rabbi.

      All the world knows that there was no foundation in the law of God for the sectarian distinction of Pharisee and Sadducee. These sectaries, therefore, owe their origin to some heresiarch, who lived either at or before the return from Babylon. Well, therefore, might the Saviour style them an offspring of vipers, i. e. the followers of unauthorized, heretical assemblies, who, instead of adhering to the law of God, and that alone, would wickedly frame their own religious course, and even set aside the law of God by their traditions. But if they had no liberty from the law to assume these names, they had far less for assuming to themselves the office of teachers. It was declared by God in Deuteronomy, that the house of Levi should teach Jacob his judgments, and Israel his law; that they should put incense before him and whole-burnt sacrifice upon his altar. And on this account the lands of the house of Levi, which amounted to the one-twelfth of all Canaan, were divided among the other tribes, who returned one-tenth of their annual increase for the service appointed them by God, viz. for teaching his judgments and law, and for waiting on the service of the tabernacle. And here it must be remarked, to the confusion of those who plead for the tenth, that the lands of the tribe of Levi being taken into account, the priests received only one-tenth of the produce for one-twelfth of the soil, which is about one-sixtieth of the whole besides what in reality was their own; so that Israel paid to the priests, in fact, a very poor stipend, considering the business and important service appointed them by God. The house of [88] Levi, then, were the true teachers in the church of Moses. And now conceive for a moment the fatal effects which the violation of the law would have upon the condition of the Levites; conceive now easily this paltry return might be diminished, and how quickly the ministers of God might be deprived of their due and necessary means of subsistence. If a host of individuals from the other tribes should arrogate to themselves the office of teachers and expounders of the law, the Pharisees, then, who were chief teachers, and compounded of individuals from every tribe, are therefore, by our blessed Saviour, declared to be a plantation which his heavenly Father had not planted, and were to be rooted out. Josephus, as quoted by Whitby, says that many of the priests were starved to death in consequence of the people not bringing in their tithes. It appears to me that the Pharisees had got up an order of things very much resembling our theological institutions, where all comers indiscriminately were instructed in the divinity of the day, without the least respect to the law of God on this point, without the least regard to the rights and dues of the Levitical ministers; and who does not see that the young Pharisee, Paul, who was no Levite, but of the tribe of Benjamin, was one of the young divines at the moment of his conversion? What right had Paul to teach the judgments and law of God to the Jews? He was a Benjamite, concerning which tribe God said nothing about teaching. Yet was this young gentleman sent to college--schooled in the traditions of his sect--distinguished for his zeal, and for his progress in the study of self-deception, as well as for being the student of the famous Gamaliel. Now, then, we can easily perceive, I hope, what the Saviour meant by the Pharisees climbing up into the sheepfold another way, and being thieves and robbers. First, they had no authority for teaching from God. Secondly, they robbed both the priests and the people; as the Lord Jesus said, "You rob widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers." The priest's lips were to keep knowledge, and the people should seek the law at his mouth: for, says Jehovah, "He is the messenger of the Lord of hosts." The Pharisees and others then had come in between the people and the teachers whom God had appointed, and thus threw the nation into sects, as the schoolmen have done in the christian church; for, whereas our blessed Saviour has ordered us to look out for officers from among ourselves, and has given us examples of it in all primitive churches of his apostles' planting, these learned divines have come in between the holy brethren and the law of Christ, and have not only done away the ancient custom of selecting bishops from among the brethren, but even succeeded almost generally in foisting their own young men on the sons of God for teachers. When I look, therefore, through the medium of scripture at the christian bishops, I see that they are distinguished for being selected from among the disciples; and this I call the door into the sheepfold, because it is the way authorized by Christ. When I look through the scriptures at the transformed minister of Satan, I behold him coming into the fold by another way. i. e. in a way not authorized by Christ, not chosen from among the brethren, but foisted over the heads of the most aged and experienced into an office which is due only to one of themselves. "He that enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." Now, then, in searching the scriptures, I have discovered one difference between the bishop and transformed minister--they do not come in alike--the manner of their induction is absolutely diverse--the one by the door, the other by the wall--the one by an authorized method, the other by an unauthorized method. But this induction may be pursued to greater length in some future paper.

PHILIP, alias Walter Scott.      

      IN our last essay it was, we hope, fully proved, that with regard to the truth to be believed and the evidences of it, we owe every thing to the gracious ministrations of the Holy Spirit. The matter of faith preached is, that "Christ died for our sins, was buried, and is risen from the dead;" but even this fact is attributed to the immediate agency of this Glorious One. He, therefore, may be said to have made the truth, as well as by the most illustrious displays of his power in its behalf, to render it credible to men. His testimony in its behalf consists of miracles and prophecy, but it is with the first of these only we have to do in our present essay. The term miracle is general, and comprehends not only those displays of power whose legitimate and single purpose was to establish the fact that Jesus was risen from the dead, but the gifts also which were vouchsafed to those who believed, and whose primary intent was to fill with light and wisdom the new converts to our holy religion.

      It has often been asked, what necessary connexion is there between a miracle and a revelation from Heaven? If the term miracle is properly defined to be "the suspension of some known law of nature," the connexion will be as follows:--The suspension intimates the certain presence of a power superior to the law, and this is all it proves. The miracle, I say, only proves that a power superior to the law operates in its suspension, but the moral character of the agent is to be deduced from the nature of the miracle combined with the end for which it is said to be performed.

      The miracles of our Saviour are chiefly of a beneficent kind, and the declared end of them is to establish a mission the most salutary. From a consideration of the character of his miracles and the salutary end for which they were wrought, we are constrained by the rules of right reason to believe that they were effected by the Spirit of God, and not by Beelzebub, as the infidel Jews evilly suggested. The moral character of the power is to be known by its effects; and so the Saviour, as a key to guide us in this difficult step, tells us that we are to this case to judge as in the case of trees bearing fruit. If the fruit is good, the tree is good--if bad, the tree is bad. If the miracle is of a beneficent character and its declared end good, the agent by whom it is effected is good. It was not our Saviour's finger that performed the miracles his touching the cured was only to connect the miracle with the end for which it was wrought, viz. to show that he was the Messenger of the Most High, that this display of power was in behalf of his pretensions, and not of others who might be present. The work of the Holy Spirit in this respect, then, is most glorious, and becoming Heaven in the highest degree.

      The Jewish religion and the Christian are the only two religions that ever were received by men, purporting to be confirmed by miracles. Neither the Mahometan religion nor any system of pagan superstition at its first publication claimed the evidence of miracles. On this topic we shall present an extract from Dr. [89] Campbell's "Essay on Miracles," in reply to Mr. Hume. He says:

      "Can the pagan religion--can, I should rather say, any of the numberless religions (for they are totally distinct) known by the common name of pagan, produce any claim of this kind that will merit our attention! If the author knows of any, I wish he had mentioned it; for in all antiquity, as far as my acquaintance with it reaches, I can recollect no such claim. However, that I may not, on the one hand, appear to pass the matter too slightly; or on the other, lose myself, as Mr. Hume expresses it, in too wide a field, I shall briefly consider whether the ancient religions of Greece or Rome (which of all the species of heathenish superstition are on many accounts the most remarkable) can present a claim of this nature. Will it be said, that the monstrous heap of fables we find in ancient bards, relating to the genealogy, productions, amours, and achievements of the gods, are the miracles on which Greek and Roman paganism claims to be founded?

      If one should talk in this manner, I must remind him first that these are by no means exhibited as evidences, but as the theology itself; the poets always using the same affirmative style concerning what passed in heaven, in hell, and in the ocean, where men could not be spectators, as concerning what passed upon the earth. Secondly, that all those mythological tales are confessedly recorded many centuries after they are supposed to have happened; no voucher, no testimony, nothing that can deserve the name of evidence having been produced, or even alleged in proof of them. Thirdly, that the intention of the writers seems to be solely the amusement, not the conviction of their readers; that accordingly no writer scruples to model the mythology to his particular taste, or rather caprice; but considering this as a province subject to the laws of Parnassus, all agree in arrogating here the immemorial privilege of poets to say and feign, unquestioned, what they please. And fourthly, that at least several of their narrations are allegorical, and as plainly intended to convey some physical or moral instruction, as any of the apologues of Æsop. But to have said even thus much in refutation of so absurd a plea, will perhaps to many readers appear superfluous.

      Leaving, therefore, the endless absurdities and incoherent fictions of idolaters, I shall inquire in the next place, whether the Mahometan worship (which in its speculative principles appears more rational) pretends to have been built on the evidence of miracles.

      Mahomet, the founder of this profession, openly and frequently, as all the world knows, disclaimed such evidence. He frankly owned that he had no commission nor power to work miracles, being sent by God to the people only as a preacher. Not, indeed, but that there are things mentioned in the revelation he pretended to give them, which, if true, would have been miraculous; such are the nocturnal visits of the angel Gabriel, (not unlike those secret interviews, which Numa, the institutor of the Roman rites, affirmed that he had with the goddess Egeria) his getting from time to time parcels of the uncreated book transmitted to him from heaven, and his most amazing night journey. But these miracles could be no evidences of his mission. Why! Because no person was witness to them. On the contrary, it was because his adherents had previously and implicitly believed his apostleship, that they admitted things so incredible, on his bare declaration. There is indeed one miracle, and but one, which he urges against the infidels, as the main support of his cause; a miracle for which even we in this distant region and period, have not only the evidence of testimony, but, if we please to use it, all the evidence which the contemporaries and countrymen of this military apostle ever enjoyed. The miracle I mean is the manifest divinity, or supernatural excellence, of the scriptures which he gave them; a miracle, concerning which I shall only say, that as it falls not under the cognizance of the senses, but of a much more fallible tribunal, taste in composition, and critical discernment, so a principle of less efficacy than enthusiasm, even the slightest partiality, may make a man, in this particular, imagine he perceives what has no reality. Certain it is, that notwithstanding the many defiances which the prophet gave his enemies, sometimes to produce ten chapters, sometimes one, that could bear to be compared with an equal portion of the perspicuous book, they seem not in the least to have been convinced, that there was any thing miraculous in the matter. Nay, this sublime performance, so highly venerated by every Mussulman, they were not afraid to blaspheme as contemptible, calling it "a confused heap of dreams," and "the silly fables of ancient times."

      While modern sceptics would tell us of miracles wrought in support of paganism, and of the Roman priesthood, they have not as yet attempted to say that either the "lying wonders" of the "mother kirk," or the false miracles of the Pagan temples, were exhibited in the first exhibition of a religion or for the establishment of it. Mr. Hume, indeed, would compare the miracles of Christ and his apostles to some things he calls Pagan and Popish miracles;--but there is not, in fact, one point of coincidence or resemblance between them. What were the tales of Alexander of Pontus, the celebrated Pagan fortune-teller, or of Vespasian the Roman emperor, in common with the miracles of Christ and his apostles? What has the miracle reported in the memoirs of the cardinal De Retz or those said to have been performed in the church-yard of Saint Medard, at the tomb of abbe Paris to do with the christian miracles? Is there one point of coincidence in the alleged design of these miracles, or in their character and use? Not one. Mr. Hume himself was constrained to yield the point. And those miracles mentioned by Mr. Hume were the best suited to his design of any "lying wonders" in the annals of the world. Those Pagan and Popish miracles, as far as the sceptic has introduced them, were not wrought in confirmation of any new religion as proofs of its divine origin. The cures said to have been performed, were, even by their own testimony, few in comparison to the number of applicants who received no cures, and few in comparison to the number who were thrown into diseases in seeking remedies. In these false miracles impostures were often detected and proved, and as Dr. C. has shown that all the cures said to have been effected were such as could have been effected by natural means. Again, none of those cures were instantaneous; many of them were the effects of medicine before used, and in many instances the maladies had evidently abated before application for remedies was made. Many of those miraculous cures were incomplete, and the relief afforded was in many instances temporary. Now if all the false miracles which one of the most ingenious and most learned of unbelievers was able to assemble from history and from fable, were liable to all the above imputations, and if the gentleman himself who advanced them was put to silence on these grounds, how transcendent [90] this species of evidence afforded our holy religion. The miracles wrought by the Holy Spirit in attestation of the preaching of the apostles, were numerous, public, beneficent; no imposture was ever detected, the adversaries of the christian faith themselves being judges; the cures were always instantaneous, always complete and always permanent. To this Holy and Eternal Spirit, then, is every christian indebted for that most splendid and powerful of all evidence, which puts out of countenance all opposition, which covers with shame and confusion the subtle and presumptuous infidel, and which, in fact, presents the whole phalanx of opposers to the christian faith in the same ridiculous and absurd attitude as the dogs in the fable, which conspired to bark down the moon walking in brightness.

      We must reserve our remarks on spiritual gifts to the next essay, which in the department of miraculous evidence, are the most triumphant and glorious of all.

EDITOR.      

      ITno doubt known to some of you that a pamphlet, titled, "Letters to Alexander Campbell, by a Regular Baptist," has been published at Pittsburgh a few days ago. It will, doubtless, be expected that I would pay some attention to this work. The spirit and style of this "Regular Baptist" forbids my addressing one word to him. I will, therefore, without prepossessing my readers by expressing any opinion of the motives and object of this letter-writer, proceed to review his performance.

      This "Regular Baptist" informs me that my character is of two kinds--extrinsic and intrinsic. My "intrinsic character" is that which he investigates, and on which he pronounces judgment. In coming at my intrinsic character, or the character of my heart, he has, he says, adopted "as a standard of judgment," principles admitted by "the christian and the philosopher." These principles, he adds, "direct to a general investigation of life, the whole area of action." But he regrets that the whole area of my action is unknown to him, every thing previous to my arrival in these United States being with him "something of conjecture." But although my "intrinsic character" is the object of investigation, and the principles of the christian and the philosopher require that the "whole area of action" should be examined, yet the ingenious author views "the area of my action" only since I joined the Baptists--and, in fact, while he professes to do this much, he only fixes his eyes upon me since 1820. And of all the area of my action from which my intrinsic character is to be ascertained, only four years come in review--and of these four years but my "two debates and the Christian Baptist" are particularly noticed. To what a span is the whole area of my action reduced! And from how few documents does he undertake to prove that I am unregenerated. Let not the reader be startled at the word unregenerated; for this is the point of investigation, and the whole area of this Regular Baptist's letters is filled with mighty and convincing proofs, as he alleges, that I am an no regenerated man. But the strangest point of all remains to be noticed, and that is, that of all the actions of my life, and of all the words I have spoken or written, not one is adduced as proof of his favorite position, but only his conjectures, with a reference to the Debates on Baptism, and the Christian Baptist. Of all that I have written not one word is cited. These letters then are, if anything can be so named, "a new thing under the sun." For I am tried and condemned upon mere conjecture, and worse than all, these conjectures are predicated either upon the most evident falsehoods, or upon a false view of facts. So much by way of introduction to my review.

      A few remarks upon the writer of these letters are also necessary to their easy comprehension. They are anonymous, and necessarily to be ranked under the very common and general head of anonymous abuse. As such, I was not bound to notice them; for who knows not that the ebullitions of anonymous foes carry their own condemnation in their preface. But believing that medicine may be deduced even from the carcass of a serpent that has poisoned itself, I am induced to notice them under the conviction that good may result therefrom. The writer of these letters is the Reverend Mr. GREATRAKE, from the city of Baltimore, or somewhere thereabouts. He is now located in the city of Pittsburgh, and calls himself a "Regular Baptist." It is true that he either promised or prophesied in the conclusion of his address to the Baptist churches in the West, that while on earth he would "be known to them only by the name of a Regular Baptist." In his last letter to me he was kind enough to appear willing to give me his real name, on presenting to the publisher a "fair reason" for demanding it. But when I called on the publisher he presented me with written conditions which the "Regular Baptist" had given him, which precluded him from giving up his name except upon such conditions as the civil law would oblige him to give it up or suffer prosecution. This gentleman is at present hired by a party, who were excluded from a regular Baptist church, at least by a church which at the time of their exclusion, was recognized as such. He seems to glory in the name of "a Regular Baptist," yet with what propriety I cannot see, as he is ordained over a party that cannot be called regular Baptists. It is a truth that the last Redstone association recommended the calling of a committee to endeavor to promote a reunion of those excommunicated ones; or as they express it, "to compromise the difficulties;" and that a committee was called by the excluded party, which leaving undone what was the only thing recommended by the association to be done; they proceeded to do that which they were not commanded to do, and did, without any authority from the association, call or denominate the excommunicated ones a church; and thus, as far as in them lay, prevented their reunion on such grounds as could, on regular Baptist principles, constitute them a regular Baptist church. Although, then, Mr. Greatrake glories in the name of a Regular Baptist, as though the very name should "cover a multitude of sins," he is not at present acting as such, in the instances specified. This with me is, however, a very small matter, as I lay no stress on such names, whether assumed or bestowed. There is a church in Pittsburgh that would rejoice much more in being a regular church of Christ, than a regular Baptist church; which church has two bishops, who while they watch over and labor among the saints, labor working with their own hands according to the apostolic command; and not only minister to their own wants, but are ensamples to the flock in beneficence and hospitality. This church, by walking in the fear of God and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, is edified and enlarged by regular accessions--and their example in that city is a dangerous one to those who would maintain themselves by maintaining such opinions as will maintain them. The object of the letter-writer [91] evidently being to defame this church as well as myself, it was necessary to present the reader with this brief notice of things in relation to the Rev. Mr. Greatrake. Now to the letters. There are four conjectures, in some respects different, and in some respects not very distinct, by which Mr. Greatrake demonstrates that I am unregenerated. The first is, that I "must have received some personal pique or experienced some severe disappointment, if not both, from the denomination or church to which I formerly belonged." The second is that I must be stimulated by an "insatiate vanity." The third, that I am actuated by avarice, or, as he expresses it, by my "pecuniary interest." The fourth is, that I am aiming at being the head of a party. Into one or more or all of these evil motives, he resolves my two Debates on Baptism, and the "Christian Baptist," and thence concludes that I am a very bad man--although my extrinsic character he acknowledges is good.

      I could have wished that my biographer had taken a little more time, and a little more of the advice of his friends, in waiting to get acquainted with my history and myself, and have left it to some more skilful, though less benevolent hand, to write memoirs of my life. I have only to make a statement of a few facts and occurrences of general notoriety, and I think his efforts will require no comment nor praise.

      I sailed from the city of Londonderry on the 3d day of October, 1808, destined for the city of Philadelphia; but being shipwrecked on the coast of the island of Ila on the night of the 9th of the same month, I was detained until the 3d day of August, 1809, on which day I sailed from the city of Greenock for New York. On the 27th of which month I and the whole ships company had almost perished in the Atlantic; but through the watchful care and tender mercy of our Heavenly Father, we were brought to the harbor which we desired to see, and safely landed in New York on the 29th of September, 1809. On the 28th of the next month I arrived in Washington, Pennsylvania, to which place I have been known ever since. I arrived in this country with credentials in my pocket from that sect of Presbyterians known by the name of Seceders. These credentials certified that I had been both in Ireland in the presbytery of Market Hill, and in Scotland in the presbytery of Glasgow a member of the Secession church, in good standing. My faith in creeds and confessions of human device was considerably shaken while in Scotland, and I commenced my career in this country under the conviction that nothing that was not as old as the New Testament should be made an article of faith, a rule of practice, or a term of communion amongst christians. In a word, that the whole of the christian religion exhibited in prophecy and type in the Old Testament, was presented in the fullest, clearest, and most perfect manner in the New Testament, by the Spirit of wisdom and revelation.

      This has been the pole-star of my course ever since, and I thank God that he has enabled me so far to prosecute it, and to make all my prejudices and ambition bow to this emancipating principle. I continued in the examination of the scriptures, ecclesiastical history, and systems of divinity, ancient and modern, until July 15th, 1810, on which day I publicly avowed my convictions of the independency of the church of Christ and the excellency and authority of the scriptures, in a discourse from the last section of what is commonly called "Christ's Sermon on the Mount" During this year I pronounced one hundred and six orations on sixty-one primary topics of the christian religion in the western part of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the neighboring part of Ohio. On the 12th day of March, 1811, I took to myself a wife of the Presbyterian connexion, and on the 25th of the same month became a resident in Virginia. I became a citizen of Virginia as soon as the laws of the state permitted, and have continued such until this day. In conformity to the grand principle which I have called the pole-star of my course of religious inquiry, I was led to question the claims of infant sprinkling to divine authority, and was, after a long, serious, and prayerful examination of all means of information, led to solicit immersion on a profession of my faith, when as yet I scarce knew a Baptist from Washington to the Ohio, in the immediate region of my labors, and when I did not know that any friend or relation on earth would concur with me. I was accordingly baptized by Elder Matthias Luse, who was accompanied by Elder Henry Spears, on the 12th day of June, 1812. In the mean time I pursued the avocations of a husbandman as the means of my subsistence; and while I discharged, as far as in me lay, the duties of a bishop (having been regularly ordained one of the Elders of the church of Christ at Brush Run) and itinerated frequently through the circumjacent country, I did it without any earthly remuneration. I did not at first contemplate forming any connexion with the Regular Baptist Association called "the Redstone," as the perfect independency of the church and the pernicious tendency of human creeds and terms of communion were subjects to me of great concern. As a mere spectator, I did, however, visit the Redstone Association in the fall of 1812. After a more particular acquaintance with some of the members and ministers of that connexion, the church of Brush Run did finally agree to unite with that Association on the ground that no terms of union or communion other than the Holy Scriptures should be required. On this ground, after presenting a written declaration of our belief (always distinguishing betwixt making a declaration of our faith for the satisfaction of others, and binding that declaration on others as a term of communion) we united with the Redstone Association in the fall of 1813; in which connexion the church of Brush Run yet continues. In the close of 1814 and beginning of 1815 I made an extensive tour through a part of the eastern region, visiting the cities of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, and did to my present shame, by milking both the sheep and the goats, obtain about 1000 dollars for the building of a meeting-house in Wellsburgh, a place then destitute of any house for religious meetings. In 1816 I delivered a discourse on the law before the Redstone Association, which being published by request, gave rise to some discussion, which resulted, we believe, in some benefit to the searchers after truth. January, 1818, I undertook the care of a classical and mercantile academy, known by the name of the "Buffaloe Seminary." I continued the principal of this seminary for five and a half years. In 1820, after being thrice solicited by the Baptists, I did consent to debate with Mr. Walker on the subject of baptism. Of this debate two editions have been published--one by myself, of one thousand copies, and one by Messrs. Eichbaum and Johnson, of three thousand. In 1823 I commenced editing the Christian Baptist, and in the fall of 1823 held a public debate with Mr. MacCalla, which grew out of the former with Mr. Walker. These outlines bring me up till the present year, and render a further detail unnecessary. I should have observed that a church was organized in the town of Wellsburgh in 1823, which was composed for the most part of members dismissed [92] from the church at Brush Run, of which church I was appointed a bishop.

      The reader will agree with me in the result that it was expedient for me to give the above abstract with circumstantial accuracy, and we can, not only solemnly testify the above statement to be correct and strictly true, but we are able to prove every item of it of any importance before any tribunal, civil or ecclesiastical. With this document before us, let us now attend to the first conjecture. It is founded on a falsehood. I never received any personal pique or experienced any disappointment from any Presbyterian sect, Seceder or other. I never asked one favor from any Paido-Baptist sect, and therefore never received any disappointment. Nay, so far from this, favors were offered and not accepted. Immediately after my arrival in this country the academy at Pittsburgh was offered me, and invitations to union with the Paido-Baptist sects presented to me. Every thing is just the reverse of Mr. Greatrake's conjecture. Time after time favors, ecclesiastical favors, were offered me, and no consideration under heaven, but conscience, forbade their acceptance. Indeed I am bound gratefully to remember the kind offers and offices of many Paido-Baptists; and a better return I cannot (as I think) make, than to admonish them of their errors.¹ But this gentleman, to destroy my influence and my power to do them good, would persuade them that I am an enemy because I tell them the truth, and would conjecture that I was avenging an affront or an injury which I never received. Insults and injuries I have received from some Baptists, but until my appearance on the stage in defence of the truths I had espoused in common with them, no insults or injuries are recollected ever to have been received from any body of Paido-Baptists.²

EDITOR.      

      MR. GREATRAKE in his letters, says--"Again, we know that you propagate the doctrine of the church's independency, so far as to exclude all reference to articles of faith, and principles of order upon which they have been founded, (I am now speaking of the Baptist church) this your writings are uniformly understood to aim at. And really, sir, your attempt to disseminate this sort of sentiment, in the Baptist church in particular, demonstrates your very great attainment in impudence, or that you are extremely ignorant of the constituents of social unity and order, as I shall hereafter endeavor to exhibit. Can you suppose that any reflecting, intelligent member of the Baptist church, will ever conceive favorably of that matt, or have confidence in the purity of his motives, who attempts to destroy the very foundation upon which the denomination has risen to such imposing magnitude, in such fair proportions, and with such solidity? Indeed, sir, the attempt on your part, or that of any other person, bears testimony of a radical defect in understanding, and can only leave you, in the exercise of all possible charity, the character of the knight of La Mancha, or the phrenzied Swede."³

      I had thought that the Baptist denomination gloried not in the Westminster creed, but in the New Testament. I think Mr. Benedict in his history of the Baptists, more than once represents this as a fact, that the bible without comment, is the creed and confession of the Baptists. I know that he declares of the first Baptists to the Unites States, (vol. 1. p. 487.) in giving the history of the oldest church in the union, that, "from first to last, the bible without comment has been their confession of faith." And I am very sure that it is only in so far as they have adopted and acted on this principle that their progress is estimated in heaven. If they should, on any other principle, proselyte the whole world, they might become famous and respectable on earth, but all in heaven would frown upon them. And there is one fact which all my Baptist friends in this country know, that when the church to which I belonged associated with them, we protested against all creeds of human composition as terms of communion; at the same time declaring what we believed to be christian truth, in opposition to reigning errors. And although some seem to think there is no difference between a verbal or written declaration of faith and recognizing a human creed as a term of communion, we see a very great difference so much at least as to forbid an effort on our part to make our own declaration of faith a term of communion to others. The New Testament, as respects christian faith and practice, is our only creed, form of discipline, and the avowal of the One Foundation, our only bond of union. I object to all human creeds as terms of communion from the following considerations:--

      1. They are predicated upon a gross insult to the wisdom and benevolence of the Founder of christianity. They, in effect, say, that tithe form of sound words," which he has communicated in writing, is not so well adapted to the exigencies of christians as some other form into which human wisdom and benevolence can place them. For if the New Testament is not so sufficient and suitable as a creed of human contrivance or arrangement, this creed exhibits greater wisdom and benevolence than the New Testament.

      2. All creeds as terms of communion, being designed to exclude the evil and receive the good, are the most foolish of all expedients which human folly has adopted. For who that will see, does not see, that good men, that it men of christian integrity, will never subscribe or swear to believe that which they do not believe, for the sake of a name, a place, or an office in any church; whereas evil men who want a name, or a place, or an office in any church, will subscribe whether they believe or not.

      3. They are the sources of division. They make an assent to philosophical views of revelation a bond of union, and consequently every new discovery, or dissent from an ancient one, occasions a new heresy and a new sect. Ex elude him; for "how can two walk together unless they are agreed?" says the orthodox.

      4. They are, in one word, every way wicked--inasmuch as they have always led to persecution, and have produced enmity, variance, and strife as their legitimate results. For these and a hundred other reasons, which time may specify and illustrate, I will never subscribe, nor swear to any other confession of my christian faith, than the New Testament.

EDITOR. [93]      

[TCB 87-93]