THE  PILGRIMS.
______

In November, 1817, a society of people called the Vermont Pilgrims made their appearance in Zanesville. This society originated in Lower Canada, and in May, 1817, emigrated to Woodstock, Vermont. After sojourning a short time in the latter place they started South, traveling through New Jersey, Virginia, and thence through Eastern Ohio to Zanesville. Very few persons are now living that can call to mind anything definite in regard to these deluded people. The following sketch is from the Zanesville Express, dated November 5, 1817.

"Our readers will see in this day's paper an account of a set of adventurers, under the demonination of the Vermont Pilgrims, who have commenced the peregrinations, pretty much in the style of the European Gypsies. We understand they were lately seen near St. Clairsville, Ohio. Their appearance and manner are represented as odious and disgusting. Their object, they say, is the good of mankind, which they endeavor to attain by the most repelling examples. Their Prophet announces that he has the power of casting out devils, and that he intends shortly to commence business. It is painful to observe, that in this enlightened age, such imposture or delusion should be countenanced in society; that fanaticism should still find followers, and enthusiasm so preposterous gain if this singular pilgrim has really advocates among us. But the power he professes, we think he would have found sufficient employment at home."

From the Albany Gazette, October 13, 1817:

A correspondent informs us that five wagons, loaded with the household goods, men, women and children of this sect, passed through Cherry Valley, Otsego Co., on the 25th ult, on their way to Ohio. The men and women were pressed through Sussex (N.J.) and were as they allege, followers of the same prophet. They call themselves the true followers of Christ. Their pretended prophet came from Canada a few months since, and is a man of austere habits; and a great fanatic. His followers are not yet numerous, but it is thought he will increase them. He rejects surnames, and abolished marriage, and always has his followers to cohabit promiscuously. The men eat their food in an erect posture, and the women when they pray, prostrate themselves on the ground with their faces downwards. They frequently do penance for sins, and seem to make uncleanliness a virtue. They allege that their prophet has not changed his clothes for seven years. There was with the party above described a deluded woman, who it is said had always sustained a fair character, and who left a husband in affluent circumstances and a family of children, to follow this prophet. It is probable, the object of the leader of this sect, was to draw as many after him as possible, and to form in some of the Western States, a new settlement, similar to the one made by Jeminia Wilkinson in this state.

MORE  ON  THE  VERMONT  IMPOSTERS.

From the Virginia Patriot:

I noticed in one of your late papers some account of several pilgrims who were then in New Jersey on their way from Woodstock, in Vermont, to the south. Their pilgrimage, it appears, commenced in Lower Canada. I believe in May or June last, in which province, it is understood, they had just before been tried before one of the King's Courts, on a charge of murdering one of their children; or in other words, administering to it a decoction from a poisonous bark (by command of the Lord), although the proof of the fact was not of that positive character, which a conviction for murder demanded. Yet so fully convinced, were the Canadians of their guilt, that a march became it is said, the last resort, of this new sect.

At Woodstock, in the State of Vermont, they successively arrived and tarried several weeks; made some proselytes, and otherwise added to their numbers. Beneath the roof of a Christian preacher, their devout professions procured them a hospital protection, and so incessant were their professed addresses to, and communications with invisible beings with whom they pretended at times to hold converse in the most unmeaning gibberage; added to their dirty caps, bear skin girdles, and long beards, their fame went abroad, and not a few visitors, (among whom was the writer of this article) did curiosity lead to their habitation.

They observed times of fasting, wore sackcloth and ashes -- frequently denounced woes upon persons and villages, and often fell prostrate to the earth in their devotions. Strange as it may appear, such a sect gained proselytes -- and the worthy man whose hospitable doors had been opened to these strangers, saw members of his family assume the girdle and ape their manners, whether they also commenced a pilgrimage, I am not informed. Should these people, in executing there [their] plan ever be able to visit Virginia, it is hoped that their reception may be such, especially by the guardians of the public peace, as such pilgrims shall justly deserve.

Notes: (forthcoming)

THE  PILGRIMS.
(CONCLUDED)
______

From the Zanesville Express, Nov. 20, 1817.

The Prophet and Pilgrims: -- As this part of community may feel anxious to know something of a new sect, (I will not say a Christian sect) who have made their appearance here from Lower Canada and Vermont, composed of a leader by the name of Ballard, who call themselves Pilgrims. I have thought proper to forward you the following, which is about all of the information in my possession respecting them.

On their first arriving in town a meeting was notified at the Court House, at this place, where an exportation was given by on of their party, Mr. Holmes, the only man of any considerable talents among them, who has been a Methodist preacher about twelve years in Vermont. Although Mr. Holmes preached (as he called it) without a text, and wandered without system, upon various subjects, yet he made use of many pithy, common place expressions, which would have been well received by the community at large, had they not visited the Prophet and his group, at home when it is presumed no person possessing a mediocrity of talent, could retain five minutes in suspense relative to the sincerity of Ballard, the Prophet, who wears every feature and gesture of a consummated scoundrel

He has frequent paroxisms in which he utters the most unmeaning gibberish, which he calls an unknown tongue, in which he pretends to converse with the Diety, which is composed at most, if not more than four sounds, which he will successively repeat from two to five minutes, which length of time he has more than once been known to occupy in the reiteration of Bab-Wab alone. The discerning mind may easily behold in this pretended Prophet the sum of his wishes to destroy all civil establishments, disannul marriage under the spurious pretence that Jesus Christ is the bridegroom, and all his followers are the bride, and consequently need no civil restrictions to govern their passions, but that those passions in them, and their gratifications are without sin, all being conducted with an eye "single to the glory of God" -- that they cannot sin as long as they are followers of the Prophet.

in fact this wildness of speculation, this depravity of principle and pursuit, this destruction of every principle of religion and reason, impelled them to leave a section of the country where little was to be expected from a people generally enlightened, and seek a remote section, offering less mental light, where they might, with greater certainty of success execute their designs, enjoy boundless sway, and support themselves in idleness, sloth and gratifications of their lusts, under the names of morality and religion, upon the ruins of a misguided community. They say that the spirit of God has directed them to make a settlement in the town of Pike, on Derby Creek, whither they are bound.

We would advise the inhabitants of Pike, to beware; that in proportion as they value morality and religion, or revere the laws of civilization to be cautious how they admit an enemy into their houses, to steal away their brains. From all we can gather from this slothful, dirty group, we are disposed to say that they practice indiscriminated cohabitatation, openly profess the power and gift of Prophecy, pretend to heal the sick by various incantations, and that they are fast progressing to such perfectability, through the instrumentability of fasting and prayer, as to be soon able to raise the dead, who (to use their own expressions) die in the Lord. Some of them have stated, since they have been in this place, that from scripture, they thought they could draw strong proof that they should never die; and went to quote several texts, which have strict reference to spiritual death.

The writer of this has spent much time with them (foolishly) to satisfy his mind relative to their doctrine their motives, etc. He has found them generally aloof to conversation; and if at any time they attempted to answer his enquiries, it has been in an evasive way, introducing a different subject with the answer. Never did a young pedagogue command more obsequiousances from his pupils in a country school, than does this Prophet from his followers; they groan when he groans, shout when he shouts, and ape him in his every monkey trick; flying at his command with such servile agility, that a bystander might well conclude that they verily believed that the keys of heaven and hell were suspended upon his bear skin girdle. In this sect we see a striking proof of the awful strides which mankind have made in every instance, who have left the church of Christ and its cannons, handed down by the Apostles and their immediate successors, and taught for doctrines, the command of men.

A READER    

When the Pilgrims arrived in Zanesville they stopped upon an open lot on the southwest corner of Locust alley and Fifth street, ground now occupied by the residence of Mrs. J. V. Cushing. Upon their entrance into town the old Prophet led the way, carrying a long crooked head staff. It was a shepherd's staff, and as he walked he would bring it down every time he stepped from his right foot, at the same time muttering something to himself, his converts, male and female, following, in single file, in a half circle, and all keeping time with the Prophet. The wagons, containing the children and invalids, brought up the rear. They attracted a large crowd of men and boys. After pitching their tents and partaking of dinner, a meeting was called in front of the Court House, where a Mr. Holmes, formerly a Methodist minister, delivered an exhortation. At these meetings the women would occasionally exhort. The writer, when a boy, with others, would often visit their camping ground, curiousity prompting the desire to see them go through their devotional exercises. They seemed to be very devoted to their peculiar mode of worship, the women frequently lying face downward, and making all manner of gestures, the old Prophet at the same time going through with his gibberage, something he didn't understand, nor anybody else. The boys, at that time, called it "Hog Latin." The men all wore long beards, also caps, long gowns, and bearskin girdles around them. When any person joined their sect they termed it "a taking of the girdle." The Prophet would go through a great deal of palavering over the girdle, as though it was a sacred article. They were a queer looking set, and as they went about the streets the boys would recite the following:

Hark, hark, the dogs do bark.
The Pilgrims have come to town.
Some in rags and some in tags.
And some in dirty gowns.
It annoyed them considerably. It is said that had some of the women and girls been decently attired, they would have made rather a handsome appearance. The Prophet, Ballard, with his long beard, dirty gown, and bearskin girdle, looked like one of the Patriarchs of old. The pilgrims had two or three songs which they would sometimes sing in going about the town. They remained in Zanesville and Putnam over two weeks, their destination being the Darby Plains, on Big Darby Creek, northwest of Columbus. One convert was the result of their labors in Zanesville. He started away with them. His two brother-in-laws followed, and persuaded him to return. He was a well meaning man, but was carried away with the name of Pilgrim and the promised land. After leaving Putnam they went through Lancaster, Lithopolis, Columbus and Franklinton to the town of Piketon, on the Darby Plains. Upon their arrival there the citizens would not allow them to stoop, and they continued to wander around, from one place to another for several weeks. Mr. Wm. H. Griffith, a resident of Underwood street, informed the writer that at this time he was living with his father on the Darby Plains, and had met the Pilgrims many times in traveling from place to place, the old Prophet always in the lead.

Capt. John Dulty, still living, told the writer that in the spring of 1818, as he was crossing the mountains for stock, near Greensburg, east of Pittsburgh, he overtook a woman, walking and carrying a bundle. He thought he had seen her in Zanesville, and inquired if she was not one of the Pilgrims. She answered that she was, and informed him that the Pilgrims, after being warned away from the Darby Plains they traveled from place to place, and finally started for the Promised land in the Arkansas canebrakes, to build up a settlement there by sending out missionaries. In traveling in a northwesterly direction from Dayton into Indiana, the smallpox broke out in their encampment, and the Prophet and several of the leading men died with the disease. That scattered the members and broke up the clan. With the death of Ballard, the Prophet, ended the life of one of the greatest of impostors. The press throughout the country commented severely on this ridiculous sect, called the Vermont Pilgrims.


Note: See the Zanesville Times Recorder of July 6, 1969 for information concerning the writer of the above 1880 article (Elihah H. Church) and for more about the 1817 visitation of the Prophet Isaac Bullard's "Vermont Pilgrims."

"The  Premises."
______

J. M. STREATOR.
______

"Let us wait and see what is true in the premises." -- Religious Herald.

When Fuller wrote his Strictures on Sandemanianism, he was thought by many to have entered upon his work in order to save himself from the obloquy of being called a Sandemanian.

I do not know but what similar causes may have influenced the "very amiable Christian gentleman," whose modesty scarcely permits him to announce to the world the wonderful things that his erudite brain enabled him to bring to light.

Was Mr. Campbell responsible for Mormonism? What do the premises say?

The only ground upon which the learned gentleman can base his assertion, is the fact that Sidney Rigdon was a Mormon. Rigdon was, undoubtedly, the real founder of "the most corrupt and odious system that has disgraced the nineteenth century."

Let us look at the premises for awhile: Mr. J. H. Beadle, editor of the Salt Lake Reporter and Utah correspondent of the Cincinnati Commercial, published a book, entitled, "Life in Utah, or, The Mysteries and Crimes of Mormonism."

Mr. Beadle was not prejudiced in favor of the Disciples. In speaking of the causes which produced Mormonism, he said:

"The intense religious excitement which raged throughout the United States during the decade of 1820-30, which led to the wild phenomena of 'jerks' and so-called religious exercises of howling, jumping, barking and muttering, seems to have left a precipitate of its worst materials in Mormonism."

Who was responsible for the religious excitement that passed over the United States in the above-mentioned decade?

One thing is evident, it was not Mr. Campbell. All his efforts were made against such a mockery of pure and undefiled religion..

But the premises show such a state of religion. Jerks, jumpings, howlings, barkings, lights, voices, dreams, etc., were proclaimed as manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the human heart, convincing it of sin, and converting the person to Christ. An experience void of these was considered worthless. An experience such as related in the eighth chapter of Acts would not have been received as evidence of a genuine conversion in the associations of the Western Reserve in 1820. There and then the eunuch would have been required to show a powerful conversion, made manifest by contortions of the body, clapping of hands, leaping from the chariot and the enunciation of a direct communication from God to his own heart.

The people of the Reserve were taught that the word of God was a dead letter, and new revelations given to each individual , were necessary to conversion. New Testaments were sufficient to make a man wise unto salvation.

The insufficiency of the Scriptures, and additional revelations were two of the orthodox planks that had been nailed onto Protestantism. Mr. Campbell and his co-adjutors desired to have the planks removed. Because they expressed this desire, and because they were leading the people away from their vain superstitions to the simplicity of the truth, and because they said the so-called spiritual manifestations were the result of physical causes, and were not produced by the Holy Spirit, they were denounced as heretics, and accused of repudiating experimental religion, and denying the existence of the Holy Spirit.

Keep in mind what was orthodox then. Whoever had experienced "jerks," howlings, jumpings, barkings; whoever had seen a light or heard a voice; whoever had seen a vision or dreamed a dream, was safe.

Mr. Campbell said these things were vain delusions.

In 1830, Mormonism made its appearance. It came with a new revelation; it came saying the Old and New Testaments were not sufficient; it came offering as evidence what was seen and heard in the revivals of the orthodox churches. The Mormons heard voices, saw lights, dreamed dreams, and they had the jerks; they jumped and muttered and barked; they laughed and they cried. When those who had been taught that such things were evidences of true conversion to God, saw how abundant these evidences were among the Mormons, they were compelled to admit that the new religion must be from God. From this class of orthodox Christians the great majority of the first converts to Mormonism were made.

When Rigdon first openly received the messengers from Joe Smith, he pretended to discredit their statements. He called on them for proofs of the truths of their book and mission. "They related the manner in which they obtained faith, which was by praying for a sign, and an angel appeared to them." Two days after this Rigdon asked for a sign. The sign appeared and he was convinced!

The sign business was a great converting power among the Mormons. Some of their conversions are thus described:

Many would fall upon the floor, where they would lie for a long time apparently lifeless. The fits usually came on during or after prayer meetings, which were held nearly every evening. The young men and women were more particularly subject to this delirium. They would exhibit all the apish actions imaginable, making the most ridiculous grimaces, creeping upon their hands and feet, rolling upon the frozen ground. * * * At other times they would run through the fields, get upon stumps, preach to imaginary congregations * * * Again, at the dead hour of night, young men might be seen running over the fields and hills, in pursuit, as they said, of the balls of fire, lights, etc., which they saw moving through the atmosphere.

Concerning such evidences as this, Mr. Campbell said:

"He who sets out to find signs and omens will soon find enough of them. He who expects visits from angels will find them as he who, in the age of witchcraft, found a witch in every unseemly old woman. I doubt not but that the irreverences and levity in speaking of the things of God, which have been apparent in Sidney's public exhibitions for some time past, and which he has lately confessed, may yet be found to have been the cause of this abandonment to delusion. The Methodists, among whom it appeared so well to take, amongst whom it has recently so much prevailed, ought to be admonished against laying themselves open to such impressions in their swoonings, vociferous ejaculations, and notions about new visions and revelations of the Spirit."

Mormonism made comparatively but little progress among the Disciples. An article upon its advent among the Disciples of Ohio will appear, in due course, in the Church Union.

If we leave out of consideration every other question, and take up the popular idea of conversion, we have sufficient data to direct us to the fountains of Mormonism.

New revelations. lights, voices, contortions of the body, etc., were the commonly received evidences of conversion. These same evidences were given as the first fruits of Mormonism. And yet, today, a doctor of divinity, a professor in a theological seminary, attempts to turn away the odium of Mormonism from the shoulders of his religious ancestors, and saddle it upon the only set of men, who, in the day of its birth, denounced all such signs and visions, and revelations, etc., that it produced as evidence, as chimerical. Orthodoxy demanded that evidences of conversion should be given in answer to prayer, and should consist of signs, etc. The Mormons adapted the same principle of conversion and signs, etc., followed their prayers. They claimed the possession of the same evidences of conversion, as the most devout among the orthodox. This was an unanswerable argument to many who believed that the word of God was a dead letter, and that the Holy Spirit made direct communication to the sinner's heart. Such was the testimony in its favor then. When Prof. W. and the Herald, and "Bro. D." can show that Mr. Campbell and the Disciples, who were then at least nominally Baptists, taught that such experiences were what men claimed them to be; and when they can show that Mr. Campbell and the Disciples taught that the word of God was not sufficient without other revelations and signs, given in answer to prayer, in the work of conversion, they can show that they, equally with the rest, were responsible for "saddling upon the world the most corrupt and odious system that has disgraced the nineteenth century."

In conclusion, I ask, to whom do the premises point?

DANVILLE, KY.

---

Thomas Jefferson Clapp.
_______

J. M. ATWATER.
_______

In an editorial note in the CHRISTIAN STANDARD for May 6, mention was made of the death of this pioneer.

Thomas Clapp was born in Middlefield, Mass., January 7, 1806. He was the son of Orris Clapp and Pheobe Blish. Of their thirteen children Thomas was the ninth. The family removed to the wilds of Northern Ohio when he was less than six months old. He became a member of the Baptist church at the age of 21, being baptized by Elder Sidney Rigdon, who afterwards became a leader among the Mormons. About a year after the conversion of Thomas Clapp, the Baptist church at Mentor was swept away from its moorings by the rising tide of the reformation which was urged by Thomas and Alexander Campbell. This was in 1828. The leader of the movement in Mentor was Elder Adamson Bentley, then of Warren, O. Thomas Clapp entered fully into the spirit of that movement, and took at that time a position in religious matters from which he never swerved to the day of his death. His brother Matthew and his sister Harriet (afterwards wife of Darwin Atwater, of Mantua, O.), were among the converts in the meeting which wrought the change in the Mentor church; Matthew Clapp being the first one in all that region to respond to the gospel call as now given by the Disciples.

When Thomas Clapp was nearly 26 years old, in Nov. 1831, he was married to Lorinda Bentley, eldest daughter of Eld. Adamson Bentley, who then resided at Bentleyville, near Chagrin Falls, O. ...


Notes: (forthcoming)

THE  MOUSE  BORN.
______

PROF. WHITSITT ON CAMPBELLISM AND MORMONISM..
______

The regular readers of the STANDARD are aware of the blustering announcements made some time ago, through the Religious Herald and other Baptist journals, of Prof. Whitsitt's coming revelations concerning Mormonism as the offspring of Campbellism. It was to be a terrible revelation. One of the editors of the Herald professed to be horror-stricken at the thought of the unearthing of damaging facts which this historical explorer had dug up and was about to exhibit to the astonished gaze of an ignorant world, and another Baptist editor solemnly declared that if what was said could be proved, Alexander Campbell and his coadjutors were guilty of "saddling upon the world the most corrupt and odious system that has disgraced the nineteenth century." This hideous scarecrow has been swinging in the wind from that day to this, to frighten Baptists away from all sympathy with "Campbellism;" and now we have an exhibition of at least a part of the veritable Campbellite-Mormon monster discovered by Prof. Whitsitt, as the result of his wonderful "scientific investigations," in the shape of a lecture on "Mormon Theology" before the Baptist Pastor's Conference in Louisville, Ky., October 23d, 1882. Being published in the Western Recorder, in Prof. Whitsitt's own city, a copy of which was addressed to us in what we take to be Prof. W.'s own handwriting, we must regard the report of the lecture as approved by the lecturer. We give it in full on another page. We do not promise to publish reports of succeeding lectures, for if this is a fair specimen of the course, our space can be better filled than with such pretentious nothingness. After all the bluster and parade in heralding this great show, the exhibition will be found to be quite disappointing. Parturient montes nascetur ridiculous mus. If the reader cannot understand this, we need only say that he is likely to get as much solid good out of it without understanding it, as he can get out of the report of Prof. Whitsitt's lecture, with the best understanding of it that he can reach.

"He discussed in his lecture the proposition that Mormon Theology was founded, and for the most part developed by apostate Campbellites." We shall not take space here to protest against the use of a nickname which Prof. Whitsitt knows to be offensive to the people to whom he applies it, further than to say that if his gentlemanly instincts are not sufficiently refined to protect him from the employment of such names, especially in dealing with a people whom he professes to respect, he is perhaps more to be pitied than blamed. The stream in not expected to rise above its source. We know to whom he refers, and we pass the vulgarity without further notice.

Whatever amount of historical truth there is in the assertion -- and that there is considerable truth in it, it required not the "scientific" skill and research of Prof. Whitsitt to give information to the public -- the puzzle is, to know how this can "bear hard upon the Campbellites," or how it can be proved that Mormonism "sprung from Campbellism." An apostate, according to Webster, is, "one who has forsaken the faith, principles or party to which he before adhered." Now, in the name of the "sober, scientific investigation" which it is asserted that Prof. Whitsitt has given to this subject, we beg to know how "Campbellism" is to be held responsible for a system of theology "founded" and "developed" by men who had forsaken its faith, its principles, and its fellowship! The Apostle Paul warned the Ephesians that from among themselves men would arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them; of the apostates of the apostolic period, it was said that "many shall follow their pernicious ways." Indeed, the apostles foretold a very great apostasy, of wide, and long, and fearful reign. Does Prof. W. mean to say that these apostates sprung from the religion the apostles taught, and were "hard on" Christianity? What a pity this very "scientific" historian had not been there, to busy himself in explorations among the unwritten traditions of the apostolic age, that he might have enlightened some Baptist Pastors' Conference on the dreadful "literalism" of the apostles' preaching and teaching, and warned them against the evil tendencies of the gospel of the grace of God in view of the dreadful errors that had "sprung" from it!

The proposition of the lecturer being granted as probably true, and "Mormon theology" being shown to be a mischievous compound of truth and error, fact and fiction, sense and nonsense, and to have resulted, in a moral point of view, disastrously, the legitimate lesson to be drawn from it would be -- the danger of apostatizing from the faith, principles and fellowship of the "Campbellites." But not the whole intent of the lecture is to condemn the faith, principles and practices from which the Mormons apostatized -- and to identify Mormon faith, principles and practices with those which, in the proposition discussed, it is declared they had forsaken! Either the proposition is a gross blunder, or the proof submitted and the conclusions drawn are such as a "sober and scientific" reasoner ought to be ashamed of. To prove that Mormon theology was "founded" and "developed" by "apostate Campbellites," our lecturer proceeds to prove that Mormon theology teaches some of the very same things that A. Campbell and his coadjutors taught! How that proof is to be hitched on to that proposition, is a mystery which none but a marvelously "scientific" reasoner can ever know.

Apostates from a faith or a party, may take with them some of the ideas, or principles, or usages of the system they renounce. The apostates of apostolic times did this. Paul charges them with preaching "another gospel," yet he immediately adds "which is not another, but there are some that pervert the gospel of Christ." They retained the gospel in part, but perverted it as a whole, and added to it whatever suited their wicked purposes. Can they, by any amount of "scientific" treatment of the facts, be justly regarded as the offspring of the gospel? Can their wicked perversions and their moral corruptions be fathered on that gospel which they perverted? If not, Prof. Whitsitt's attempt to fasten the disgrace of Mormonism on the teaching of Alexander Campbell is disgraceful to him alike as a "scientific" historian and as a "sober" logician, and if the Pastors of the Baptist Conference at Louisville can swallow such reasoning, they must be on the borders of starvation, ready to devour whatever is offered to them. The truth is, that the apostates of primitive times had much more success than these apostates from our ranks, for it does not appear that "many" from among us "followed their pernicious ways." Their converts were mostly from other sources. Not only were their conquests few from among us, but our preachers promptly, boldly and successfully withstood them at the start, and soon put an end to their mischievous influence and proselyting career. Moreover, let Prof. W. understand, when he reasons after this fashion, that Sidney Rigdon, whom he regards as the real author of Mormon theology, was a Baptist, and came from the Baptists to us. And the Campbells, too. affiliated with the Baptists. And the principal adherents of the Campbells came from the Baptists. Sidney Rigdon could tell of no such inroads on our ranks as could the Campbells of inroads on the Baptist ranks. Of course then, Baptistism is the mother of Campbellism -- the latter sprung from the former, and has always retained much that is taught and practiced by the Baptists. Baptistism is not only the mother of Campbellism, but the grandmother of Mormonism, and the grandchild, in some respects, striking features of its grandmother, which don't belong to the mother at all.

Let us quote again from this report:

This purpose of "convincing Jews and Gentiles that Jesus is the Christ," which is announced on the title-page, Prof. Whitsitt declares to be the key of the Book of Mormon and he thinks that this manifest and expressed aim of the book shows that it had a Campbellite origin.

Marvelous! Now listen to this, from a book older a good deal than the Book of Mormon"

Many other signs truly did Jesus which are not written in this book, but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life in his name (John xx 30-31).

Does this "manifest and expressed aim of the book" show that John's gospel "had a Campbellite origin?"

Or, take the report of the apostolic sermon, "the manifest and expressed aim" of which is thus announced:

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, [opening] and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead, and that this Jesus which I preach unto you is the Christ (Acts xvii 2-3).

Does this show that Paul's sermon "had a Campbellite origin"

Prof. Whitsitt asserts that this is "the Campbellite Confession of Faith -- that Jesus is the Christ." That is to say, the "Campbellites" have the same. The editor of the Western Recorder, in defending Prof. Whitsitt, and presumably writing with that gentleman's approval, says in substance -- for we have not the paper by us and cannot give the exact language -- that no other body but the Disciples uses this confession of faith; they all use some other confession. That is to say, no other religious body of the present day adheres to apostolic teaching in this particular -- the Disciples and the Mormons are the only people who, in this respect, stand where the apostolic churches stood! Are Prof. W. and the Recorder becoming propagandists of Campbellism and Mormonism, that they thus hold these up in such marked contrast to all the churches that have departed from the apostolic model? But let us hear from a historian whose "sober and scientific investigation" Prof. Whitsitt will not, we presume, fail to honor:

The existence and first development of the Christian Church rests on an historical foundation -- on the acknowledgment of the fact that Jesus was the Messiah -- not in a certain system of ideas. Hence, at first, all those who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah separated from the mass of the Jewish people, and formed themselves into a distinct community. In the coming time it became apparent who were genuine, and who were false disciples; but all who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah were baptized without fuller or longer instruction, such as in later times has preceded baptism. There is only one article of faith which formed the peculiar mark of the Christian profession, and from this point believers were led to a clearer and perfect knowledge of the whole contents of the Christian faith, by the continued enlightenment of the Holy Spirit... Hence baptism at this period, in its peculiar Christian meaning, referred to this one article of faith, which constituted the essence of Christianity, as baptism into Jesus, into the name of Jesus; it was the holy rite with which sealed the connection with Jesus as the Messiah -- Neander's History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church, Book I., Chap. ii.

Will Prof. W. tell us if these apostolic churches "had a Campbellite origin?" Or did Campbellism, in this respect, have an apostolic origin? And, if this confession of faith had an apostolic origin, how is the conclusion to be avoided that Campbellism and Mormonism have alike "sprung" from apostolic teaching and practice? And how does this go to prove that the authors of Mormon theology were "apostate Campbellites?" The strongest mark of serious apostasy from primitive Christianity, in this particular, so far as the facts show, is that found in all the churches in which the editor of the Recorder could not find the apostolic confession of faith.

We quote again from the Recorder's report of Prof. Whitsitt's lecture:

The fact that immersion is prescribed as the exclusive mode of baptism betrays a Campbellite origin of the Book of Mormon; also the fact that infant baptism is forbidden. Smith, who was a Methodist in sympathy, could not have introduced these features. They must have been derived from Rigdon.

The reader will not fail to note the admirably "scientific" method of reasoning here set forth. Smith was a Methodist in sympathy, and therefore "could not" have introduced immersion and forbidden infant baptism. Yet it is well known that thousands of Methodists believe in immersion, and have insisted on being immersed, and that thousands of Methodists do not have their children sprinkled. If Smith had been a sincere and worthy Methodist, there is nothing in that fact to show that he "could not" have given these features to the Mormon theology. But to say that an impostor like Smith, capable of fathering all the lies about the golden plates and their translation, the visits of angels, etc., "could not" so far overcome his sympathies with Methodism as to put into his scheme of imposture anything that would suit his purpose, is an inconsequential piece of reasoning which we are compelled to say appears to us neither "sober" nor "scientific." We only speak of this, however, as a specimen of very foolish reasoning. We think it quite likely that these features of the Mormon system were "derived from Rigdon," as well as pretty much all else that enters into the religious teaching of the Mormons; and for this opinion we are not in the slightest degree indebted to the laborious and scientific researches of Prof. Whitsitt. It is based on facts long since made public, and accessible to all who desire to know them. Mormonism probably "derived from Rigdon," its immersion and its prohibition of infant baptism. They may, therefore, be fathered on him, so far as that system is concerned. But from whom did Rigdon derive them? From the Campbellites?" Nay, nay, but from the Baptists! Rigdon was a Baptist. He brought these ideas and principles with him when he came from the Baptists to us, and took them with him when he went away from us. And yet Prof. W. says they betray "a Campbellite origin of the Book of Mormon!" No sir, they betray, according to your own vicious cycle of reasoning, a Baptist origin of the Book of Mormon. The lecturer falls into the pit which he digged for the poor Campbellites. Rigdon derived immersion and opposition to infant baptism from the Baptists; and, so far as these features are concerned, the Book of Mormon has, according to the lecturer's method of reasoning, a Baptist origin. Yet, if any of our preachers were to charge on such grounds, that Mormonism is the offspring of Baptistism, we should conclude that there was a screw loose somewhere in his mental gearing; and if any of our professors in our Bible schools, were to teach such nonsense to their students, we should set them down as blind guides. Rigdon carried with him into Mormonism ideas of God and Christ, and the atonement, and the resurrection, and many other things that are recognized as true by all the orthodox denominations, and we presume he derived them from orthodox sources. Is Mormonism therefore, the offspring of orthodoxy? Nonsense. We may yet show that there are some features of Mormonism in which it is allied with Baptistism and with the popular orthodoxy of the time of its origin, in which it is directly opposed to the uniform teaching and practices of the "Campbellites." But this, with more that we have to say in review of Prof. Whitsitt's lecture, must await another opportunity.

But before we close, we call attention to a matter which deeply concerns Prof. Whitsitt. We called his attention to it once before, and sent him a marked copy of the paper; but we are not aware the he made any reply to it. We now repeat it. We have it on respectable authority that within the last two or three years, Prof. Whitsitt, if he did not originate, very heartily seconded, a proposal from a Baptist source, for a conference between leading Baptists and Disciples, to consider the question of union between these two peoples. We are informed that he went so far as to suggest the methods to be pursued to prepare the way for such a consummation. We are further informed that he was quite enthusiastic in behalf of such a proceeding. Now, while we have no intention to question his motives, we have a right to call attention to reported facts, which, if true, call for explanation from him. We ask, therefore: 1. Are the foregoing statements true? We published them once, and neither Prof. Whitsitt nor any Baptist paper, so far as we know, ever denied them. Indeed, to the extent of our knowledge, the papers that paraded Prof. Whitsitt's purpose to prove the Campbellite origin of Mormonism were as silent as the grave respecting the statement we published, and a very solemn stillness on the whole question of Prof. W.'s promised exposure of Campbellism, succeeded. We now renew the request for an answer to our question. 2. If these statements are true, how can Prof. Whitsitt consistently teach that Campbellism and Mormonism are parent and child? Does he seek to convert Baptists to Mormon theology and Mormon practices? How could he lend his influence to, and even become enthusiastic over, a proposal to unite the Baptists and us, if he honestly regards our teachings as the legitimate fountain of Mormonism? To reconcile his enthusiasm over a proposed attempt at union with his present effort to cover us with the foul disgrace of Mormonism, we confess is to us an impossible task. We are not disposed to condemn him without a hearing, But we frankly tell him that continued silence on this point will be taken as presumptive evidence of his inability to reconcile his former professions with his present teaching, and the people will draw their own conclusions.


Notes: (forthcoming)

Prof. Whitsitt on Mormonism.
______

As we have been necessarily absent from the office for several days, we have not found time to complete our comments on Prof. Whitsitt's lecture. We give, instead, the following letter, sent by Bro. F. D. Power to the Western Recorder. Whether it will be allowed to appear in that paper remains to be seen. It will appear be seen that it sustains the statements my by us relative to Prof. Whitsitt's desire to submit a proposition from the Baptist side of the house, looking to a union of Baptists with a people whose teaching, he now claims, gave birth to the theology and peculiar morality of Mormonism! Whether the Professor is in living sympathy with Mormonism, that he was so earnest to bring the Baptists into association with the pestiferous doctrine that gave birth to it; or whether, since the death of President Garfield, the prize he sought has lost its glittering charm, we must leave our readers to decide for themselves. We know they will be interested in reading Bro. Power's communication to the Recorder: ...


Note: Mr. Power's lengthy letter was written to deride the idea of a Baptist-Disciple union. It says very little about Whitsitt's views on Mormon origins and so is not reproduced here.

Prof. Whitsitt's Reply.
______

The Western Recorder of Dec. 14 publishes Bro. Power's letter, which appeared in our columns, last week, and follows it with the following comments, ostensibly from the editor of that paper:

OUR REPLY.

(1) This exveedingly airy epistle... [is] on government stationery... We trust he came by it honestly...

(8) Prof. Whitsitt is not ashamed to admit that he has "learned more of the inner history of the Campbellites than he knew less than two years ago." Within this period he has learned that Campbellism gave birth to Mormonism, and he will confess that this discovery has modified his opinion in several important respects. Within this period he has also obtained some desirable instruction from a writer who appears under the nom de plume of "Zetesis," with regard to the Campbellite "Plea for Christian Union," and has become satisfied that it is a very unhandsome and offensive, though possibly not, in many instances, a disingenuous plea, and that no steps toward Christian union can be taken, or should be taken, until that plea is distinctly withdrawn and disowned.

... It was after the fourth of March, 1881, that he [Whitsitt] was so enthusiastic over this proposed conference in behalf of union; it was about a year from that time -- perhaps less than a year -- that he delivered his lectures on Mr. Campbell's "Sandemanianism," and announced his purpose to deliver a lecture on the Mormons, to show that Mormonism is the offspring of Campbellism. This whole question of Sandemanian heresy, over which such a blow was made, must have been settled in the Professor's mind before he was so enthusiastic in behalf of union; and it is just as difficult to suppose him to be sincere in initiating measures looking to a union with Sandemanian heretics, as to suppose him earnest in proposing a union with a people from whom he believed the Mormons obtained their ideas of believers' immersion, the design of baptism, weekly communion, and the apostolic confession of faith. But, according to the Baptist correspondents who make such a flourish of trumpets over the Professor's lectures on "Campbellism," he had been engaged "for several years" in laying before his classes "a genetic history of the movement named after Mr. Campbell," and of course must have been engaged for several years before that in his "scientific" and "philosophic" explorations and preparations; and yet, with A. S. Haydon's and Dr. Richardson's books within his reach, and with his very diligent examinations of the Millennial Harbinger, in which the facts concerning Sidney Rigdon and Mormonism were stated, and the fact published that Baptist editors charged Campbellism with giving birth to Mormonism, he never had even a suspicion of the connection between Campbellism and Mormonism which he now sees, and which he discovered very shortly after the failure of the proposed conference and the death of the President! Considering the many years of anxious and laborious investigation he deemed it needful to give to "Campbellism "before he gave his impressions to the public, Prof. W. was certainly in a very great hurry to announce his conclusions respecting a concoction of Campbellism and Mormonism which he did not even suspect a year beforehand, and concerning which he has made known nothing true that did not lie on the surface of history, known to thousands who make no pretensions to largo reading. If Prof. W. is satisfied to squeeze through this small hole, we regret to see him reduced to such a necessity. He has spoiled the charm of the pretension to profound and patient and philosophical research so boastingly set forth by Baptist editors as a basis of confidence in his statements concerning Campbellism and Mormonism....


Note: The Western Recorder's reply to Mr. Power's letter relates mostly to deride the idea of a Baptist-Disciple union. Only those portions of the text concerning William H. Whitsitt's views on Mormon origins are reproduced here.

Prof. Whitsitt's and Mormonism
Once More.
______

In giving so extended a review of Prof. Whitsitt's lecture on Campbellism and Mormonism, it is not because the lecture, as reported deserves it, but because we think it advisable to take the occasion, for the benefit of the public, to speak at large of some things which need to be better understood.

Prof. Whitsitt charges that the theology and even the gross immoralities of Mormonism, are but the logical outcome of Thomas Campbell's maxim, "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent." Read the following paragraph from the Western Recorder's report of the lecture:

Prof. Whitsitt claims that he has added to the sum of information on these subjects the argument from internal considerations, which indicates clearly that Rigdon is the author of the theological portion of the Book of Mormon, and what is of more consequence, that the contents of this portion are such as none but a Campbellite could have written, since they are designed to sustain the Campbellite system as it stands, and to effect certain modifications of it in obedience to the fundamental Campbellite principle, "Where the Scriptures speak we speak." Mr. Campbell did not have the courage of his convictions. Mr. Rigdon did have the courage of his convictions, and he would not stop where Campbell stopped, but pressed that principle to what he conceived to be its logical and inevitable results. One exception must be mentioned here: even Rigdon could not at this period abide polygamy. He accordingly inserted in the Book of Mormon a provision against that point in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. But the dictum, "Where the Scriptures speak we speak," was too strong, and polygamy was finally introduced. When animal sacrifices, which are promised with the new temple at Salt Lake, and circumcision, and a few other deficiencies are remedied, the Mormons will be able to boast that they are the only people in existence who exemplify the fundamental principle which Thomas Campbell announced in the year 1809.

This is Prof. Whitsitt's great "discovery." He is wonderful in discoveries. So was Don Quixote. The Knight of the Sorrowful Countenance made wondrous discoveries, and cut and slashed at his imaginary giants with a valor, a skill and a proud success by no means inferior to those of our Knight of the Amiable Figure. The reader will see what is charged here:

1. That Thomas Campbell, and his son Alexander after him, taught that any thing taught, or even tolerated, in the Scriptures, no difference under what circumstances, or under what dispensation, is to be taught and tolerated now. Thus, circumcision and animal sacrifices, having been once taught, are as binding now as ever they were; while polygamy, which was never taught, but merely tolerated, and divorce for the slightest causes, which our Lord says Moses allowed because of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews, are, on the maxim of the Campbells, justifiable now. 2. That whatever the Bible can be made to speak, without reference to any canons of interpretation -- without inquiry as to whether the language is literal or metaphorical, without investigation as to whether it describes a mere expedient or utters a positive law, without asking whether it was of local or general application, is authority for anything, however grossly immoral, however ridiculous or absurd, however contradictory of other teachings of Scripture, or counter to what is called "the analogy of the faith," or the general tenor of Scripture. Not only did the Campbells so teach, according to Prof. Whitsitt, but this was, with them, "the fundamental principle" of "Campbellism," and if they did not carry it out to its legitimate results, in teaching and preaching the abominations that now characterize Mormonism, it was because they "did not have the courage of their convictions." And after recording these monstrous charges, along with talk about "Campbellite cant," and "an intolerable degree of coarseness," etc., etc., the reporter expresses the hope that "our Campbellite friends will not receive these results with denunciation and abuse," since Prof. W. is such a dear, "amiable" man, and has nothing "Polemical" in view in his lectures! In as far as this expresses a hope that the Disciples will not return to railing for railing, we take it as evincing some confidence that they have more of the Spirit of Christ than their defamer; but, with all meekness and gentleness, and without disappointing the hope so amiably expressed, we venture to say what was allowed once to be said to the prince of false accusers, "The Lord rebuke thee."

A more unauthorized and inexcusable perversion and misrepresentation of Thos. Campbell's maxim it would be difficult to imagine. If Prof. W. has studied the writings of the Campbells with even a hundredth part of the care and profound attention claimed for him in his investigations, nothing by lunacy or Boetian stupidity can shield him from blame for what he has said on this point.

1. What was Thomas Campbell treating of when he uttered this maxim? Why, of Christian union -- the bonds of Christian fellowship. Nothing, he urged, should be insisted on as a term of fellowship, such as the theological dogmas and speculations in the creeds, which God has never spoken. It was more frequently expressed by him in another form:

Nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith, nor required of them as terms of communion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the word of God. Nor ought anything to be admitted as of divine obligation in their church constitution and management, but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles upon the New Testament Church, either in expressed terms or by approved precedent.

Prof. Whitsitt knows, if he knows anything of what Thomas Campbell taught, that, outside of what was to be insisted on as essential to Christian fellowship, he treated distinctly of inferential teaching and of expedients -- of the course to be pursued in matters concerning which the Scriptures were silent -- for instance, the methods by which certain great duties, like the sending of the gospel into all the world, were to be accomplished. If he is incompetent to understand such teaching, he is unfit to pass judgment on Thos. Campbell's teaching.

2. Thos. Campbell was careful to insist that the New Testament alone is to the Christian a book of authority; hence to represent him as inculcating a principle that justifies polygamy, circumcision, animal sacrifices, etc., is an outrageous misrepresentation, and charity can only shelter the false accuser by a plea of incomptency to understand, or a blear-eyed prejudice that perverts the mental vision. Listen to Thomas Campbell:

Although the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are inseparably connected, making together but one perfect and entire revelation of the Divine will, for the edification and salvation of the Church, and therefore in that respect can not be separated; yet as to what directly and properly belongs to their immediate object, the New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline and government of the New Testament Church, and as perfect a rule for the particular duties of its members, as the Old Testament was for the worship, discipline and government of the Old Testament Church, and the particular duties of its members.

This is but one of numerous explicit declarations on this point, put forth in connection with the maxim, "Where the Scriptures speak," etc. We can quote pages of such teaching from Thos. Campbell. Yet Prof. W. dares to charge on him a conviction, to which he was not true, that polygamy, the offering of animal sacrifices, etc., were among the duties or privileges of the Christian! Shame!

The truth is, that as early as 1816 Alexander Campbell -- and in this his father was agreed with him -- provoked the wrath of the Baptists by teaching that Christians are not under the law of Moses. It was this, more than anything else, that provoked the Baptists to make it too hot for him in the Redstone Association. If Rigdon could be supposed to be sincere in his pretense that polygamy is scriptural, he probably learned his principles of scriptural interpretation among these Baptists with whom he was associated; he certainly never learned it from the Campbells.

3. Prof. W. seeks to make the impression that Thos. Campbell's maxim ignores all laws of interpretation, and insists on the most strictly literal meaning of the words of Scripture always and everywhere. He parades this "literalism" as a grievous feature of "Campbellism." This, again, is utterly false. It was a favorite saying with the Campbells: "The Bible was written by men, to men, for men," and they urged that its language must therefore be subjected to all the established canons of interpretation that were applied to other writings in the same language, or written in the same periods. Hence, Thomas Campbell says:

It is further proposed to show, in a series of discoveries, that the New Testament does really contain, and actually exhibit, a Divine system of religion and morality so complete, that the person who realizes it will "stand perfect and complete in all the will of God," be made "wise unto salvation," and be "thoroughly furnished unto all good works." And all this in the express terms of the Divine testimony, without the intervention of one human opinion; only taking it for granted that the sacred text means what it says when treated with that candid, evident fairness with which we treat any intelligible, interesting record; otherwise it can have no certain meaning at all.

We leave it to the candid reader to judge how shamefully Prof. Whitsitt has perverted the evident meaning of Thos. Campbell's maxim. If he interprets the Scriptures as blindly or as recklessly, heaven pity the theological students placed under his guidance. It is well known that among the shocking immoralities of the times, Mormon polygamy holds a chief place; and when Prof. W. attempts to hold the teachings of the Campbells responsible for one of the most disgusting and pernicious of all the crimes against society now practiced, he is aiming to cover what he calls "Campbellism" with infamy -- and this, too, on the slender ground of an utterly false and vicious interpretation of a single sentence of Thos. Campbell's -- an interpretation which he could not help knowing was at war with everything taught by Thos. Campbell in connection with a [full] elucidation of that sentence.

If this were not so supremely ridiculous as to be altogether harmless, it would be supremely contemptible. But we have bestowed too much and too serious attention upon Prof. W. and his absurdities.


Notes: (forthcoming)

Prof. Whitsitt's Second Lecture.

The Western Recorder of Dec. 21, contained a report of Prof. Whitsitt's second lecture on Cambellism and Mormonism. Beyond its appearance in that journal, we have noticed no indication of public interest in it. In fact, since the Professor's enthusiasm over the question of the union of the Baptists and Disciples has become known, there is little concern about any thing he may say on the connection between Campbellism and Mormonism. The second lecture is no improvement on the first. It proceeds on the silly supposition that such notorious frauds as Smith and Rigdon were governed by religious convictions in the construction of a religious system which is permeated with the deceit and fraud of of those daring impostors. Think of such rascals being governed by any "fundamental principle" in establishing polygamy, other than the gratification of their own lusts. But the manifest contradictions between the first and second lectures, as to the responsibility for the enormities of Mormonism, are so glaring, that Prof. W.'s competency to deal fairly with the question will be apparent to every candid reader, Look at these extracts:

---

FIRST LECTURE. Prof. Whitsitt claims that he has added to the sum of information on these subjects the argument from internal considerations, which indicates clearly that Rigdon is the author of the theological portion of the Book of Mormon, and what is of more consequence, that the contents of this portion are such as none but a Campbellite could have written, since they are designed to sustain the Campbellite system as it stands, and to effect certain modifications of it in obedience to the fundamental Campbellite principle, "Where the Scriptures speak we speak." Mr. Campbell did not have the courage of his convictions. Mr. Rigdon did have the courage of his convictions, and he would not stop where Campbell stopped, but pressed that principle to what he conceived to be its logical and inevitable results. One exception must be mentioned here: even Rigdon could not at this period abide polygamy. He accordingly inserted in the Book of Mormon a provision against that point in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. But the dictum, "Where the Scriptures speak we speak," was too strong, and polygamy was finally introduced. When animal sacrifices, which are promised with the new temple at Salt Lake, and circumcision, and a few other deficiencies are remedied, the Mormons will be able to boast that they are the only people in existence who exemplify the fundamental principle which Thomas Campbell announced in the year 1809.

SECOND LECTURE. Prof. Whitsitt would not be understood as affirming that the Campbellites are responsible for all the weird and bizarre applications which the fundamental principle of Campbellism has received at the hands of the Mormons. The ingenuity of the Mormons in applying this literalistic principle has been truly remarkable, and the Campbellites may not fairly be held responsible for these fantastic extravagances; but it was for them an unspeakable calamity to have placed this principle in the hands of Mr. Rigdon. No greater misfortune could have befallen a worthy religious community. It is heavy enough to weigh down all the good which they have accomplished among men, and they deserve, in view of such a misfortune, a great deal of sympathy. Nevertheless, they can not be held accountable for anything beyond the ugly freaks of the literalistic principle which are exhibited within their own bounds. No one would willingly add the weight of a feather to the heavy burdens which the many noble and useful men among them are compelled to bear. Heaven bestow upon them strength and courage to learn a lesson from the horrible calamity which has befallen their church, and to banish the demon of literalism which goes about in it as a roaring lion.

Notice: In the first lecture, polygamy and kindred abominations are merely "modifications" of "Campbellism," in strict obedience to "the fundamental Campbellite principle;" Rigdon proceeded according to what he conceived to be "the logical and inevitable results" of this fundamental principle; and the practice of polygamy, circumcision, and offering animal sacrifices, "exemplify the fundamental principle which Thomas Campbell announced in the year 1809." The only reason why Alexander Campbell stopped short of polygamy and the kindred abominations of Mormonism is that "he did not have the courage of his convictions," and was therefore too cowardly to act on his "convictions."

But in the second lecture he declares the "the Campbellites may not be held responsible for these fantastic extravagances." They can not be held accountable for anything beyond the ugly freaks of the literalistic principle which are exhibited within their own bounds;" although these "fantastic extravagances" are but the legitimate outgrowth of their fundamental principle, and the only reason they did not plunge into all these extravagances is, that they did not have the courage of their convictions! Yet these legitimate and logical applications of the fundamental principles of the Campbells are "weird and bizarre applications" of that principle! Really, the awful tragedy which Prof. W. set himself to work up, has already, in his own hands, become a ridiculous farce, unworthy of respect.

And what is that dreadful "literalistic principle" which has and which hasn't wrought all this mischief? Simply, that the Bible, interpreted in the light of all approved canons of interpretation, is to settle every question of faith and duty. That is all. It is the Protestant principle assumed by all evangelical denominations as fundamental.

The attempt to make this the legitimate fountain of Mormonism, is alike silly in conception, weak and contradictory in performance, and wickedly sectarian in purpose.


Notes: (forthcoming)

Whitsittistic and Mormonistic.

The Western Recorder, in its desperate efforts to sustain Prof. Whitsitt in his ridiculous attempts to bring the Disciples into disgrace, gets off the following on the creed question:

The example of the Campbellites in trying to get on without a creed is so sad and so frightful that it constitutes a sore stumbling block in the way of those who would fain persuade the religious public to dispense with creeds. Within a comparatively brief period the Campbellites have produced some of the most objectionable sects in existence, as for instance the Mormons, the Thomasites and Jesse B. Ferguson, with his adherents. People have said, and now say, that this was because they had no creed, and "all sorts of preaching by nearly all sorts of men."

Our readers have not forgotten that the Journal and Messenger, not long since, stoutly and indignantly denied that the Baptists had any authoritative human creed...

Because Sidney Rigdon, Dr. Thomas, and Jesse B. Ferguson departed from the word of God, and were opposed, rebuked and denounced by our brethren generally, the Recorder affirms that "the Campbellites have produced some of the most objectionable sects in existence." ... Will Prof. Whitsitt, or the editor of the Recorder, affirm that Luther, or the Baptists, "produced" these abominations -- that they are a legitimate outgrowth of Protestantism? Yet these fanatics were not "impostors," like Rigdon and Smith. The Roman Catholics, by sophistry very much like Prof. Whitsitt's, lay all these excesses at the door of Protestantism....

The Recorder of Jan. 18 has a two column editorial in reply to us, giving just five lines of what we said! ... The writer admits that Sidney Rigdon was "an impostor." That settles the question. It is as sheer an absurdity to hold the teachings of the Campbells responsible for the monstrosities of Mormonism -- a system framed by knaves for the purposes of imposture -- as to hold Jesus and the apostles responsible for the treachery of Judas... Yet this writer in the Recorder says:

But Mormonism differs from Campbellism solely in the more rigid application of this Campbellite principle. It has copied nearly every item of Campbellism, along with this literalistic principle, [and] only makes advances beyond Campbellism where it applies this principle further than the Campbellites were willing to apply it, The rigid application of the literalistic principle of Campbellism fully explains the Mormon doctrine of baptism for the dead, the doctrine of polygamy, the apostlehood and priesthood, the endowment, the plurality of gods, the theocracy, and every other prominent tenet of practice of Mormonism.

But Prof. Whitsitt in his second lecture called these the result of "weird and bizarre" applications which the fundamental principle of Campbellism has received at the hands of the Mormons...

We have given more space to this disgracing affair than it deserves, and shall not trouble our readers with it in the future, unless the controversy takes on some new phase worthy of notice; though we may yet find it necessary to set forth some of the features of Mormonism copied from the Baptists and other sects. We believe the Baptists themselves are largely disgusted with Prof. Whitsitt's course. It is a tribute to the strength of our position that, in place of manly opposition to our real teachings it is found necessary to resort to bugaboo [exertions?] to frighten the people away from us.


Notes: (forthcoming)

The Whitsitt Discovery!
______

The following is not only a vigorous expression of the sentiments of President Pendleton, but, as far as we can learn, a fair reflection of the general sentiment in our brotherhood; and as such, we give it place. We take occasion to say that we do not hold the Baptists generally responsible for the course of Prof. Whitsitt and the Western Recorder. As far as we have been able to learn, the most of the leading Baptist journals have declined to sneeze when Prof. Whitsitt sneezed, and even the Religious Herald gives a very faint te-hish-u in response, although loudly blowing the horn for the Professor in advance. We are glad to say this, to the credit of our Bpatist brethren.

From one point of view, it seems that the prejudiced fancies of Prof. Whitsitt do not deserve the attention... But in another light, it seems that the editor of the Christian Standard has done well to expose its spirit and its silliness. Prof. Whitsitt is a professor in a representative theological college of the Baptist Church and as such may be presumed to enjoy the confidence and respect of that good and honest body of Christians. Moreover, his lecture appears to have fallen quite gratefully upon the ears of some Baptist editors, as a discovery marvekous almost as the dishumed plates of the "Mormon Bible."... We call them to consider the low fancies by which it is seriously attempted to defame "Campbellites" as the theological godfathers of Mormonism, and as the propagandists of doctrines leading legitimately and logically to the monstrous and degrading impostures of Joe Smith and Sidney Rigdon. We feel sure that noble men of this great denomination -- lay and clerical -- will be ashamed of the mean device by which this vulgar detraction is sought to be made reputable, and reprove it as it deserves, by a generous contempt for the author. If Professor Whitsitt has taken even tolerable pains to inform himself of the facts in the history of Mormonism, he knows that none did more to denounce and expose it in its very beginning than did these same "Campbellites" -- and that with them it made no headway. If Rigdon's theology had been their theology, why did they by all their prominent teachers so promptly and unanimously denounce and repudiate him?

That Rigdon should incorporate with his imposture some features of the gospel, which, if not recognized by all denominations are nevertheless clearly and in identical words taught in the Scriptures, is not strange, because he did not profess to repudiate Christ...

If Prof. Whitsitt were in the smallest degree capable of writing a correct history of anything, or could understand and apply the principles by which the facts are to be weighed out and interpreted, he would have seen how impossible it is to deduce anything like Mormonism from the "Theology of the Campbellites." The "Campbellites" require a "Thus saith the Lord," the Mormons, a "Thus saith the Prophet, Joe Smith." The "Campbellites" say, "Where the Bible is silent, we should be" -- The Mormons claim a new revelation and swear bu "the Book of Mormon." The "Campbellites" say that the Bible is to be interpreted by "the laws of language applicable to other books." The Mormons interpret it, as once many Baptists did, "mysrically, or through supernatural guidance." Joe Smith and other prophets, by new revelations and divine illuminations, are their guides. The "Campbellites" contend that the days of miracles ceased with the apostles; the Mormons contend that they are revived in their prophets. Generally, it may be said, that in everything that is peculiar and distinctive in Mormonism, they depart in toto from the spirit and principles of the "Campbellites," ...

We can bear the opprobiumbetter than they who cast it at us, but we will not consent to the falsehood nor the heresy that would be involved in its open or tacit acceptance.
                              W. K. P.


Note: It appears that the Rev. Dr. William H. Whitsitt's often blunt language and sometimes trenchant rhetoric got the better of the Disciple divines who attempted to fathom his "discovery" -- that Mormonism arose out of an apostate version of Campbellism. The Disciples had no willingness at all to be blamed for helping Mormonism come into the world, and in their 1882-3 responses to Whitsitt they spent 90% of their words in claiming innocence from that charge. In the other 10% of their collective response they implicitly admit that Rigdon did indeed take a number of distinctive Campbellite teachings and practices with him into Mormonism. But the historical importance of that fact was lost upon Disciple apologists whose main purpose was to distance the early history of their movement from the perceived aberration of Mormonism. It little interested the Disciples of Campbell's day, or those of the 1880s, that where the Book of Mormon agreed with Campbellite theology and discipline it also agreed with the religion preached by Sidney Rigdon -- and where the book differed with "regular" Campbellism is still followed Rigdon in his innovations or relapses back into Baptist tenets. To Whitsitt this realization of the book's theological structure was a notable discovery, worth sharing with the world. But to the Disciples of his day, Whitsitt's "discovery" had no practical use and served only to make Campbellism look bad. Eventually a few Disciple reverends did accept most of what Whitsitt had to say, but they gave him no credit for inspiring their own assertions of a Rigdonite perversion of their religion having given rise to the Latter Day Saint movement. Anti-Mormon crusaders like Clark Braden and Robert B. Neal learned to overlook the Christian Standard's vilification of Whitsitt and then to simply drop that Baptist theologian's name from their own later repetitions of the "discovery" he first championed.

MORMONS  IN  CONFERENCE.
______

Nearly Every State in the Union Represented by Delegates at Kirtland.

KIRTLAND, O., April 9. -- The great Mormon Conference is being held here. Nearly every State in the Union is represented by delegates, and England, Scotland and Wales by letter. William Smith, brother of the founder, one of the original twelve apostles, and the oldest Mormon now living is here.

The reports from the different missionary fields have been submitted. They show that nearly four hundred converts were made in the United States and Canada during the past year. The officials are much pleased. They say that opposition and persecution are things of the past. The missionary delegates will ask for help in the shape of men ordained by the Church. They claim that there never was a more auspicious time in the history of Mormonism than the present, and that lack of ministers alone prevents great accessions to the Church. They assert that men and women are becoming intensely interested in the subject. Social ostracism, which exists in some localities, is fast wearing off.

Joseph Smith preached last Sunday and hundreds came to hear him. A memorial will be presented to Congress, expressing the earnest desire of these Mormons that it use every possible means to crush out polygamy in Congress. It is understood that ostensibly the gathering is for the interchange and exposition of Mormon doctrine and the more perfect organization of the Church. The chief motive is the establishment of a Mormon college at Kirtland.


Notes: (forthcoming)

WESTERN  RESERVE.

A Book on Pioneer Life and Early Settlers in Northern Ohio.
Which Calls Out Some Interesting Reminiscences of James A. Briggs.

Special Correspondence to the Leader.

                                69 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, January 19th

I am indebted to my old friend, Mr. Harvey Rice, of your city, for a copy of his book, "Pioneers of The Western Reserve," published by Lee & Shepard, Boston, Charles E. Dillingham, New York....

Mr. Rice refers to Joe Smith and Sidney Rigdon and the Temple the Mormons built at [Kir]tland. Rigdon was a man of very much intellect. He was a natural orator, had fine command of words, and was a very impressive speaker. He was once a Baptist minister. In the winter of 1833-'34 several gentlemen in Willoughby, Painesville, and Mentor formed themselves into a committee to inquire into the origin of the Mormon Bible. Of the members of the committee in Willoughby were Judge Allen, Dr. and Samuel Wilson, Jonathon Lapham, and myself. The committee held several meetings at the house of Mr. Corning, in Mentor. The place is now owned by Mr. Garfield.

They employed a man by the name of Hul[r]but, who was once a Mormon, to help in the investigation. He went to Pittsburgh and found a printer there for the manuscript of the book written by the Rev. Solomon Spalding, "The Manuscript Found."

We compared it with the Mormon Bible, and the names and language and style of the Bible were so like the manuscript that all were convinced that the "Mormon Bible" was made out of this manuscript of Spalding. A number of letters were received from those who had known Mr. Spalding, and from all the facts obtained tended to convince the committee that Sidney Rigdon, when he lived in Pittsburgh, copied "The Manuscript Found" and from it made the Mormon Bible.

In the winter of 1833-34, Joe Smith made an assault upon Hul[r]but, and was arrested on a warrant, and the trial was in the old Methodist Church, on the southeast corner of the square in Painesville. It lasted for three days. Judge Bissell was the attorney for Joe Smith, and I was employed by Hulbut, having been admitted to the bar in October, 1833.

If there had been reporters in those days the verbatim report of that trial for assault and battery would be a curiosity. I said to Judge Bissell: Now let us have an account of the finding of the gold plates of the Mormon Bible. The finding has nothing to do with the case, but let me ask Smith all about it. The Judge interposed an objection to the question, but withdrew it, and he got out the whole history from Smith under oath. He testified that when he dug into the earth, and reached the plates “that he was kicked out of the hole he had dug and lifted into the air by some "unseen power." The whole trial was exceedingly rich, and the old church was crowded with delighted spectators. In my speech I paid my respects to one of the leaders of the Kirtland Mormons in such a manner that he said, "if it was not for his religion he would whip that young lawyer Briggs" Perhaps I am the only one that ever escaped a flogging on account of a man being a Mormon....

This volume has called up and mentions the names of very many whom I have known in the fifty years now gone, and bring to mind many incidents of pioneer life that I would like to record. But I must close, with thanks again to my good old friend, he classmate of President Hopkins and David Dudley Field, on Williams College, Mr. Rice, for his very interesting volume. It should be read by all people of “the Western Reserve. -- It will teach them lessons hey ought to know, and ever to remember.   Yours truly,
                        JAMES A. BRIGGS.


Note 1: This article contains the first known public mention by James A. Briggs of his 1833-34 dealings with D. P. Hurlbut, since a Briggs letter on the same subject was published in the Sept., 1881 issue of the International Review. In the meanwhile Briggs had attempted to correspond with Hurlbut (then living in Sandusky Co., Ohio) but received no answer from the man.

Note 2: Although he tells of President Garfield's ownership of the "Lawnsdale," the old Warren Corning house in Mentor, Briggs neglects to mention the fact that Garfield had been assassinated in 1881. Harvey Rice's 1883 book, "Pioneers of The Western Reserve, was apparently published late that year. Briggs probably finished reading his copy around the beginning of 1884 and sent off his comments to the Leader on Jan. 19, 1884. The exact date of Briggs' letter and the exact date of its publication in the newspaper remain unconfirmed. The above clipping is taken from volume two (page 128) of the James A. Briggs Scrapbooks (MS 882) in the Western Reserve Historical Society at Cleveland.    

SPAULDING'S  STORY.

The Book of Mormon Founded Upon the Writings of the Old Conneaut Preacher.
________
President Fairchild, of Oberlin College, Reads a Very Interesting Paper on the Subject.
________
The Cleveland Congregational Club Hold Their Annual Meeting -- Election of Officers.
________

The Congregational Club of Cleveland and vicinity held their annual meeting last evening at the rooms of the Y. M. C. A., which have been secured as a general headquarters for Congregationalism in this locality...

President J. H. Fairchild, of Oberlin opened the first discussion of the evening on "The Spaulding Manuscript and the Book of Mormon." He said: "The accepted theory of the origin of the 'Book of Mormon' is that it was based upon a manuscript written by Solomon Spaulding, purporting to set forth the origin and civilization of the American Indians, and to account for the ancient mounds, earthworks, and other remains of the early inhabitants, which are scattered over the land. The first publication of this idea seems to have been made by the late E. D. Howe, of Painesville, O., in a volume written, printed, and published by him at Painesville in 1834, entitled 'Mormonism Unvailed.' He seems to have been the first to gather evidence upon the subject.

FROM  THE  ORIGINAL  SOURCES,

and most that have written on the subject have depended essentially upon the material furnished by him. The theory has become traditional, and has found its way into all the anti-Mormon literature, and into the general cyclopaedias. Professor George P. Fisher, in his book on general history, just published, adopts the theory. The question is intrinsically of slight importance, whether or not the Book of Mormon is based upon a manuscript of Spaulding's. It required only a very moderate degree of literary ability and investigation to produce the book; and several of the original leaders of the fanaticism must have been adequate to the work. It is perhaps impossible, at this day, to prove or disprove the Spaulding theory.

"The unquestionable facts in the case are as follows: Solomon Spaulding was born in Connecticut in 1761, graduated at Dartmouth College in 1785, was ordained to the ministry, preached in New England a few years, taught an academy in Cherry Valley, N. Y., for a time, or undertook there mercantile business and failed, and in 1809 removed to New Salem, now Conneaut, in Ohio, where, in company with one Henry Lake, he established an iron foundry. His business not prospering, he removed to Pittsburg or its vicinity in 1812, and a year or two later to Amity, Pa., where he died in 1816, at the age of fifty-five years. He had a literary tendency, and while living at Conneaut he entertained himself with writing a story which purported to be an account of the original inhabitants of the country, their habits, customs, and civilization, their migrations and their conflicts. From time to time, as his work went on, he would call in his neighbors and read to them portions of his manuscript, so that they became familiar with his undertaking. He talked with some of them about publishing his book, in the hope of retrieving his fortune financially, and this appears to have been his purpose when he went to Pittsburg. There is evidence that he conferred with a printer there by the name of Patterson in reference to the publication, but the book never appeared. In 1830-32, twenty years after Spaulding left Conneaut, Mormon preachers appeared in considerable numbers in Northern Ohio, and aroused much attention in the neighborhood of Conneaut. When the Mormon Bible was read on one occasion persons were present who had heard the Spaulding manuscript, and it is said were struck with the resemblance between the two. Thus the opinion arose and was propagated from that point and time that the Mormon Bible was

WRITTEN  BY  SOLOMON  SPAULDING.

It was the proper place for the theory to be tested, and the fact that it obtained a foothold there affords a presumption in favor of the idea, and the testimony of parties on the ground, if fully trustworthy, establishes the fact beyond question. These testimonies were gathered in 1833, apparently with reference to their publication in Howe's book."

President Fairchild here brought forward and read the statements of several persons in regard to the book, and afterward proceeded to consider the claims made for it. From remarks made during the course of his essay and in answer to questions asked after the reading of the paper it was evident that the essayist did not believe the book to be what its friends claimed for it, viz., a book which Sidney Rigdon and other Mormon lights had taken and by adding or rewriting into it certain religious ideas had made out of it what was now the Book of Mormon. President Fairchild was of the opinion that instead of this being the case it was more probable that Joe Smith wrote the above-named book.

The second paper of the evening was presented by Professor J. M. Ellis, of Oberlin, on "Congregational Union and the Church Congress of England," ...


Note: A very similar article, which may have come from a later edition of this issue of the Cleveland Leader, was reprinted in the Mar. 27, 1886 issue of the Cincinnati Christian Standard.

THE  MANUSCRIPT  FOUND.
______

An Interesting Lecture by President Fairchild of Oberlin.
______

Evidence  That  the  Book  of  MORMON
Was  Not  Compiled  From  the
Spalding  Manuscript.
______

The fortnightly entertainments given in the assembly rooms of the Board of Education are becoming famous. Last evening a large audience was entertained by President Fairchild of Oberlin, who delivered an interesting lecture on the "Manuscript Found" and its relation to the Book of Mormon. President Fairchild said that it was the accepted tradition of the Book of Mormon that it was from a book written by Solomon Spalding who formerly resided at Conneaut, O. The tradition, as said, has become general, and is accepted by anti-Mormon writers, and has found its way into the encyclopedias. The speaker gave a history of the life of Spalding, who was born in Connecticut, but lived for many years on the Western Reserve. He had a literary tendency, and wrote a manuscript on the early inhabitants, and it was said that he consulted with a Pittsburg printer named Patterson with reference to having it published, but it never appeared. Spalding was in the habit of reading his manuscript to his neighbors and became familiar with it. The name of the manuscript was "The Manuscript Found; a Historical Romance of the American Indians." Twenty years after this Mormon preachers appeared at Conneaut with the Mormon Bible, and the people said that it had been written by Spaulding. The lecturer read from "The History of Mormonism," a book published by E. D. Howe, of Painesville, the testimony of eight witnesses who were positive that the essential portions of the Book of Mormon and the manuscript were identical. They are both in obsolete style, and the phrases "It came to pass," are the same. In 1834 a messenger

WAS  SENT  TO  SPAULDING'S  WIFE,

but she knew nothing of the manuscript, but in 1839 a statement was published, purporting to be from her, fully describing it. "This," said the lecturer," seems to be an enlargement of memory, and is evidence that Mrs. Spaulding had nothing to do with it. President Fairchild described this famous manuscript, and said: "The manuscript, lost sight of for so long, turned up at Honolulu last year, when it was found among a lot of old papers by L. L. Rice, formerly State Printer at Columbus." The antiquated story was shown to the audience. It was composed of 170 pages closely written, and contains about 45,000 words. It is yellow with age, and has been published in book form by the Josephite Mormons since it came into the possession of Mr. Fairchild. Continuing his address he said: "The manuscript has no resemblance to the Book of Mormon, and is a story of a ship coming to this country from Rome in the days of Constantine." He then read a selection from the manuscript, showing the scope of the work, and said: "The only question is, what light does this manuscript throw on the Book of Mormon, and was there another manuscript which Spaulding read to the neighbors and which resembled this book? The Book of Mormon is permeated with Christian ideas, and Spalding's writings show that he was ignorant of the Bible, and it does not seem possible that he could have written the Book of Mormon, which is based on orthodox principles, and is not the book of the latter day Mormons. We must remember in regard to the history of these witnesses that the Book of Mormon was fresh in their minds, they gave their testimony, while the remembrance of the manuscript was obscure. There has been an

ATTEMPT  TO  FOLLOW  THIS  MANUSCRIPT.

by the Conneaut witnesses from Patterson's office to Sidney Rigden [sic], who they say, was a printer. But it has been proven that he never was a printer, and never was in Pittsburg until after the Book of Mormon appeared. The blunt syntax of the Book of Mormon could not have come from Rigden's hand, but is more liable to have come from Joe Smith, who was not so well educated." The lecturer read from Howe's book the account of Rigden's conversion to Mormonism, which occurred near Mentor. Soon after his baptism in 1831 [sic] he visited Joe Smith at Palmyra [sic], N. Y., and was thereafter a shining light in Mormonism. "Mrs. Dickinson maintains in her book," said President Fairchild, "that two manuscripts were found, and that one was treacherously sold to the Mormons, and the other to Howe, but this has not been proven. Howe scouts at any such idea or belief, and exculpates Hurlbut, who procured the manuscript for him from double dealing. Some think that the manuscript is still in existence, and think that it will be brought to light at some future day." Mr. Fairchild has not made up his mind that there is not another manuscript. He says that Mormonism and the Book of Mormon are different things, and that Rigden had much to do with Mormonism. Professor Wright, Mr. Younger, Rev. Lathrop Cooley, and Superintendent Hinsdale spoke on the subject, and their remarks were very interesting. A vote of thanks was tendered President Fairchild.


Note 1: This March 9th article appears to be something of a follow-up to the report featured in the Leader's issue for Jan. 26, 1886. Dr. Fairchild evidently gave a lecture in the Cleveland area on March 8th (according to Charles Eugene Henry's letter of Mar. 9, 1886). The above article was reprinted in Christian Standard on Mar. 27, 1886.

Note 2: President Fairchild published two professional papers concerning the Spalding claims for Book of Mormon authorship. The first of these was his "Mormonism and the Spaulding Manuscript," featured in the Jan. 1886 issue of Oberlin College's Biblotheca Sacra. The second paper was published in the spring of 1886 as Tract No. 77 of the Cleveland-based Western Reserve Historical Society. In terms of its reported content, the lecture given by President Fairchild, before the Congregational Club of Cleveland on Jan. 25, 1886 appears to overlap and summarize parts of these two papers. Although he words a few of his ideas in slightly different language in the Jan. 25, 1886 lecture, he says little there that is not presented in greater detail in his two other 1886 papers. However, for purposes of chronicling the evolution of Fairchild's published views on the Spalding authorship claims, his Jan. 25, 1886 discourse has been partially reconstructed and placed on-line with transcriber's comments as "Fairchild's 1886 Congregational Club Lecture."

THE  SPALDING  MANUSCRIPT  AND
BOOK  OF  MORMON.

Other engagements prevented my hearing President Fairchild's lecture last evening upon the Book of Mormon and its relation to the Spalding manuscript. It has been the popular belief among the older citizens of the Reserve, and especially among those who had personal observation and contact with early Mormonism, that the Book of Mormon was compiled or rewritten, or at least made up in part from the Spalding document, and yet there was no direct or positive evidence to prove it. From some facts and incidents connected with the career of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon when they were in Geauga and Portage counties preaching their alleged new gospel I came to the conclusion some years ago that the Book of Mormon was the work of Sidney Rigdon, with perhaps some changes or additions by Smith or others. So far as I know these facts and circumstances have never been published. The truth or falsity of the Spalding matter in no way affects them, and they came to me in a way that leaves no doubt on my mind that the Book of Mormon, or a large part thereof, was written by Rigdon within two miles of the spot where I am now writing.

George Wilber, one of the early pioneers of Geauga County, taught school in the winter following the alliance of Smith and Rigdon, in a log schoolhouse a mile south of the centre of Bainbridge. Rigdon lived in a log house about two hundred yards from the schoolhouse, and young Wilber, who has heard Rigdon preach before his alliance with Smith, often called on him during the noon hour of recess and sometimes in the evening.

Rigdon had acquired the reputation of being something of a biblical scholar among the pioneers, and was also a very persuasive and eloquent preacher. Some of the keen-sighted people, however, had lost confidence in him. They discovered that he had a strong religious ambition that was not tempered by Christian grace and humility. For a year or more before the advent of Smith they saw that Rigdon was bent on devising some new dogma; in short, to start a new church or sect that he could call his own or whose leadership he would share with only a few.

It may be proper to state that George Wilber was at that time a young man of high character and good education, and for more than forty years no one in Geauga or Portage had a better reputation for truth and moderation. He was the father of Prof. C. D. Wilber, now of Nebraska, who was a room-mate of General Garfield at Williams College. He died about four years ago at Aurora, Ill.

Wilber's statement, moreover, of the work and conduct of Rigdon that winter, was corroborated by some of the neighbors in the school district.

Rigdon did not preach that winter, but was almost constantly engaged upon a manuscript that he was writing or revising. Wilber noticed that towards the close of the term there was much more of it than there was the first time he saw it. Rigdon had before that time been free and communicative, especially upon religious topics; he now appeared reserved and at times reticent. Whenever any reference about his manuscript he seemed disposed to parry inquiry by some general explanation that he was making notes or preparing some papers to throw light upon some portions of the Gospel.

The following spring Smith appeared and he and Rigdon went off together and were gone some months. It was reported that they had gone to Pittsburgh, but whether true or not no one could say. It was generally believed, however, that Smith at least visited Western New York before either returned to Ohio. Soon after their return the Book of Mormon was announced. Smith was mysterious and silent, assuming familiarity with the supernatural. It was difficult to measure or discover his powers or qualities, because of his silence and professions as a prophet. Those who were not awed by the glamour of mystery became convinced of one thing, that he was a man of little or no education, while Rigdon was a fine orator, a fair writer, and among the men of that day a good scholar. Rigdon believed that his own attainments would put him at the head of the new church. It did not take long, however, to see that he had failed to measure properly those masterly powers of his companion in acting the part of the prophet. In a few months he saw that he must take a subordinate part and from that time onward his zeal flagged. He drifted along, though still a leader, until the death of Smith, when he found that Brigham Young, a natural leader of the class of men who composed their followers, held the reins of power with a strong hand. Rigdon became disgusted and disheartened. He soon left them forever, and died some years ago in Pennsylvania.

Ten years ago this winter I spent two weeks in Salt Lake City. Elder Orson Pratt had been for many years the historian [sic - theologian?] of the Mormon Church. As my father had been acquainted with him in his younger days, I called upon him and made myself known. He was then an old man of about eighty years. During our conversation I inquired of him why it was that his people crossed what was called the Great Desert and settled at Salt Lake. He replied that they had Fremont's narrative, and that he carried a copy during their journey over the plains and mountains.

In the history of the Mormon Church it is stated that Pratt was with the advance guard, and on their arrival at Salt Lake Pratt made observations, and found the latitude and longitude. Soon after the interview I examined a copy of Fremont's narrative, and found the latitude and longitude given. Now, Pratt was not scholar enough to take an observation of that kind, so he must have announced their locality from the information given by Fremont. It is due to Elder Pratt to say that I do not believe he wrote this statement. He was more of a custodian of Mormon records than a historian, and probably permitted the statement to be made.

The Book of Mormon contains many internal evidences that Sidney Rigdon was the author of at least a good portion of it.

How many others had a hand in it, or what other manuscripts, if any, assisted in the work, it would be difficult now to determine.   C. E. HENRY.
Geauga Lake, O., March 9.


Note 1: The above letter was reprinted into various other papers, including the Chicago Tribune of Mar. 27th and the Apr. 11th issue of the Salt Lake Tribune. The above text was also reprinted on pages 50-52 of Frederick A. Henry's 1942 biography of his father, Captain Henry of Geauga. This Captain Henry" or "Marshal Henry" name was Charles Eugene Henry (1835-1906), a notable Ohio figure and an occasional correspondent of the Cleveland Leader, who signed his reports as "C. E. Henry." In 1886 C. E. Henry was staying near the Geauga Lake train station in the southwest corner of Bainbridge township, Geauga Co., Ohio -- about twenty miles from Cleveland (where he maintained his legal residence). The father he speaks of (as having known Orson Pratt) was John Henry (1796-1869) of Bainbridge.

Note 2: Oberlin College President James H. Fairchild lectured in Cleveland on the Spalding claims for Book of Mormon authorship in January of 1886, as well as on Mar. 8, 23, and 25, 1886. In the wake of the publicity stirred by up Fairchild's lectures, C. E. Henry was prompted to write his letter, conveying the recollections of George Wilber (1805-1881). Wilber was a long-time resident of adjacent Auburn twp. On Sept. 27, 1826 he married Rachel Smith in Portage County's Aurora twp. (the township adjoining Bainbridge on the south). Mr. Wilber is only mentioned in passing in Geauga Co. histories, and his winter 1825-26 teaching stint, in the neighborhood of Rigdon's cabin, south of Bainbridge Centre, may have been a short one.

Note 3: C. E. Henry's paternal aunt, Mrs. Dencey Adeline Thompson Henry (1805-1887), also passed along personal recollections concerning Sidney Rigdon's stay at Bainbridge: she was evidently a nursemaid in the Rigdon family, prior to her 1827 marriage to Orrin P. Henry, Sr. -- see the letter of her son, Orrin P. Henry, Jr., as summarized in the Portland, Oregon New Northwest of Sept. 9, 1880.

Note 4: Unfortunately C. E. Henry provides no date for his allegations regarding Sidney Rigdon's being "almost constantly engaged upon a manuscript that he was writing or revising" at Bainbridge, Ohio. Nor does Henry supply dates for George Wilber's recollections of the first and second appearances of Joseph Smith, Jr. upon the Western Reserve of Ohio. Rigdon moved from his home in Bainbridge early in 1827 and relocated his family at Mentor. Thus, if George Wilber conversed with Sidney Rigdon during a winter school term in Bainbridge, it must have either been in the first weeks of 1826, or else at just prior to Rigdon's leaving that place, early the next year. Since Rigdon's writing of the "manuscript" recalled by Wilber occured during a "winter" when "Rigdon did not preach," the only logical time period for the clergyman's secretive activity would have been during the winter of 1825-26, four years before Sidney Rigdon had any documented contact with Joseph Smith, Jr. By the time he publicly met Smith (during the last days of 1830), the Book of Mormon had already been circulating in Ohio for several weeks. It is by no means impossible that Joseph Smith, Jr. paid one or more unrecorded visits to Rigdon's home in Ohio as early as 1826-27. However, there is no known historical evidence for such a meeting between the two men, and it is also possible that Mr. Henry's implied Sidney Rigdon chronology is a conflation of events, from both before and after Rigdon's Nov. 1830 conversion to Mormonism. For one dubious account of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s travels in the direction of Ohio, in search of a "luminous stone," see the report of his March, 1826 hearing before Justice of the Peace Albert Neely, in the Norwich, N. Y. Chenango Union of May 3, 1877. That account reports Smith visiting an area on the "South side of Lake Erie, not far from the New York and Pennsylvania line." From the NY/PA border, the distance to the eastern limits of Ashtabula Co., Ohio is anout 40 miles. See Clark Braden's report of Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith, Jr. having met secretly in Ashtabula, before 1830, in the June 18, 1891 Lamoni, IA Independent Patriot. See also Rigdon's 1830 notice of his visit to Ashtabula, a few days prior to the "four missionaries to the Lamanites" arrival at Rigdon's home in nearby Mentor, Ohio.

Note 5: George Wilber and Dencey Adeline Thompson were not the only persons who recalled that Sidney Rigdon's attention being greatly occupied with a mysterious manuscript, while he lived at Bainbridge -- see also the 1879 statement of Rigdon's neice (on his wife's side of the family), Mrs. Amarilla (or Amorilla) Brooks Dunlap. This lady's statement was supplemented a little by information relayed in the columns of the Salt Lake Tribune on Apr. 7, 1881. Of course, testimony to the effect that Rigdon did much private writing while living at Bainbridge, is of limited usefulness, unless it can be ascertained exactly what it was that he was writing. For this reason, the less informative recollections of old Rigdon acquaintances, such as Harvey Baldwin and Deacon Clapp, add but little to the modern investigator's knowledge of what Sidney Rigdon's activities were during the late 1820s.

Note 6: Mr. Henry's article (as reprint in the Chicago Tribune) came to the attention of the RLDS elder, M. T. Short, who offered a rebuttal in the Sept. 1886 ossue of the Okland, CA Expositor. Short's reply added no new information to the topic, however.

BRIGHAM  YOUNG.
______

First Settlement of Mormons in Ohio --
Brigham's First Marriage.
______

A Chardon, O., correspondent of the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette writes:

Learning that there were in the office of the probate judge of Geauga county some interesting facts to be obtained in regard to the early life of Brigham Young, the great Mormon, your correspondent paid that office a visit, and by the courtesy of Judge Smith was enabled to obtain the following facts, never before published. It will be remembered that the little town of Kirtland, at that time part of Geauga county, was the first "gathering place" of the Mormons. Brigham Young was one of the earliest of them to come to Kirtland, and soon after coming to the place he met and soon married Miss Mary Ann Angel. This was his first and legal marriage. In the old records of the probate court may still be seen the original application of Brigham for the necessary license for this marriage and the certificate of the marriage by Sidney Rigdon, another prominent Mormon. By the way, this Sidney Rigdon was at one time a Baptist preacher, afterward joined the Disciples, or, as they were then called, Campbellites, and finally became a Mormon, and soon was among the greatest of that sect. He was at one time after he joined the Mormons, indicted for solemnizing the marriage of Orson Hyde, another prominent Mormon, without legal authority. The copies of the application for license and the certificate of marriage are as follows:

"The State of Ohio, Geauga County, ss.:

Personally appeared Brigham Young and made application for a marriage license for himself and Mary Ann Angel, of the township of Kirtland, in said county, and made solemn oath that he, the said Brigham Young is of the age of twenty-one years, and the said Mary Ann Angel is of the age of eighteen years; that they are both single, and not [nearer] of kin than first cousins; that he knows of no legal impediment against their being joined in marriage.   BRIKHAM YOUNG.
  Sworn and subscribed this 10th day of February, 1834 before me,
              RALPH COWLES, Dep. Clerk."

"Be it remembered, that on the thirty-first day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand and eight hundred and thirty-four, Brigham Young and Mary Ann Angel, of the county of Geauga, were leaglly joined in marriage by competent authority, in conformity to the provisions of the [statutes] of the state of Ohio, in such cases made and provided, and a certificate of the said marriage, signed by Sidney Rigdon, a minister who solemnized the same, has been filed in the office of the clerk of the court of common pleas for the said county of Geauga, this third day of April, Anno Domini, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-four....

The signature of Brigham Young to the application above is a fac-simile of the original signature on the record. It will be noticed as evidence of Brigham's illiteracy that he spells his name Brickham Young, and spells the last name with a small or lower-case "y." How such a man could obtain such a control over the people as he did