Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

clude the orthodox, are equally without foundation and a solitary example in the history of this reformation. But we have waited till now, till all excitement has subsided, to place on our pages a record of these transactions. The following narrative has been drawn up by a person on the ground during the whole procedure; and, as it tallies with the statement of the committee of the majority, published in the Richmond Religious Herald of March 9, 1832, it may be regarded as a faithful narrative of the origin of the congregation in Richmond founded on the New Testament alone. Their meeting house will be completed about the 15th of November. The congregation now approaches to one hundred members. ED.

Dear Brother Campbell,

RICHMOND, Va. September 7th, 1832.

YOURS of the 9th ultimo came duly to hand, and I now take opportunity to answer it. The material facts connected with the division of the First Baptist Church and our separation therefrom, are, so far as they have come within my knowledge, as follows:-A considerable number of the members of the church had become satisfied that a reform, both in themselves and in the church, was necessary. They applied themselves diligently to the reading of the New Testament; and used frequently to converse with each other, and other members of the church, on these great leading items of the gospelfaith, baptism, and the Lord's supper-endeavoring by presenting in a friendly and christian-like manner, the commands of our Lord and Saviour, and the directions and practice of the Apostles, to induce them to believe and practise as the primitive christians did. We had no idea of separating from our brethren, with whom we considered ourselves in harmony and peace: and our own expe. rience had too severely taught us the powerful force of education and early prejudice, to allow us to fall out with a brother for mere difference of opinion. Things were in this situation when your father visited us. He arrived here on the 5th of January, 1832. On the next day, in company with a member of the church, he visited our Pastor; a long and friendly conversation ensued, during which he invited Elder Campbell to preach for him that evening. He did so, and several other evenings afterwards, at the Pastor's request. On Sunday evening, the 15th of January, before the meeting at night, several members of the church were together at the house of a brother. Elder Campbell's preaching was talked of, and a general desire expressed that he should preach often; and three of the brethren were requested to wait upon the Pastor, and ask his permission. They waited upon him that evening, and informed him of the wish of the brethren, that, as he occupied the pulpit but one night in the week, he would give notice for Elder Campbell to preach on the other nights; and that, as many persons in the adjoining country were anxious to hear him, and could not unless he preached in the morning, they wished him to preach on the next Lord's day morning; to all of which he assented. After the services that evening, he gave notice that the venerable old brother in the pulpit with him would preach every night in that place, except Friday night, and on that night both would be present, and one or the other would preach. He said nothing about Sunday morning. We supposed he intended to give that notice on some early night during the week. On Monday night Elder Campbell preached; the Pastor was not present, and there being several persons from the country at meeting, it was thought a favorable opportunity to spread the information; at the request of several members a deacon of the church, therefore, publicly gave notice that Elder Campbell would preach in that place on the next Lord's day morning. Elder Campbell preached on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday night; and no difficulty was apprehended about the preaching on Sunday morning till Friday night, when

the Pastor himself preached, and after sermon gave notice that he himself would preach on next Sunday morning. Immediately one of the brethren who had asked his permission for the use of the house for Elder Campbell, went up into the pulpit, and asked him if he had not made a mistake in making the appointment for himself. He said, No; that he had not promised the use of the house. The notice had then been sent to the two daily papers, and the notice of the appointment having been very generally circulated, many of the brethren, upon consultation, decided, if possible, to obtain a place for him (Elder C.) to preach; and upon application to the Universalist preacher, he very readily consented to give up the use of the Capitol, which had been granted him for that morning by the Governor; and the notices were changed accordingly. Many members of the church and others attended, and nothing more was heard by us until next Sunday morning, when the Pastor gave notice that on the next Saturday there would be a church meeting on business of the highest importance. Inquiry was at once made as to the business; when it was understood that our going to the Capitol was highly offensive, and that certain members whom others chose to call "Campbellites," would have to withdraw. The three brethren who had asked the use of the house, thinking it best, if possible, to settle the difference between the Pastor and themselves, so that the question might come before the church unconnected with private differences, waited upon him the next morning; but were unable to come to any understanding, he still maintaining that he had made no such promise, and they that he had.

On Saturday night, the 4th February, the church convened; and after an address of about two hours from the Pastor, he concluded by offering a verbal resolution, that certain members who were said to have imbibed the sentiments of Alexander Campbell, should withdraw. After some discussion, an amendment, also verbal, was offered by a brother, to this effect: That all those members of the church who.were so dissatisfied with their brethren on account of their opinions as not to be able to live in harmony with them, be allowed to withdraw. After which the church adjourned to meet again on next Saturday night. On that night the church met; but the Pastor not being present, for that reason the church by a majority of one or two, adjourned.

On Tuesday night, the 14th February, they again met, when the following preamble and resolution, in writing, was offered by the Pastor. See Religious Herald, 9th March, 1832:

"Whereas it is evident that a party has arisen in this church, entertaining opinions of scripture doctrine and church government materially different from those of the great body of this church, and all the Regular Baptist churches in Virginia: And whereas, out of these discordant opinions and views a state of feeling has grown very unfavorable to the peace, honor, and piety of the church-Therefore,

"Resolved, That this church earnestly recommend to those who have embraced these new doctrines and opinions to withdraw from us, and become a separate people, worshipping God according to their own views of propriety." "SIMON FRAYSER, Clerk."

The brother who had offered the amendment of the 4th February, then offered it in writing. The amendment appeared to be very unpalatable. Some contended that the brother had no right to offer it; others insisted that he should withdraw it; and many unpleasant things were said. But the brother insisting upon the amendment, it was gotten rid of by the previous question, a thing probably never before heard of in a Baptist church, and the resolution of the Pastor was adopted. The church then adjourned.

On the Monday or Tuesday night following many of the brethren met together to consult as to what would be the best course to be pursued by them. They knew that about eight members, in whom they had high confidence, were the only persons whom they had then determined to get rid of; and being themselves entirely dissatisfied with the proceedings of the majority; and far

ther, believing that if these brethren were removed, that they themselves would have to renounce their belief, or in turn be severally excluded, they determined upon the following preamble and resolutions:

"Whereas a resolution, connected with a preamble, stating that certain members entertain opinions of scripture doctrine and church government materially different from the great body of the First Baptist Church and all the Regular Baptists in Virginia, was, on the 14th February, 1832, adopted by a majority of said church: And whereas we are satisfied that the above preamble and resolution are intended to operate upon the opinions we hold, though we have disclaimed and do disclaim any opinion not founded upon the New Testament: And whereas they have invited us to withdraw-Therefore,

"Resolved, 1 hat we, whose names are hereunto subscribed, do withdraw ourselves from the First Baptist Church.

"William Dabney, Curtis Carter and wife Letitia, William M. Carter, Curtis Carter, Jun. Joseph Carter, Mary Hyde, George Radford, George R. Myers, Lucy-Ann Myers, Clarissa Hopkins, Burwell Jones, Francis W. Quarles, Benjamin Ellett, Joseph S. Robinson, Julia-Ann Robinson, E. F. Matthews, James Bootwright and wife Priscilla, Charles H. Hyde, Eliza S. Hyde, William Bootwright, J. B. Bragg, V. W. Bragg, Joseph Woodson, Julia A. Woodson, Robert A. Ligon, S. F. Ligon, Robert Hyde and wife Ann, Frances Ayscough, George Sharpe, C. L. M. Howerton, A. B. Gathwright, John Brooks, Thomas J. Glenn, A. Jones, Jane Ellyson, John Hooper, Sarah Bryan, Clotilda Fisher, Ellen Dogget, James Griffin, Edmund Leneve, Jane Leneve, John G. Davis and wife Malinda, Mary A. Dabney, Sampson Jones, Angelica Jones, Mary Eppse, William A. Matthews, Ann B. Matthews, Onan Ellyson, James R. Ratcliff, Garland Hanes, Emeline S. Hanes, Leander Woodson, Edwin A. Mattox, Mary Kinnard, Daniel Totty, Jun. William Booth and wife Miranda, Sarah Epps, Rebecca White, Sarah Page, Thomas Hix, Mary Clarke.

"On motion made by brother Myers, in behalf of the persons above named, they were permitted to withdraw forthwith.

"On motion made by brother Z. Lewis, the following was adopted:"Resolved, That as brother John Brown has voluntarily avowed himself as a believer in the leading doctrines and opinions of Alexander Campbell, and as belonging to that party, he be dismissed from the communion of this church in conformity to the resolution adopted on the 14th instant.

"The meeting adjourned after a short address and prayer by the Pastor. "SIMON FRAYSER, Clerk." Which were signed by 68 members, as you will see by reference to the Herald of the 9th March; and requested three of the brethren to lay it before the next church meeting. The then First Church accepted the proposition and ordered it to be recorded; and here the matter ended.

It is generally unsafe to conjecture the causes of any given effect; but as they, the majority, have entered upon the field, not only as to causes, but effects also, it may not be amiss to advert to some things which have not appeared in their public expose. We did not desire a separation, they themselves being judges; [see Herald, 9th March.] Another admission is made by them in the same paper, in the following words:

"We are firmly persuaded if their progress had not been arrested, they would in time have secured a majority, and new-modelled the church, and then excluded all who would not coincide with this new theory."

Now as to our securing a majority, one of two things must be supposedeither that we had the truth on our side; and by suffering it to be presented to their minds, a majority would have been convinced by it; or that the majority were so weak, even under the instruction of the Pastor, and the leaders of the separation, that we should have been able to have made them believe that error was truth. They may make their choice. As to our excluding others, it is a gratuitous assumption, unsupported by any facts; for wherever separations have been forced, it has been by the self-styled orthodox; and not a single

instance of the kind has occurred in a church where the Reformers were the majority. There were some sentiments held by us, which possibly had more influence in the matter than any peculiar matters of faith. We did not unite with them in their splendid Missionary schemes among the heathen, while many in our own country were perishing for lack of knowledge, and while professors of religion here so differed about the one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, that to the poor heathen the Missionaries of no two societies spoke the same language. We also thought, and sometimes said, that many preachers were receiving too high salaries for the services rendered; and that where a small part of their time only was devoted to the church, the balance ought to be employed in obtaining their living.

Thus upon a view of the whole matter, you will perceive that we were com pelled to separate because we preferred the word of God to the opinions of men Affectionately yours in the Lord,

C.

BAPTISM IN ROOM OF CIRCUMCISION.

A word in season on Essentials and Non-essentials.

Dear Brother Campbell,

JAMESTOWN, Ohio, September 7th, 1832.

A LARGE number of persons professing christianity, in this generation, when speaking of Baptism say that it has come in the room of Circumcision, but speak of it as being a non-essential. Did the Jews ever speak thus of circumcision? Were there any males among the Jews uncircumcised? From what I can learn of the Jews' religion, I know of nothing in it to which more importance was attached than to circumcision. All uncircumcised males were to be cut off from among the Jewish people. They were not entitled to any of the promises made to the Jews.

Then (admitting the argument that baptism is come in the room of circumcision to be true) all unbaptized persons must be cut off from the church, for they have broken the covenant, or rather have never been initiated into it; therefore, are not entitled to any of the privileges or promises granted or made to the church. They are, in fact, situated just as the heathen were in relation to the Jews.

I am the more surprized that those who contend that baptism has come in the room of circumcision should speak of it as a non-essential, when they know that, among the Jews, of ALL THINGS, circumcision was the most essential; and that no uncircumcised male was ever admitted into the Jewish church. Then, those who contend for baptism in the room of circumcision, and have admitted unbaptized persons into the church, have broken the covenant, and have defiled themselves by eating with the uncircumcised; especially if males have been admitted without being baptized. They might offer some apology for admitting females without baptism, had it not been written that, in the apostolic age, the practice was to baptize both men and women. Yet those professors do not baptize men nor women, but sprinkle children. When I say they do not baptize men nor women, I allude to a practice among them of receiving men and women into the church who never have been either baptized or sprinkled, (unless the applicants have a desire to be baptized or sprinkled.) In this practice, if none but females were admitted, they might say that they had not broken the law of circumcision, but could not say that they had done as did the Apostles. The reason why I have said baptized or sprinkled, above, is because I do not believe them to be the same thing, and do not believe that sprinkling can be proved to be baptism. I have never seen a translation that rendered the Greek word Barigo to sprinkle, nor have I ever heard that such a translation was made, by any translators.

Yours in the cause of Reform,

M. W.

Stillwater Association.

WE attended a meeting, which was formerly called the Stillwater Association, in the vicinity of Cadiz, Ohio, in August last. The congregations belonging to this association have all, or nearly all, renounced the Philadelphia Creed, and substituted the New Testament. Great harmony prevailed at this meeting, and the reports made of the state of the churches indicated the growing intelligence of the disciples, and the great need of more co-operation among the congregations in furthering the work of the Lord. A good many additions were made during the year by the individual exertions of the congregations; and one or two new congregations raised up by the instrumentality of some of the private members of the congregations; but for the want of some proclaimers of the word, some persons to do the work of an evangelist, the conversions during the year have not been equal to what might have been expected, nor to what is actually realized in all places where laborers in the word are always in the field. A meeting for social worship and the proclamation of the word, as well as to combine the energies of the congregations in the furtherance of the gospel, is to take place in New Philadelphia, on the third Saturday and Lord's day in this present month.

New Periodicals.

EDITOR.

PROPOSALS for three papers have recently been received at this office. One called the Signs of the Times, by Samuel M. M'Corkle, Rockville, Indiana, for one year only-twelve numbers 8vo. one dollar, in advance, or in the first quarter. The Messenger of Truth, by A. P. Jones, Euclid, Ohio-twelve nos. 12mo. at one doll. per annum. And the Gospel Teacher, by S. K. Milton, Charlestown, la. of the same size and terms. These proposals we intented to publish in this number; but they were unexpectedly crowded out.

Should our friend, S. M. M'Corkle, fail in finding suitable patronage for his proposed essays, we would inform him that we will give him room for a regular series of essays on the subject proposed, which will ensure for them a much wider circulation than he could promise himself in the contemplated work. And as he declares himself desirous only of being heard, without regard to any earthly remuneration, he will have this advantage of incurring no expense in disseminating his views on the approaching new dispensation, or Millennium. But it is to millenniary matters and things, or the prophecies, to which we limit this proposition. We regard him as a talented brother, and shrewd in his remarks on such themes: and should his essays possess the merits which we anticipate, we are not afraid of incurring the displeasure of any of our readers in allowing him six or eight pages in each number, till he have finished his developement of prophecy.

ren.

Camphor Treatment of Cholera.

EDITOR.

IT is due to the public at this crisis to state, that we have seen various accounts of the astonishing efficacy of the Camphor treatment introduced in New York, by W. Channing, M. D. a physician of acknowledged eminence in that city. Dr. Channing, though supported by Dr. Gram of New York, and others, in laying this treatment and the results of his practice before the public has incurred, as is always the case, the opposition of many of his medical breth' But the astonishing success of this treatment is fast bearing down the opposition. I would gladly, had I room, copy a long article from the New York papers on this subject; but we can only find room to say, that opium in every form must be discarded, as directly contrary to the efficacy of camphor. In the premonitory symptoms, small doses, from one to four drops of the spirits of camphor, (two ounces in one pint of alcohol is the proportion for the spirits of camphor,) mixed with one table spoonful of water, will hold the disease in check for some time: and it repeated at short intervals, in small doses, keeping the sheets about the face of the patient sprinkled with the same, and also applying it with external friction to the pained parts; will, in almost all instances, affect a cure. The skill of a physician acquainted with this practice, is not, however, to be dispensed with when it can be obtained. EDITOR.

« VorigeDoorgaan »