Some Historical Information regarding the Columbia Association of Virginia
[NOTE: SEE ALSO ARTICLES UNDER THE HEADING OF THE VIRGINIA CORRESPONDING MEETING.]
The Columbia Association - Elder A. H. Bennett - Elder W. F. Broaddus - The Religious Herald - T. S. -- John M. Waddy.
Signs of the Times, New Vernon, Orange Co., New York, December 2, 1836. Vol. 4, No. 25.
DEAR BROTHER BEEBE:-- The Columbia Association, to which you had allusion in a late number of the Signs, came into existence 17 years ago at the place, and with the Church, where it held its last session; thus, beginning at this point, and having taken the circuit round to the several churches of which it was composed, it met again here at its 17th Anniversary; but not in love and fellowship as on former occasions, for some of the members of this body, on account of a departure from first principles in others, had lost the proper "attraction of gravity" necessary to hold them together, and so, by mutual consent they came apart. As the die is now cast, and the history of this division in some shape or form before the public, I feel called upon to give a concise history of the causes which have led to this separation; and in doing which, I shall take the liberty to speak freely of men and things as they stand related to, or are in any wise connected with the subject. Although I was not a member of the Association in 1833, at which time Elder Broaddus was refused a seat, yet I claim to be as intimately acquainted with the circumstances which led directly to that action of the Association, and with the whole affair in a general way, as any member of that body, Elder Bennett himself not excepted.
The Church at Elk-run, over which Elder Bennett was then overseer, informed the Association, in her letter at the Session in 1833, that she had declared non-fellowship for Elder Broaddus, and therefore requested him not to take a seat in the Association, but, if he persisted, for the vote of the Association to be taken upon the case. With this Church I frequently met, both at their regular monthly meetings, and when on tours of preaching which I occasionally took across the mountains. I was present on the day of their monthly meeting, when, after I had preached, Elder Bennett undertook to give the history of his connection with Elder Broaddus -- of the departure from the faith, and the disorder of the said Elder, and concluded by publishing, officially, the declaration of non-fellowship of which the Association was afterward informed. Elder John Neale and myself sat behind him in the pulpit during this harangue, in which he appeared to be irritated; and upon the whole, to be in what would now be called a "bad spirit." And as the wise man says, "Grievous words stir up anger," so a gentleman in the congregation who had relatives connected with Elder Broaddus's church, became irritated and publickly challenged the speaker to explanation, in regard to some allusion which he conceived him to make to his relations. I then, and have ever since, disapproved of the manner, however I might have approved of the thing itself which Mr. Bennett proposed to accomplish. Elder Neale seemed distressed and shed tears. He has since been dismissed from this church, and united with one holding sentiments more in accordance with his own.
Some two or three weeks previous to the meeting of the Association, I embarked on a tour of preaching hence across the mountains into Frederick county, and was at the Ketocton Association, at Front Royal, where Elder Gilmore with others, had Elder Broaddus arraigned for "Heresy," and Elders George, Ogilvie, and perhaps others, for "wire-working" at the Association the year before. The latter brethren, however, were cleared, but whether with, or without, "cost and charges," I know not. The former was condemned by a majority of about two to one.
From thence I returned, in company with Elder Choat and Poteet (from the Baltimore Association), preaching at the churches near the line of our march, to the Columbia Association, at Rock Hill, which convened one week after Ketocton. The day before the Association, we preached at Elk-run, and at night at Elder Bennett' house. Our visit to Elk-run on this occasion, has been supposed, was designed to chalk out the modus operandi against Elder Broaddus in the Association. But this is a mistake - the Church done her own business. The Association met - Elder Broaddus made his appearance - the church letters were read -- the report upon them made and presented -- Elder Broaddus claimed his seat upon the score of his having been deputed by a sister Association - the vote was taken, which stood about two to one against his reception. Now, in the whole of this crusade against Elder Broaddus, in the bounds of the Columbia Association, Elder Bennett was not only a prominent actor, but the prime mover; this, none, who are at all acquainted with the circumstances, will undertake to deny. But what think you, christian reader, was the prime cause, or motive, which actuated Elder Bennett in his warfare against Elder Broaddus? You will, perhaps, at first, startle, and tell me I touch a delicate cord, when I undertake to call in question the motive of an individual! Well, this I confess; but accompany me into the investigation, and see what conclusion, in the light of evidence and circumstances connected with the case, will conduct us to. Early after the Association at Rock Hill in 1833, several communications were published in the Religious Herald, besides one or more editorial articles, upon the subject of the rejection of Elder Broaddus, all of which, with united voice, condemned the crusaders against him; Elder Bennett, especially, was charged with acting from envious and sordid motives in his opposition to him. Those charges and insinuations appeared to me, at first, to be harsh and severe, but I must acknowledge that three years observation and experience have led me, without doubt, to the conclusion, that Mr. Sands was correct in his judgment concerning the true cause of Elder Bennett's opposition to Elder Broaddus. That there was a cause for this hostility to Elder Broaddus is clear, and that that cause has been removed and so the effect has ceased, is also clear, from the following considerations, viz: 1st. It was not for the truth's sake, or, on account of Mr. Broaddus's sentiments, nor from principle, that he waged war against him, else he must (without a change in one or the other, or in both, neither of which is acknowledged in this case) have constantly opposed him as at first: as long as the thing remains which is opposed, and no change takes place in the opposer, the warfare must continue. But Mr. Bennett is discovered in 1836 to be actively engaged in working in the churches, and in the Association, to undo all that he had done in '33 without confessing his error in that, or any profession of change whatever! Marvelous consistency!
In the mean time, however, Mr. Broaddus had left Liberty and moved into Loudoun Co., and although he left behind him, in the bounds of the Columbia Association the same principle in others, yet Elder Bennett has no objection to such on that account. The "Glow-worm" sheds its "light" in another region, and therefore there is no more complaint of the "Ant." But, perhaps Mr. Bennett's mysterious conduct can be, in part, accounted for from the consideration that he has made the following very valuable discovery in "Theology" since the campaign in '33, and for which some of the boards "ought to allow him a premium, as it would be useful to them in their march of improvement in 'evangelizing the world'' viz: "Heresy can't be proven in this our day: it can only be proven in the world to come."
2nd. The true cause, then, of opposition, or the thing opposed, will be found to be Mr. Broaddus himself. He had taken a stand at Liberty, near Mr. Bennett at Elk-run; raised a considerable interest there; was popular with the people; had large congregation, and the worst of all he baptized a good many people, some of whom lived near Elk-run, or nearer, than they did to Liberty; hence the mighty marshalling of forces against him in the Churches, an bringing them as a phalanx to bear upon him in the Association. Far be it from me, however, to insinuate that all who voted against him in '33 did so from an impure motive; but I must say that those did, who did not vote the same way in '36, without a change of mind and repentance for their vote in '33. Elder Broaddus, however, has forgiven Elder Bennett, for his effort against him as a Heretick, upon the score of "ignorance!" But Elder Bennett contends that he is as much opposed to him as ever, &c. So Mr. Broaddus will discover that his "ignorance" has "not departed from him."
I must be allowed to express my regret that I ever was identified with Mr. Bennett in opposing a minister merely from selfish motives; and although I did, and do still, oppose the principle, both in theory and practice, which is ascribed to Mr. Broaddus, yet I hereby publickly ask his pardon for that opposition, so far as it was in support of Elder Bennett. In dismissing this part of the subject, I will simply state, that, Mr. Bennett is now safely lodged with the new party, while he contends that he is not of them, (nor do they care much for him only to answer their present purposes,) and that whilst he has departed from what he formerly professed as will appear from his letters in the Signs of the Times,* and from us upon the ground we occupy, we are comforted, while bidding him adieu, from two considerations: 1st That he is now on his own side; and 2nd, that there was none in the ranks of the O. S. or Regular Baptists, that we could have better spared. That he may never cease shifting about till he has gained the harbor of truth, is my sincere prayer. [*See Vol. 1, page 240; Vol. 2, pages 40 and 106. In the letter at the latter page, Elder Andrew Broaddus of the Dover Association is attacked and classed with, or represented to be, in his 'heterodox production," the organ of the "Free agency Baptists of Virginia!"]
The Religious Herald (still true to "the party") of the 9th of Sept. last contains two communications, accompanied with a few editorial remarks, upon the subject of the late division in the Association. It is not my purpose, at present, to attempt to animadvert in a formal way upon these productions, as they contain in themselves the instruments of their own destruction, in the estimation of all who are of the Truth; and about the regard and esteem of others we need not be much concerned, since it is written, "The friendship of the world is enmity with God;" for only with the world and Anti-Christ will such effusions have any weight. If Mr. Campbell in calling the Religious Herald the "mouthpiece" or "tongue" of the Baptists in Virginia, then the body must be in a deplorable condition.
But a the tongue is an unruly member and one which no man can tame, it may be, perhaps, that this "tongue," in this instance, does not speak the sentiments of the body of which it is a member. Be that however as it may, it is manifest that Mr. Sands does not practice the doctrine he preaches to us. How often are the brethren who correspond through the Signs of the Times, and the Primitive Baptist, charged with being "in a bad spirit," or "having a bad spirit!" Yet which of those brethren, the Editors of those papers with them, but can, with strict propriety, say to this sapient Editor, "Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?" Romans 2:21; and also 22nd and 23rd verses. In proof of the proper application of the scriptures above cited, to Mr. Sands, I will extract from his article the several terms he employs, in reference to those whom he is pleased to call "the Black-Rock adherents." They remind him of the "Pharisees of old - they are ready to cast out from amongst them all who will not adopt every minutia of their creed." They adopt the same course: "Stand by, for I am more holier than thou."
As it is written, "Men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake;" so here it is, literally fulfilled - all manner of expressions used to denote our evil. Here follows the catalogue: "Profoundly ignorant - intolerant - bigoted - obstinate and selfish - they have let the absurd notion possess them that they are the chosen favorites of God." (Knowing, brethren beloved, your Election of God! - Paul. I am the good Shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. - Christ.) "Modesty and charity, and liberality, are banished from their system." That is, they are immodest and uncharitable, and illiberal. But hear his explanation: "self-sufficiency - censoriousness - evil judging, and evil speaking of brethren, have usurped their place. All must come up to their standard of experience." Surely that cause must be bad indeed, and its advocates on the "forlorn hope," when, instead of scriptural argument, and "sound speech that cannot be condemned," such ribaldry is resorted to for its support.
The communication signed "T. S." which is, being interpreted, "Thornton Stringfellow," is of kindred spirit, though not quite so obscure as the Editorial eruption. But as all the members have not the same office, it must be allowed the tongue to exceed all the rest in verbosity. Elder Stringfellow, after attempting to give the history of the meeting and session of the Association, states the "principles involved," on the part of those who withdrew, to be, 1st opposition to individual contributions, and 2ndly, to the Supposed Heresy contained in this clause of our Associational faith, viz: "It is the duty of every intelligent creature to believe what God says, and to practice what God commands." This is not a correct quotation. "To love God supremely" follows after "creature." But more of this hereafter if necessary. What I wish to say now is, that, so far as my acquaintance extends (and I think it not less extensive, in this case, than Elder Stringfellow's) that the final result of the last Association and the "principles involved," are by him grossly (I will not say designedly) misrepresented. He states that eleven (11) Churches remain "in fellowship under the constitution." To say nothing of those Churches where the majority are in fellowship with the Association, it is evident, even from the minutes, that Bethlehem is not in fellowship with the Association as it now stands; and without the spirit of prophecy I venture to predict, that that Church will not correspond with them any more. Besides this, there is no doubt a majority of the Church at Chappawamsick is opposed to the Association, or to "Broaddusism," and it would have so appeared in the Association last session, but for the manoeuvering of their preacher previous to the Association. There is yet a redeeming spirit there which will, in due time, successfully rescue that body from priest-craft. There is also, to some extent, both in Rock-Hill and Brent-Town churches, a destitution of fellowship among the members, and also with the Association. Let not Elder S. be astonished when I tell him, that, even in the sphere of his own ministry, (at Grove) there are not a few brethren and sisters, who have but little fellowship either for him or the Association, and that many of them will not remain in connection with that Church. In regard to the "principles" as stated, I know of no Church, or member, opposed to individual contributions, or contributions in connection with Churches, for the support of the Gospel. Whilst Elder Stringfellow would appear to condemn those whom he terms the "Black-Rock party," for raising a "huge image" designed to frighten the saints from their "settled convictions of New Testament principles," he has raised an 'image' himself, and then predicts that all who support it "must come to nought." He concludes that "it will be fortunate for the cause of righteousness, when all such men get together, and put a mark in their forehead by which to be known." That it will be thus "fortunate" "when all such men" - the saints - "get together," I have not the least doubt: who are "sealed a the servants of our God in their foreheads," and who have their Father's name written there. That God may speedily accomplish this getting together of the saints, or the separation of Christ and Anti-Christ, is my sincere prayer. For, "What is the chaff to the wheat?"Again: " Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" II. Corinthians 6:14, 15-18.
The other communication signed "John M. Waddy," I should not notice at all, as it attaches to the author a consequence he by no means deserves, but that I wish, in the sequel, to inform the brethren, generally, that some "awful disclosures," (not of 'Maria Monk' and the 'Nunnery,) have been recently made at this place concerning this gentleman. His sally from the press in an attack upon me and my brethren, together with the fact, that most of his party have used their utmost endeavours to cover up, and smooth over this affair, and with becoming regard for the honour of Christ, make it incumbent upon me to engage in the disagreeable work of exposure; at least so far as to allude to the case. He says, in the early part of his letter, that 'Brother Bennett was chosen moderator, and the Church letters called for. Now this is evidently false in detail; for the moderator was not chosen until after the letters from the Churches were read, and the names of the messengers enrolled. Who was to choose a Moderator until the messengers were known and their names recorded? He concludes with expressions of rejoicing that we are gone. In this business I will unite with him; for I had resolved for many months before to withdraw at that session, and therefore felt but little interest in what was done, only as it tended to that object. He prays, finally, that "God may bring us to see our errour, and the necessity of doing something for his glory, and the glory of his fellow men." I will simply state, whilst we would lose nothing by comparison with him in this respect, that we have nothing of work, or worthiness, of which to boast; and however extensively he may have been engaged in 'doing something for the glory of his fellow men,' it is manifest that he has not been doing much for the glory of women.
I would not be thought to hint at the departure from rectitude in any of my fellow men, or to hold up their wickedness to view, with pleasurable triumph; but as this gentleman - fresh from the Factory near Richmond - took his stand here in support of George Rowe and his party, in slandering the gospel of Christ and in charging the doctrine thereof with horrid consequences of making God the author of sin, we had a right to expect that he would have, at least, squared himself with the external morality of the Gospel. But in this some have been disappointed, according to authentic reports which are current among us, and which are confirmed by the fact of his having, hastily, to abandon his ground. Respect for the character of the ladies who are implicated in those reports, and perhaps without a just cause, holds me back, for the present, from giving such a full disclosure as circumstances may hereafter demand. But, if my brief allusion to the conduct of thi gentleman, and his exit from this place, shall be the means of leading himself or his party to undertake a vindication of his religious character, I shall, in such event, be spared the trouble of any additional remarks upon the subject,from the fact, that, the character of one or more respectable ladies are involved in the controversy, (and which must be ruined on the restoration of his,) and therefore the "tug of war" will be between them, as the parties immediately and personally interested. I add no more. The subject sickens. "O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united."
JOHN CLARK.
Fredericksburgh, Oct. 16, 1836.
P. S. Brother Bennett will please give the foregoing an insertion in the Primitive Baptist. If Mr. Sands shall think proper to comment upon it, I insist that he shall publish it entire, at least to the full extent of his animadversions: I protest against garbled extracts. J. C.
