History of the Struggle in the Churches of the Ketocton Association to rid itself of erroneous doctrines, innovations, and practices, of the modern mission system, which had crept in over a period of years into some of its churches, and which led many Baptist churches across America away from the truth.
FAUQUIER COUNTY
BROAD RUN CHURCH (ORGANIZED 1762)
Broad Run Church was organized December 3, 1762, with ten members: Edmund Hayes, Peter Cornwell, Joshua Dodson, Thomas Dodson, William Stamps, Elizabeth Hayes, Sara Cornwell, Ruth Dodson, Elizabeth Dodson and Betty Bennett. Concerning the original log building, the following interesting information appears on the Fauquier County website: "In 1745, Peter J. Cornwell, a pious Baptist preacher, built a log house on land which later was owned by the Carter family. Peter Cornwell was so renowned for his piety that the land on which he lived was called "Saints Hill", and the name still survives.
Broad Run Church was led off into the the modern mission system, as the scripture says, "the leaders of my people do cause them to err."
FOR THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES.
Leesburg, 28th Dec. 1833.
To the Churches composing Ketocton Baptist Association.
VERY DEAR BRETHREN:--I have a letter now before me dated Nov. 9th, from the Broad Run Church, of which Elder John Ogilvie is a member, and Elder C. George is the pastor, addressed, To the church at Leesburg, and to my care, (a copy of which I understand you have, or soon will receive,) on which I wish to offer a few strictures for your consideration; in doing which I will review the Letter in sections as it reads.
BROAD RUN, November 9.
1. "DEAR BRETHREN:--We are about to address you on a delicate, and, we conceive, an important subject. It respects what took place of a disagreeable nature, in our last Association, calculated to destroy the peace and harmony, which has so long existed in that body; and completely to defeat the object of an Association. We are mortified, and cannot reconcile it to ourselves to set in an associated capacity for purposes of a sacred nature, with persons who are at enmity, without making an effort to bring about a better state of feeling."
Stricture 1. Is it not astonishing beyond measure, for that church to write a circular to all the churches, concerning the peace and harmony which has so long existed, until our last session, when they very well know that the churches are perfectly aware of the fact, that the peace and harmony was broken up and destroyed the year before at North Fork, and by whom it was broken up? Why did they not at that time to make an effort to bring about a better state of feeling? Or do they now expect to effect it by laying false premises, and drawing false conclusions? I have confidence in you, my brethren, to believe that when you take this delicate subject (as they call it) in hand, you will commence with the beginning of it and lay the axe to the root of the tree, at the place where your hearts first sickened.
2. "If it be required of what we complain, we answer, that Elder William Gilmore and the church at North Fork, brought charges, wholly unfounded, against certain innocent brethren of the ministry, sufficient to destroy their character, and usefulness forever, if they could be sustained; and labored with all their powers to effect their purpose."
Stricture 2. I deny most positively having brought any charge against any brother of either the ministry, or laity. The North Fork church brought forward a correct history of the session of the Association which was held with them the year before, which history I wrote for, and read to them, at their July meeting, at which time a committee was appointed to examine it, which office they performed without altering one word; I read it again to them at their August meeting, and they adopted it as their Letter without a dissenting voice being either expressed or implied. Elder Joseph Baker, who wrote the Letter for the Ketocton church, never read it to them, and they are to this day ignorant of its contents. But they say the charges were sufficient, (if sustained) to destroy the character and usefulness of those ministers forever. The churches know how far the charges were sustained, at the last Association, and I think one of the messengers from Broad Run, will never forget how one of the charges was sustained, and I cannot believe that the other has forgotten it, and if this course is pursued, North Fork will let them know how far she will sustain them. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." See II. Cor. 13:1.
3. "Now we believe the course pursued by Elder Gilmore, and the North Fork church, to be so palpable a departure from the christian rule, and so contrary to the Spirit of the Gospel, that it becomes their duty to make satisfaction to the Association, and particularly to those brethren whom they have so unjustly slandered. We therefore earnestly and affectionately solicit your aid in adopting such measures, as shall obtain from the said Elder, and the aforenamed church, such satisfaction as the injured feelings of those ministering brethren, the peace and credit of the Association, and the glory of God requires.
Stricture 3. Well, who are to aid in this matter? All the churches. Who are they to aid? The Broad Run church. In what are they to aid them? To obtain from North Fork church satisfaction. For what? Unjust slander. Of whom? Certain ministers. Well is this all that Broad Run church wants? No, she wants more aid. From whom? All the churches. For what? To deal with Elder Gilmore and make him render satisfaction. For what? Unjust slander. Of whom? Certain ministers. Now, if they do not know, I think the churches can and will inform them, that I could not bring a charge either true or false into the Association through the Letter of any church, or any other Letter. It could not be done by any individual, other than by a motion, and they are aware that I made no motion apart from the church Letters, except one to remove Elder Joseph Baker from a seat with us, as a messenger from Ketocton church, as he was not a member of that church and as the Association had resolved in 1829 that they will not receive any brother as a messenger from any other church than that of which he is a member. As it regards North Fork, I was not even a messenger from that church; myself with many other messengers from other churches, bore a faithful testimony to the truth of their letter, as the churches all know, and they, as well as Leesburg Church, are very far from being satisfied with the entry of the Resolution upon their minutes, yet these brethren wish to give North Fork another trial on the same case.
4. "It is our heart felt desire to unite with churches that are disposed to act in concert, for promoting the cause of our blessed Redeemer, and if therefore it be asked, what are our principles and practices, we reply, the same that this church has observed for the last forty years, which we do believe are those of the word of God."
Stricture 4. The churches of Ketocton Association cannot have forgotten how the messengers from Broad Run church voted last year at North Fork, and this year also at Happy Creek, and the length to which one of them went in support of William F. Broaddus, and in preventing the Upperville church being heard at North Fork, and in challenging proof of a certain allegation in the North Fork Church's Letter, at Happy Creek, which brought forward good brethren from different churches, as volunteer witnesses; so full was their testimony that he fell under its force and stood committed. Now all this has grown out of their supporting W. F. Broaddus. You know, brethren, where he is, and what he has done; and his course toward the Upperville church you have, or will see in the "Signs of the Times," and you will decide in your own judgment, whether it is probable that the Broad Run Church would have supported such a man, under such circumstances, in such a course, at any time during the pastoral charge of old father William Fristoe. I do not believe they would, and if I am right, then their practice is not the same as it has been for the last forty years.
5. "Brotherly love, and christian fellowship, are dear to our hearts, and we have no doubt they are equally so to yours, and while on the one hand, we give the assurance that churches supporting the truth, are dear to us, on the other we maintain that if they act improperly, they are amenable to the body of which they are members, and the same principle applies to individual members, whether of the ministry, or of the laity; and that both, when they commit offences, should be required, and are in duty bound to render such satisfaction as the word of God requires. This course we believe will secure mutual affection, and preserve union when no other will."
Stricture 5. Churches are composed of individual members, Associations are composed of individual churches, mutually agreeing to associate together, through their messengers, as an advisory council, and to be governed by a certain constitution and rules of decorum during their session. I inquire, which article of our constitution authorizes the Broad Run church, when the Association is not in session, to call upon all the churches to aid her in adopting such measures as shall obtain from "said Elder, and the aforenamed church, such satisfaction"? What item, in our rules of decorum, gives such authority? What governing principle has constituted her chief Mistress or Mother of us all? Who has clothed her with power to set up a Throne, or Thrones, for her Pope, or Popes, to set upon, and issue his, or their Edicts, Mandates, Ordinances, or Proclamations? Not the Great Head of the Church. To render [they say] such satisfaction as the word of God requires; can any person in possession of their unimpaired intellects, believe the word of God requires such a course as this? But they tell us that they believe this course will secure mutual affection and preserve union, and that no other will. What course? Why, the course which they point out in their letter. Well, they have forgiven, or granted absolution to Leesburg, then, and it would seem that whosoever's sins they remit, are remitted, and whosoever they retain are retained. Are they not ploughing with the Leesburg Heifer (or church) to find out the riddle, and then put out Sampson's eyes? For this new mode of Association discipline is intended to make Elder Gilmore acknowledge to other ministers and to the Association; for this is what they say. Well, if no one else should profit by it, perhaps their own ministers may, by reducing their own precepts, to practice, and by pulling the beam out of their own eye, that they may see clearly to take the mote out of their brother's eye. You know, Brethren, how all the ministering Brethren, last year at North Fork, and this year at Happy Creek, sat, stood, and spake, and the spirit by which they acted. Are you prepared to say that the course pursued by Elder Gilmore (during the session at Happy Creek) was a palpable departure from the christian rule, and contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; and that every other minister acted correctly? I am persuaded that neither man, woman, nor child, will, or can say so in truth. But I think you can, and will, if necessary, state how those ministry (who I suppose they allude to, as innocent brethren of the Ministry) departed from the Christian rule, and how they acted contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, while occupying the floor of the Association - yet they assure us that churches that support the truth are dear to them.
6. "To the foregoing we solicit a reply addressed to the Clerk of our meeting, at New Baltimore, Fauquier Co., at as early a date as convenient. Done by order of the church. William Hunton, Clerk."
Stricture 6. I hope if our churches should reply to the foregoing that they will take time duly to consider the subject, notwithstanding the disposition manifested by the Broad Run, to hurry them. It will be quite necessary, and proper, to inquire, who those innocents are, what has been laid to their charge, and particularly how I brought them which were wholly unfounded, and also, what their feelings will require; for if I mistake not, they will require a great deal, especially should they run as high as they did at Happy Creek, and in what position, whether on my knees, or in what form I am to satisfy their "feelings." I am told that the committee which was appointed to draft their Letter, carried it to Elder John Ogilvie's School House, to receive his instruction and correction, then to the meeting, where it underwent some farther alterations, and when they finally got it into its present shape, and the vote of the church was taken upon it at their Saturday meeting, five voted in favor of it, and on the Lord's day, the motion was put again, when seven, or thereabouts, voted in favor of it. The number of members of Broad Run Church are 165. And for this reason I have inquired above, who had clothed her with this power, to set up a Throne, or Thrones, for her Pope or Popes, &c. Here may be seen the influence (if true) by which this is done. Brethren, can you act in concert, in such a course, with such influence and under such influence? Notwithstanding all they have written in their Letter, about Elder Gilmore, they know that I am not willing to be in the Association with them, unless they conduct themselves better; for you know I told them at the close of our last Association, that some of us were determined not to live in such BEDLAM. A good minister, said to me the other day, "There will be no rest while Mordicai is in the gate."
However sound in the faith these Ministers, whose feelings are so hurt, may be, I know they are not more so than was the Apostle Peter, when Paul charged him (to his face) with dissimulation, not by himself, and in a corner, but before them all, nor did he merely charge him with the wrong, but did also impugn his motive. Read, "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed: for before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision, and the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles," &c. Gal. 2:11-15. Paul evidently did not understand discipline, and practice as some of our modern Ministers appear to. I do hope every mouth will be stopped.-- John wrote to the seven churches, of things which he hated, "Which things I hate," See Rev. 2:6-15. I write to the churches of some deeds and things which I hate. I hate some things which took place in the Association last year at North Fork, and this year at Happy Creek; and I do also hate the thing which the Broad Run church has done, in writing such a letter as they have to the churches, and I do hope that they will take it back.
I close by advising the churches mutually to agree and meet in council, by their Messengers, two from each church at North Fork, on Friday before the second Lord's day in June next, to examine the subject prayerfully, to see what can be done in order to bring about a better state of feeling. Your servant for Christ's sake.
WILLIAM GILMORE.
N. B. - If necessary you will hear from me again.
THUMB RUN CHURCH
Thumb Run Church was organized on September 9, 1771, by members dismissed for that purpose from Broad Run Church. The Church was first called the Manor Church, from the Manor of Lord Fairfax, who gave the land for the meetinghouse. The presbytery was composed of Elders Daniel and William Fristoe.
UPPERVILLE CHURCH, UPPERVILLE, VIRGINIA
Upperville Church (originally called Goose Creek Church) (not to be confused with Goose Creek Church at Markham, Virginia) was organized February 4, 1775, near Upperville. Another church, also called Goose Creek, was organized in 1809, and for a while they were known as Upper Goose Creek and Lower Goose Creek. This church later rebuilt in the town of Upperville, and changed her name to Upperville Church in 1825 (now known as the Upperville Primitive Baptist Church). This church had no regular pastor for the first 41 years of its existence, but grew to be a large body in spite of this fact, with a membership as high as 198. Elder William Gilmore was the first regular pastor and he served for over 40 years. During the Civil War, the meeting house of this church was burned (as an act of war).
PROSCRIPTION.
(Copied in Signs of the Times, p. 22, quoted from the Religious Herald, a missionary paper.)
"In our two last numbers we have placed before our readers an account of the persecution of our worthy and esteemed brother, Elder W. F. Broaddus, by the Ketocton and Columbia Associations.
The prominent actors in this unrighteous proceeding, Elders, Gilmore and Trott, belong to what are termed the Old School Baptist, and their names are appended to the Black Rock Address, disclaiming fellowship with all those who advocate the benevolent institutions of the day. They have therefore, only acted in accordance with their declarations in proscribing brother Broaddus.
These two Elders have also another objection to Elder Broaddus, viz: preaching repentance to sinners; or charging them with living in a state of rebellion against the majesty of heaven, and enforcing on them the duty and necessity of laying down the weapons of their rebellion and submitting to God.
But the great secret of this opposition to Brother Broaddus must be sought in the success that has attended his labors. The presence of the Lord has been with him and numbers through his instrumentality have been brought to a knowledge of the truth. His congregations have been unusually large; and multitudes have eagerly listened to him as their spiritual guide. To men loving pre-eminence as Elders Gilmore, Trott, Bennett, &c., this was a sufficient ground for the charge of heresy. All men run after him, therefore we must destroy his usefulness by any and every means, or we shall be wholly eclipsed.
In the Shiloh Association, of which Elder B. is a member, there were baptized according to the returns at the annual meeting in 1832, 857 persons. In the Ketocton, at the annual meeting in August, 1832, 142 persons were returned as added by baptism. Of these, 108 were baptized by Elders George, Ogilvie and Broaddus, members of the Shiloh and Columbia Associations. In the four churches attended by Elder Gilmore but 10 were baptized. A striking proof of the efficacy of the do-nothing or antinomian system. Leesburgh and New Valley Churches, which have been favored with the ministrations of Elder G. for a quarter century contain together 74 members. If Brother B. has become a decided advocate of protracted meetings, it was from a conviction of their utility derived from personal experience. At a meeting of the general association in 1831, at Lynchburg, he was disposed to consider them in an unfavorable light. In a friendly conversation with brethren Fife, Baptist, Kerr, Taylor, &c., the subject of protracted meetings was named, their advantages pointed out, the objections made by Brother B. were met, and he was urged to make trial of them on his return. This he promised to do. Accordingly he soon afterwards held one at Mount Salem Church, in Culpeper County. The Lord was pleased to bless it; and from that meeting may be dated the commencement of those glorious revivals with which most of the churches in the Shiloh Association were blessed in the fall of 1831, and the greatest part of 1832.
Elder B's views are in accordance with those of three-fourths of the ministers of our state below the Blue Ridge. In the Dover, the Goshen, the Appomattox, Albemarle, Portsmouth, James River, Middle District, and Strawberry Associations, we know of no exceptions. The ministers in these Associations, believe, that it is by the foolishness of preaching sinners are brought to obey the truth; and that those meetings, by calling a large number of persons together, present a favorable opportunity for presenting the claims of the gospel. When entered on in a spirit of prayer, of deep devotion, and of humble reliance on the blessing of God they have been and we trust still will be signally owned and blessed of God.
With respect to shaking hands, another objection urged against Bro. B, allusion we presume is made to the practice of many of our ministers in descending from the pulpit at the close of the services while the congregation is singing, and shaking hands with members about the pulpit. This we believe is a custom which has long prevailed in our State and was practiced by our first Baptist ministers. This circumstance is scarcely worth referring to, except as illustrative of the consistency of Elder Gilmore. We have been assured by a brother in whom we have implicit confidence, that a few years ago, during a visit to Dover Association, Elder Gilmore was seen actively engaged in this very practice, which he now denounces as heterodoxy.
The opinions and practices of Elder B. are such as have been maintained by the great body of Baptists in every age of the world since their first origin. They were exemplified by our Waldensian ancestors, when with their baskets of wares on their arms and their Bibles in their hands, and at the risk of their lives they preached the gospel from house to house, warning sinners everywhere to repent. It was the maintenance of their principles which led to the incarceration of John Bunyan twelve years within the walls of a dungeon. The favorite theme of his preaching was 'come and welcome to Jesus. Whosoever will, let him come and take of the waters of life freely.' The great body of our English brethren, have always steadily maintained these opinions. At one period we admit there was a considerable leaning amongst many of the churches towards Antinomianism, but it was a period when there was a great declension in spirituality and practical piety.
___________________________________________
Signs of the Times, p. 23.
Upperville, Fauquier County, Va., Nov. 2, 1833.
BROTHER BEEBE:-When William F. Broaddus first made his attack on the church at Upperville, we expected to dismiss him without much trouble, but it seems he had made up his mind, at all hazards, to obtain his object, which we believe was to remove Elder Gilmore, or sink the church in the attempt. You will please to give our reply, to his postscript published in the Herald, a place in your very acceptable paper, and we beg you will give it all in one No. Very respectfully yours, PETER C. RUST.
FOR THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES.
BROTHER BEEBE:- We the Upperville Baptist church, feel ourselves bound in self-justification to lay before your readers, a plain, simple, and undisguised narrative of the circumstances which have transpired between ourselves as a church, and Elder William F. Broaddus, from the commencement up to the present date. The following narrative is intended as a reply to a statement made by Elder Broaddus in a postscript to his letter, as published in the Religious Herald of the 6th Sept. 1833. Your readers doubtless anticipate, and have a right to expect from us, a statement of the facts in relation to this matter. We regret exceedingly the necessity of thus appearing before the public. Yet urged by a sense of duty, we will prosecute our thankless task.* [*As some statements must necessarily be given from memory, should we commit any inaccuracy, we are willing to stand corrected, and if in any instance we should not give the precise words, we pledge ourselves not to alter the substance or meaning, as we wish not to misrepresent.] Elder Broaddus in his postscript says, "The church at Upperville has never made any communication to him either verbal or written," [and says] "I say so still," (then adds) "Now here is my explanation, I never denied receiving a letter; but it was not from the church; it was signed by four individuals. I have been told that at the next church meeting after I received the letter, a copy of it was laid before the church, and was sanctioned, but even of this fact the church have never informed me, so that up to this day the church as a body, has made no charge against me, has made no communication to me, &c."
We will now commence as proposed above. At our church meeting in June, 1831, the church having understood that Elder Broaddus had been invited to preach at the Upperville church statedly once a month, and having further understood, that he had said in the neighborhood of North-fork church that he had agreed to preach at Upperville statedly once a month, took up the subject, in order to ascertain who had given him the invitation to preach there statedly, when one of the members arose, and said, I did. It was then said that two females, who were not members with us, also invited him. The vote of the church was then taken.
First. Has one or more members a right to invite a preacher to preach statedly once a month, without consulting or obtaining the approbation of the church; it was resolved unanimously, they have not.
Second. The vote was taken, have any other persons who are not members in this church a right to invite a preacher to preach here statedly: and it was unanimously resolved, they have no such right.
Third. The following vote was then taken, viz.:--All those who are willing for Bro. Broaddus to preach here statedly once in each month, will signify it by standing up, whereupon it was resolved unanimously, that they were not willing.
Fourth. A vote was taken, Is there any objection to Bro. Broaddus's preaching here when convenient as other preachers do, on passing or repassing, and there was a majority who had no objection to his preaching as others do, - of course, there was a minority for his not preaching on any terms. After the above meeting, and at his next arrival to preach in Upperville, he was informed by his friends, that the church had taken up the subject of his preaching there statedly, and they were opposed to the course he was pursuing. Notwithstanding the above resolutions, and information, he continued to make his stated appointments - paying no regard to the wishes or feelings of the church, and the church for peace's
sake, suffered her liberties to be trampled upon until some time in November, but at his October meeting in Upperville, (if we are correct in the time) he called on sinners to be prayed for, (but none obeyed,) which he well knew was contrary to the views and sentiments of the church - he then proposed to make a collection for the benefit of the General Baptist Association of Virginia, which he also knew the church would have nothing to do with, inasmuch as he had himself used all his influence for several years to induce the Ketocton Association to connect herself with that institution, but could not succeed; he then called on three Gentlemen, one a Methodist (but a worthy man), the others of no profession, to receive the gift, without seeming to know there was a member of the church in the house, as tho' the church was beneath his notice; we judge from his own conduct, [hear it.] When he was at Happy Creek church, he asked the liberty, or if it would be agreeable to them, for him to make a collection for the General Baptist Association of Virginia. We here ask, why such a different course towards the Upperville church? We say, because there was a different object in view at Upperville; which we will glance at hereafter.
The reader will remember we promised to be plain and simple in our narrative, and by this time it will be seen that our subject will necessarily hold us to our promise. But we will pursue our disagreeable subject. For his unjustifiable course towards us, [we take the liberty to judge for ourselves] and as our church meeting had past, and his two day's meeting would be over before our next, and as some of our church thought it would delay the time unnecessarily, they concluded it was necessary that we should take a firm stand in support of our rights and privileges as an independent church; therefore, four of our members well knowing the mind of the church on this subject, and the spirit of the third vote, as above, to justify their course as individuals, addressed him the following letter.
Upperville, Nov. 19th, 1831.
BROTHER BROADDUS:-- When we reflect on the course you have pursued and are yet pursuing towards the church in Upperville, it is with heart-felt regret that we are compelled in justice to you and ourselves, and in defence of our rights, doctrine, faith, practice, discipline, and feelings, to address you in reference to that course; you will remember when you first began to preach in Upperville, you told some you had agreed to preach there statedly once a month, and the church having received such information, thought proper to take it under consideration, and were opposed to a second stated preacher, and did say by her vote, she was not willing you should preach there as such; the subject was handled with care and caution, as you will observe, by saying she was not willing - wishing to use no coersive means, believing you to be a discreet modest man, who would not disregard the feelings and rights of others, who have the only right to regulate and govern their own house; but in this they were mistaken, you pursued your plan and she felt disposed for the sake of peace to bear it, which opened a door to another liberty. It does seem to be right and proper if the church felt disposed to have a two, three, or four day's meeting, that she should first confer one with another, to know if such appointment would be convenient to each other; and if agreed on, she only had the right to invite such preachers as she chose, and if this course should be a correct one, how far you have strayed from a judicious course, when you go 30 or thirty-five miles out of your neighborhood to another church and there appoint a two day's meeting without saying a word to the church on the subject, regardless of her rights. This church was constituted upwards of 60 years ago, by Bro. Majors, who was succeeded by Monroe, then Hickerson, and then Gilmore, and often visited by Fristoe, and Jeremiah Moore, all men sound in the faith, pure in doctrine, preaching, practicing and believing the same things. All seeing eye to eye, testifying that it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy, and men too whose talents and profound reasoning out of the Scriptures, in support of the doctrine of the Cross, has been acknowledged by all the churches for at least half a century, and as this church has been planted by, and grown up under such a ministry, can it be expected, that she can be so soon shaken, as to believe anything else? For we cannot believe that the introduction of anxious benches [so new to us] and pathetic exhortations fraught with so much ambiguity is preaching the gospel, which we believe is calculated to inform the judgment, while the former will only touch the passions. But if any person in the congregation should be convicted on account of their sins, and in that case should ask the preacher to pray for them we should not object, but when the preacher unsolicited persuades the people to let him pray for them, we think he goes too far, and we know of no precepts or example in the word of God to warrant it; we therefore disapprove the practice, --but regardless of our feelings and remontrances, you seem determined we shall submit; but if you can believe this church is of the Lord's planting, remember the admonition that you shall not lord it over God's heritage, for we know nothing of Presiding Elders, or Bishops to compel us unto measures, and how it is you can arrogate so much to yourself, is strange to us. But Bro. Broaddus, you fully understand the doctrine we approve and which we have heard you preach in former days. We then say, if you can consistently with your feelings, come to us with that joyful sound, the door is open and the pulpit at your service, but if you cannot dispense with such things as you know we do not approve; then pass us by, and have some regard to our rights and privileges, regard them so far as not to trample them under your feet, and go where you can and will be received, for we do not wish to throw any obstacle in your way, where we have no right, nor wish to control. Yours in friendship,
PETER C. RUST
URIAL GLASSCOCK
JOHN GLASSCOCK
REUBEN TRIPLETT.
In a few days, after Elder Broaddus received this letter, he came to Upperville to attend a standing appointment, which was his two day's meeting in our house, and when he arrived he found the house prepared to receive him, and persons there to hear him; but he refused to alight from his horse, but went to the other house, (it being a free house) a little below us, and preached; this was about the 22nd or 23rd of November 1831, and at our January meeting 1832, Elder Broaddus attended. Bro. Gilmore, our pastor at this time, was absent, and confined to his bed. Here we will take some notice of his Postscript, referred to in the Herald, where he says the church never made any communication with him, either verbal or written, and then gives his explanation by saying he never denied receiving a letter, but it was not from the church, it was signed by four individuals, --- this explanation as it respects the letter we are willing to admit; but as he has thought proper in his explanation, not to glance an explanatory word on the verbal communication referred to in his postscript, we will take that much off from his hands and give what we consider an explanation ourselves. We have said he was at our January meeting 1832; he then and there asked the church if they would take a vote, that he might know whether they were willing for him to preach there the next day if it was convenient for him to make an appointment; and we suffered the vote to be put in these words, viz:--All that are willing for Bro. Broaddus to preach tomorrow, will signify it by rising, and two arose, and one of them said, he misunderstood the question and that he would take his seat again, for he was not willing Elder B. should preach here on any terms; so there was but one in favor of his preaching; he asked the church if they would try the vote again; we told him we thought he was trifling with the church, and refused to occupy the house when he had the liberty, we were not willing that he should preach in it now, because we did not believe his doctrine; there was then some reference made to the letter from the four individuals, he then said that, that letter was ambiguous and he wanted something to tell the people, as some said he had excluded himself from the house, and others said the church had done it, and he wanted to know what to tell them; we told him we thought the letter was not ambiguous, but if he wished to know what to tell the people, we would try to tell him, and we said to him, If you can come here, and preach the doctrine we have heard you preach and the doctrine this church professes to believe and have received heretofore, and conduct your meetings in the way we are in the habit of conducting ours, the door is open and the pulpit at your service, and we would be glad to receive you. We then said, you may tell the people this; and on the other hand, if you cannot come here, consistently with your feelings and preach this doctrine, and conduct your meetings in the way we approve - you may tell them you cannot preach here, and we then said there is no ambiguity in this. He then said, he did not know wherein we differed, he founded his doctrine on the New Testament, and he did not wish to break fellowship with the Ketocton Baptists. We then told him, what we heard him preach from this text, "Salvation is of the Lord."
He said it was an experimental subject and then went on to disclaim all the miraculous works of the Spirit in the conversion of souls, and then told us how it had been with him, that it was by reading the Bible, and praying and seeking religion, and urged this course on his hearers, then invited them to come and taste, and try religion; and then said, there was nothing to keep any one that was in the house, nor any one in the whole world out of the atonement of Jesus Christ but unbelief. We of course made our objection to the above, and told him, these things we did not believe, nor receive, and that such doctrine would exclude the whole infant race [dying as such, for they cannot read the Bible, they cannot pray, they cannot seek religion, nor can they believe.] We then referred him to some of his doctrine, advanced at Long Branch church, where he said it was as easy to love God as to love sin, and we objected by telling him this is contrary to the nature of things, for a wicked depraved being to love God, as easy as to love sin, and we added, by saying, My Dear Bro., if you have found it so, we have not. He then said this is no place to litigate subjects, and said the reason why he wished to preach here, was that there were a good many people in the neighborhood fond of hearing me preach, and I have had some thoughts of constituting another church in this place (Upperville). We then observed it would seem that this meeting house, was large enough to hold all the Baptists in this village and neighborhood, for you know they are not very numerous, and the very idea of constituting another church in this place goes to prove that we differ in our views of things. The above is what we call a verbal communication, made to Elder Broaddus by this church, in her church meeting, on her regular day of business, which facts he positively denied in the Religious Herald. If the above was not a verbal communication between him and the church, we are mistaken, and would ask some friend who has a better knowledge of words than we have, to tell us what a verbal communication can mean. We will leave him here at our January meeting 1832, in full possession of all the opposition and objections of the church, and notice him again in March, by transcribing his letter to the church.
MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1832.
To the Baptist Church at Upperville.
DEAR BRETHREN:-- Having been censured by many persons at a distance for refusing to preach in your meeting house, and being charged by some with a disposition to make a division in the Baptist Denomination in this vicinity. I have thought proper to make an appointment to preach in your meeting house on Friday before the third Lord's day in April, I take this course with a view, to give you an opportunity of saying explicitly whether you are willing for me to preach there or not, you have a right either to consent or deny, and I assure you that your decision shall be final with me, for should you refuse, I hope I shall not be so lacking in common politeness, as to urge my services upon you; should you consent, I shall without hesitation, and without reference to the past, proceed to preach to those who may assemble. Whatever doctrine I conceive to be taught in the word of God; this doctrine is in my opinion held by the Baptists generally, and I am still glad to be numbered with a people whose doctrinal sentiments are, in my judgment based upon the Holy Scriptures. May the good Lord forgive us, all our mistakes, and confirm us all in the truth, and preserve us all in his Heavenly Kingdom. So prays your brother in Jesus Christ.
WILLIAM F. BROADDUS.
P. S. - I would be glad of a written communication.
He then addressed a note on the back of this letter to our Clerk, viz:--Brother Rust, I send herewith a letter, which I hope you will do me the favor to present to your church at your next church meeting. Yours respectfully,
WILLIAM F. BROADDUS.
The above letter was laid before the church and read, and it was proposed, there should be no answer given, as we wanted no opportunity to say explicitly whether he might preach there or not, for we had already embraced a sufficient opportunity at our January church meeting 1832, where we told him in person he was not to preach, and, this we thought a sufficient answer to his letter, without adding another, and so we dismissed it.
Here the reader will observe that the common politeness which he flattered himself that he possessed as a preventative from urging his services upon us, did not live longer than the thirteenth of April, if we may judge from the following note, viz:
Upperville, Friday, April 13th, 1832.
BROTHER RUST:---Having arrived in this place this morning, and found that the Key is not in the door of your meeting house, I conclude to apply to you for it. Should you send it I shall preach in your meeting house, otherwise I shall consider the matter brought to a close, and shall take my leave of the subject, with the expression of my earnest desire, that the Great Head of the church will overrule the whole affair to his glory, and our good. Respectfully yours,
WILLIAM F. BROADDUS.
Does it not seem strange that this common politeness which he hoped that he possessed, should have been lost so soon as to suffer him to make application for the Key, when he found the door locked for the express purpose of keeping him out of the house!! We will now try to gather up the scraps, to see what they are like, or what they will make when collected together.
We have made some allusions in our narrative to objects in view, and if there had not been, Why did Elder B. disregard the peace and wish of the church, when he understood they were not willing for him to preach there statedly? Why did he take such liberties when he did preach? Mark the contrast between his conduct towards us, and his treatment of the churches of Happy Creek, and Zion.
Why did he at our January meeting, 1832, ask permission of the church to preach for us the next day when he had a stated appointment for that day 20 or 30 miles from us, which he actually filled? Why did he wish to preach in our house, after having been refused that privilege at our church meeting in January? And stranger still, Why did he write, or say that the church had never made any communication to him either verbal or written? Bro. Joseph Baker, being present at our January meeting, but wishing to take no part in the controversy, left the house, and meeting Brother Uriel Glasscock, on his way - told him to hurry on to the church meeting for he was greatly needed; and upon Bro. G's asking for what he was needed, Bro. Baker replied, "Broaddus is there contending with the church. Bro. G. then invited Bro. Baker to return with him and witness what was said and done, but he refused, saying, "I will be with you tomorrow." Was not this, which Bro. Baker called contending, something like a verbal communication?
Why did he persist in his course to the Upperville church, contrary to the admonition of some of his Brethren in the ministry? Why did he, when the door was locked against him, in April 1832, apply for the Key, when in November 1831 he refused to enter when the door was open? Why did he say if the church did not let him preach in the meeting house, he would constitute another church in Upperville if he had to do it with only two members?** Why did he attend our January meeting when it was well understood that Elder Gilmore (our pastor) was at home, confined to his bed with sickness, if not dead? Why did he ask the church at the above meeting to take a vote, that he might know if he might preach in the house the next day, &c.?
**[Elder Broaddus has proceeded to put his threat into execution, by constituting another church at Upperville. With them he expects to hold the next meeting of their new Association, in a few days. He has condescended to ask the church, for the use of our house on that occasion. Their request was rejected by giving them no answer.]
We have no doubt, in believing from the above, connected with many other circumstances, that the following was his object, as we have before hinted. Feeling his own self-importance, and viewing Upperville as a populous, wealthy and respectable place, the question arose thus: How shall I obtain a hold in this desirable place? The answer was at hand - the world is after me, for I please them well, and some of the church have already given me encouragement, others are pleased with me, and the balance may perhaps be drawn over, and I will make my attack by stated preaching which they will not suspect, and if there is not a majority already in the church, I shall soon obtain one sufficiently strong to carry all my plans into execution, which will result in a dismission of Elder Gilmore, and the establishment of myself upon his ruins, and the reorganization of the church, both in practice, and faith, according to my own views; and the Antinomians we will pitch over the pale, and to this end, I asked the church to take a vote to know if I might preach; and as their pastor was not present, to bias them, and I believing the church was not firm enough to refuse me to my face, my object was to ascertain my strength in the church. But to my utter astonishment, I found but one, and alas! my prospects have fled with the vain hope of success.
Read and approved by the church, on Saturday, November 2nd, 1833. PETER C. RUST, Church Clerk.
REMARKS BY ELDER GILBERT BEEBE (Editorial, Signs of the Times, New Vernon, New YOrk, Dec. 25, 1833.)
Agreeably to the request of the church of Upperville, Va., we lay before our readers in the present number, her reply to statements made and published by Elder W. F. Broaddus. It is truly a matter much to be regretted that any of our Baptist churches should be called on publickly to defend themselves from the attacks of men calling themselves Baptist Preachers. But alas! the perilous times which have long been predicted by the Apostles of the Lamb, have come and the valiant men of Israel are called to stand forth, every man with his sword upon his thigh because of fear in the night.
Mr. Broaddus has made himself very conspicuous by the part he has taken in all the difficulties which have distressed the churches and associations in his section of Virginia. He has received from the Brotherhood of Arminian Baptists, his hard earned encomia. The course which he has pursued in relation to the Ketocton and Columbia Associations has been noticed in a preceding number.
His friends, as will be seen by the article headed "Proscription," credited to the "Religious Herald," which we copy from the "Cross and Banner," have attempted to make it appear that he has been proscribed by these Associations. If by proscription, they mean that Ketocton and Columbia associations have refused to fellowship him, and have refused him a seat with them, even when threatened by Mr. C---, of another Association, then we admit that the man has been proscribed. But if they would insinuate that those Associations have deprived Elder B. of his right, or rights, in any way or shape, we deny the charge - and call on the Editor of the Religious Herald, or any other man to prove the truth of their statement.
We contend, and so do they on every other occasion that every Association, Church, or individual, have a right to withhhold their fellowship from every man whom they believe walks disorderly - these Associations have done no more. If the Brethren of these churches, and Associations who refuse to fellowship Elder B. are mistaken in their views of Gospel order, and if it can be shown that the course by him pursued, in his vigorous attempts to sow discord among the Brethren, and that the doctrine, advocated by him, is divinely authorized, then we will confess that the Associations were wrong, misguided, &c., but even this would not show any thing like "proscription," for they deprive him of nothing, they proscribe him in nothing, they object not to his converting sinners on anxious benches, or his advocating the cause of the numerous Institutions of the day, or of his preaching that salvation is by works and not of Grace, -- if he will go to his own company and preach and practice these things. They cannot go with him and the reasons is obvious, as he cannot show a "Thus saith the Lord God," for his faith and practice, and these churches and Associations of the Old School, being Bible Baptists, and the regular successors of the primitive church, they cannot listen to such flimsy arguments as are brought forward in support of the new inventions of the present age. Give us Bible - give us Bible authority, say they and the matter shall be with us finally and eternally settled. But as well might we seek figs from thorns, or grapes from thistles, as divine authority from those who make void the law by their tradition, and who teach for doctrine the commandments of men. Happy for Brethren Gilmore, Trott, and Bennett, their characters are too well known among the Baptists, to require from us a refutation of the assertions of the Editor of the Religious Herald. We will only say that we have good reason to believe that the second sentence of the article published in the Herald, is a downright falsehood, maliciously, and wittingly uttered, for the purpose of injuring these two servants of the Lord. So far are they from being opposed to the preaching of repentance toward God, that we have heard them both preach the doctrine as it is taught in the New Testament, and the very cause of Mr. Sands, Broaddus and others' opinion to them is because they prove by the word of God that they are sinners, and warn them to repent of their wickedness, and ground the arms of their hostility against the truth and order of the Gospel.
We will leave those Brethren to answer for themselves, if they think it expedient.
FOR THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES.
DEAR BROTHER BEEBE:- On the first Lord's day in this month I had the pleasure of baptizing four persons, at Upperville, [two Gentlemen, and two were Ladies,] in which place Mr. Broaddus has his little new constitution, and where he preaches statedly; one of the Ladies baptized is a cousin to Mr. B. and is Married and lives at Upperville; yet she said she could not join with him, if we did not receive her. The other lady lives at some distance from Upperville, and within the bounds of Mr. Ogilvie's congregation; she gave as a reason why she could not join there, she could not understand him and consequently was not edified. Last Lord's day I baptized a Gentleman and wife, at Old Seneca, at which place a most respectful attention was paid to the word preached, by a crowded multitude of the first respectability. This day I preached at home [Leesburg] to an overwhelming crowd, as we supposed from 1000 to 1500 people were present, here I also baptized four persons, three males and one female, making in all ten, all of whom gave very satisfactory evidence that they were born of God. We hope and trust these are but few drops of the copious showers which the Lord intends for us.
We can say he does appear to be with us indeed, and in truth, for which we desire to feel thankful. "If the LORD be for us, who can be against us?"
From your very unworthy Brother in Christ,
WILLIAM GILMORE.
FOR THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES.
TO WILLIAM F. BROADDUS.
SIR:--Whereas you have, in the Religious Herald (so called) of Feb. 14, 1834, in your publication addressed to the Brethren composing the Ketocton and Columbia Associations, said, "And I will here challenge any man living, to produce a single particle of testimony, that any of the whole party have ever made a Gospel effort to reclaim me from the errors, into which they suppose me to have fallen." And inasmuch as you have farther said, "I owe it entirely to Mr. Gilmore's hostility to me, that the affections of so many are estranged from me -- I do not mean to accord to him a great amount of influence, he does not possess it, but his vociferous shoutings of Heresy, Arminianism, &c., have excited the fears of many, and they have ran away at the cry of "Mad Dog," without stopping to ascertain whether the Dog is mad or not."
Now, Sir: as you have thus represented me, I will adopt this public mode, to call upon the many whose fears are excited to stop running, and attend with us while we cooly, deliberately, and closely examine the dog - in order to ascertain with some degree of certainty, whether he has the hydrophobia, of falsehood, heresy, and Arminianism, or not.
And if after a thorough and faithful examination, we find that he is indeed mad, or has this kind of hydrophobia, (as a mad dog is a very dangerous animal, and as Paul tells us to "beware of dogs." See Phil. 3:2,) in that case he must be cured, or confined, or something must be done with him; how he must be disposed of, for the safety and well being of society, can then be decided.
But if on examination it should be found that he is not mad - then if my vociferous shoutings should ever again be heard on this subject, it will be considered a false alarm -- and so the fears, and the running of many will be prevented.
And as in the conclusion of your publication you say, "I ask the favor of you Brethren to confer with me face to face, and let us see if there be any cause for all this hue and cry, against me."
Now, Sir: as you have thus publickly given the invitation and challenge, I adopt the same public mode, to inform you that I will meet you, face to face, at any convenient time you may appoint and apprise me of, in or near Middleburgh, near your residence, for your convenience, and within the immediate bounds of your warm supporters; for the important object, of seeing (as you say) if there be any real cause for all this hue and cry, against you; that the public mind may no longer be abused either by you, or by myself, on this subject.
I shall expect to hear from you, that the hue and cry, may cease forever, the truth be known to all, and the falsehood with its author be exposed to public contempt.
Yours Respectfully,
WILLIAM GILMORE.
Leesburgh, March 25, 1834.
FOR THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES.
Upperville, Fauquier County, Virginia, April 8, 1834.
BROTHER BEEBE:--Having seen in the "Herald," of Feb., 7th, 1834, Elder W. F. Broaddus's answer to a reply made to him by the Upperville Baptist church, and published in the "Signs of the Times," December 25, 1833, and the church being fully satisfied of the correctness of her narrative respecting his conduct towards her, will not retract one sentence, nor will she, I believe [although he says he has been misrepresented and persecuted,] notice, or trouble your readers with him any further.
But as an individual apart from the church, I feel it a duty I owe to myself and my friends at a distance, and to all others who may feel an interest in the matter, to notice him once more, as I was informed from good authority previous to his answer that he said he intended to give me a "single shot!" which it seems, was his only prospect, or hope to sustain himself by my death, which I will notice in a proper place.
In reference to the charges made by the church against him, he says, "1st. That even some of my warmest friends have been driven from me, because they could not sustain a man who would so wantonly trample upon the rights and privileges of Upperville church."
Objection first. I say those friends who have been driven away from you appear not to be, mere party men, but honest men, in pursuit of truth; and as soon as they were convinced, they gladly embraced it, and forsook the errors of their ways, as they were not disposed to bolster up the arms of him whom they believed had deceived them.
Second. He then adds, "I do not wonder that they should discountenance such conduct as I am reported to be guilty of."
Second objection. Here he seems to have some sense of propriety and if he has any wavering friends on this subject, who wish to be honestly informed, for conscience sake, I refer them to the reply of the Upperville church to him. See "Signs" as above.
Third. He says, "The first or second time I preached there, [at Upperville] I was at the house of Peter C. Rust, the clerk of the church, and found him entirely friendly, expressing his gratification that I had determined to preach for them once a month, observing that he thought every church ought to have preaching if possible oftener than monthly."
Third objection. W. F. Broaddus was at my house, and I did treat him friendly, and this is the only correct statement he has made in the paragraph, for I never had heard by him, or any other person at that time, that he intended to preach there monthly, and the first intimation that I, or any of the church had of it, (so far as I know) was, at our June meeting, at which time the church took up the subject and objected to his intended course, -- See "Signs" as above.
Fourth. He says, "At the June meeting, if I mistake not, I was informed by a friend that the church at her last meeting for business had expressed some disapprobation of my preaching there statedly, immediately I began to meditate a retreat, as I did not wish to make a disturbance.
Fourth objection. This paragraph, is premeditated misrepresentation, on which he hopes to support his next assertion; for he said he "would preach there one year, let the consequence be what it may!!"
Fifth. "But before I had determined what course to take, (Mark! here he gives the intended "single shot," on which he rests his all,) Peter C. Rust, took me ASIDE, and enquired whether I had heard any thing of the proceedings of these last church meetings, to which I replied that I had heard nothing definite.
Fifth objection. But how is he to sustain himself? By representing me, as taking him ASIDE, where there was no eye to see, no ear to hear, nor tongue to tell, and on the above he cherished a flattering hope that his cloth would protect him from the censure of falsehood, and should I presume to deny it, censure would fall upon me, and the culprit go free, -- but the current of public censure has already ran too high, and too strong for his cloth to shield him. But [boasting aside] I should blush, if I feared to put my word in an opposite scale with his, where we are well known, -- I therefore do deny in the most positive terms, fearless of contradiction by any person, who would scorn to lie, that William F. Broaddus and myself have not exchanged one word ASIDE either directly or indirectly, public, or private, at any place or time, on such a subject as he names in the fifth section.
Sixth. He again represents me a saying that, "They [the church] were unwilling for me to preach there, as a second stated preacher, because they feared it might excite jealousy in Elder Gilmore, their pastor, and that no objection existed to my preaching there occasionally, and he believed the church generally could be gratified to hear me frequently; I replied, pleasantly, that, we could get round Elder Gilmore' apprehensions, by making the appointments irregularly, and sometimes on my way to, and at other times on my return from Bethel, so that without preaching there statedly I might manage to preach once in every month."
Sixth objection. Can William F. Broaddus conceive that the church at Upperville is so degraded and lacking in judgment as to suffer herself to be governed by her pastor, for fear of exciting jealousy in his mind, that they will submit to any thing, and like young birds open their mouths and receive any filth that he may cram in? No, the church at Upperville is too independent, as he (Broaddus) well knows, by experience, and to his disappointment, and their pastor possessing the same principles and independence of mind, with a proper sense of his duty, towards his charge, can not, and will not, and has not stooped so low, as to make the attempt -- notwithstanding the success of some by pursuing such a course at some places, but who have been taught better at Upperville; and he should profit by it. W. F. Broaddus knows I voted against him in June 1831, and he say in section fifth, I took him ASIDE and told him I had no objection to his preaching; he knows my name was to a letter he received, objecting to his doctrine; and he knows I told him to his face, at our January meeting 1832, I did not believe his doctrine.
And thus he would represent a double handed game practiced by me, a traitor to my church, an intriguer, and a deceptious, abominable deceiver; some times telling the church by my vote, I will support her, and at other times telling him I have no objection to him, -- all this he pretends to know, and "as birds of a feather flock together," I am the very character he has selected to aid him, where shuffling, deception, and intrigue must be resorted to, for the purpose of deceiving Elder Gilmore, and the church, by scattering his appointments, so as to preach once a month without seeming to do so. Reader, what think ye of it? I know the list is black, and ask you to suspend judgment, until I pursue him a little farther. He says, I took him ASIDE. He knows I cannot prove a negative, therefore he considers himself safe, but as our interview, was a confidential private one, (as he says) he if a Gentleman, ought not to have exposed me in the public print, to the world and church -- for if I had dissembled as he describes me to have done, I could not approach any man, having knowledge of the fact. But what was his opinion of me more than two years after, at the Happy Creek Association, August 1833, where he spake of me in a public company in these words, he says, I was a man of as great integrity, and firmness as any he knew? Elder Joseph Baker is my author, who was present and heard it, and said to me he was surprised to hear him speak in such high terms of me. I ask again, reader, what think ye of it? If this be true, the former charges cannot, if the former be true, the present cannot, therefore you must agree with me, that one or the other is a false representation of my character.
But I will here produce testimony that he himself, has established my course as a correct one, and until he proves that this, ASIDE, private interview did take place between him and me on the subject he describes, is true, he must, I think, in the judgment of every correct man, either friend or foe, stand convicted of the baseness of the charge against me, by which he hoped to sink me, and sustain himself and his conduct toward the Upperville church before the public.
But I will notice him still farther, that the public may determine for themselves, whether honesty or deception, has governed his course towards me and the church or not. He acknowledges a friend told him that the church expressed her dissatisfaction of his course towards her, and you see, what a powerful effect it had on his tender feeling; for he says, "Immediately I began to meditate a retreat! as I did not wish to make a disturbance." Well, why did he not put it in force? "Because," (he says,) Peter C. Rust, aside, gave him to understand that the church was dissatisfied, and why did he believe me, apart from the church and his friend, without any authority from her, or him, especially as he was so fearful of making a disturbance, and yet continued to make his appointments, which he well knew would realize his pretended fears? and how will he answer for this, so as to satisfy those to whom he has made his appeal? It seems he would have them believe, that all his misconduct towards the church, has been my fault, [as he says] I told him that I, and the church, would be gratified to hear him frequently, and it also seems that he considered my opinion a sufficient warrant for his course. I must therefore have stood in his estimation not only high in the church, but above the church; as he understood by his friend that the church did object, as though he heard it from only one friend, but there were many that told him the church had expressed her dissatisfaction to his course, by her vote.
The fact is, and he and I, only, can know it, that such conversation never did take place between him and me, and of the two evils he preferred that I, as an individual should know his real character, rather than let his conduct come to the light, which he well knew would sink him in the estimation of every correct man, no matter how firm a friend.
And I think I can satisfy any man that will be convinced, when facts are put in his hands, that he did pursue his own inclination, and was not supported by me, (as he has said) from his meditated retreat. See Signs of the Times, Vol. 2, No. 2., Dec. 25, 1833, to which I hope the reader will refer, that he may see for himself, and not believe or disbelieve me because I say so. How expert he is in shuffling and twisting, sometimes one way to justify his deception, and sometimes another, to make it appear that he was honest in his pretension. The reader will remember that he had so much confidence in me when I told him (as he says) that I and the church would be pleased to hear him; that he could not put his contemplated retreat in execution, nor believe his friend.
I will now try to show the reader how much influence I have with him, where it is not agreeable to the course he intends to go. There is a letter dated 19th November 1831 (See Signs, as above) and signed by four members of the church, three of whom are Deacons, making certain objections to, and requests of him, but he disregarded them as they were clothed with no authority from the church; I here ask, why he did not desist troubling the church at the request of the four when they told him in that letter the church had voted that he was not to preach there statedly, but would take my word where [he says I told him] the church would be gratified to hear him sooner than the four? could it be because he had more confidence in me than the four? No, it seems this could not have been his reason; Why? Because I was one of the four that signed the letter.
So the reader will see that it was his own inclination that governed his course, and not the advice of one, or four, with the vote of the church, added to the four, that did check his course until more prompt means were resorted to. I will leave the reader to draw his own conclusions.
PETER C. RUST.
BEWARE!
For wicked man must still be watched,
Lest secret mischief in his heart be hatched,
When smooth he speak, and with a smile a fair
As new blown flowers, exhilarating fragrant air;
Man's double tongue
Can flatter, or can howl,
When prompted by a black corrupted soul.
--SOLON.
P. S. - This paragraph I had overlooked, you will please insert it in a proper place if such a place can be found.
He says, "During the interview with the church, (in reference to the communication he had with her, while in church business, January 1832,) Mr. Urial Glasscock, in his own behalf mentioned several erroneous statements, he had heard me advance," etc.
Objection. Brother Glasscock, did express with his own mouth in behalf of the church, and not for himself alone; but hers, and his objection to the doctrine he had advanced; or is it a fact that one member cannot speak the mind of the church; if so, then every member must arise at the same time, and the same words must be expressed by all as with one mouth, and with one breath before it can be the mind of the church.
But the Apostle says, Let one speak at a time, and the others keep silent. But Mr. Broaddus is so much in the habit of creating confusion in churches that it seems he would prefer that all should speak at one time, and none listen, sooner than one to speak and all hear; but this is not our mode of doing business, and this is the way he tries to get himself out of all his improper conduct, by misrepresentations.*
PETER C. RUST.
* This communication was duly received by us, for publication, about the last of April, but was crowded out by other matter, as we conceived of more general interest to our readers; as we supposed that the character of W. F. Broaddus, had been sufficiently developed to convince the saints, that he was unworthy of their confidence, or fellowship, and as we had no disposition to either stain our pages with his name, or his name with an exposition of his conduct any farther than what would be actually necessary, to counteract his wicked influence, and put churches on their guard by a seasonable watch-word. Farther than this, we were, and are, opposed to carrying the subject. But as we have promised in our 14th No. to attend to this communication, and as our correspondent holds us to our promise, and as Broaddus has been heard against him, and the Upperville Church, through the "Religious Herald," and as it is but justice to publish the reply; we at this very late hour give the communication an insertion, and again express our determination, except some very extraordinary case should require it, to trouble our readers with no more on the subject of William F. Broaddus. - Editor (of the "Sign of the Times.")
FREDERICK COUNTY
ZION CHURCH
LOUDOUN COUNTY
NORTH FORK CHURCH, PURCELLVILLE
FOR THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES.
CIRCULAR.
North Fork Church, to the churches of Ketocton Association, Sendeth Greeting:
VERY DEAR BRETHREN:-- We have good reason to believe few of the churches, (and perhaps not one of them) will send Messengers to the Association, to be held at Broad Run next August. As they cannot believe it will be for the good of Zion, the honor of religion, and glory of God, unless they meet in council before that time - as all (so far as our information extends) believe this is not only the best - but the only correct course, or plan, under existing circumstances, to be pursued in the path of duty for the general good of the whole.
We therefore adopt this general public mode, of affectionately inviting all the churches of the Association, mutually to agree and meet in council, by their Messengers. Two from each Church, at North Fork, on Friday before the second Lord's day in June next, to examine the subject prayerfully, to see what can be done, in order to bring about a better state of feeling. Done by order of the church at our meeting for business, the 8th day of March 1834.
CHARLES TURNER, Clerk.
P. S. - You will direct your letters to our Clerk, at Aldie, Loudoun Co., Virginia.
LEESBURG CHURCH, LEESBURG
To read an important work with the following imposing title, defending Elder William Gilmore and his churches, against the wrongful attack made upon him by Elder Samuel Trott. Elder Trott, at that time, had considerable influence in the Ketocton Association, and was respected for his stand against the modern mission system, but was later rejected for unsound doctrine, under the strong leadership of Elder John Clark.
A Vindication of the Baptist Churches of Upperville, North-fork, and Leesburg, and their pastor Elder William Gilmore, Against the Reproachful Attack Made Upon Them, by the Ketocton Association, at Broad-run, Fauquier Co., Virginia, August 1834. Published by the Churches, Click Here
WARREN COUNTY
HAPPY CREEK CHURCH, FRONT ROYAL
STAFFORD COUNTY
WHITE OAK CHURCH, FREDERICKSBURG
