History of the Virginia Portsmouth Association
The Virginia Portsmouth Association was set off from the Kehukee Association, which had grown to 61 churches, by 1790. The nineteen churches in Virginia were dismissed to form a new Association. The first session was held at Portsmouth in 1791.
For the Signs of the Times.
Southampton Co., Virginia., Dec. 12, 1835.
BROTHER BEEBE:-- I have been a reader of your paper for a few months, and am much pleased with the doctrine and sentiments it contains, for I am one of your old fashioned Baptist, and have passed that meridian in my life when new fashions and new schemes might have been presented with more probable success. Yes, Bro. Beebe, I might adopt the language of the apostle, and say, When I was a child, I spake as a child and thought as a child, and understood as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things; and I bless God for the disposition he has given me, a disposition to be content in the humble sphere in which he has placed me. I neither look back with regret to the hour when I was young, because I was not permitted to follow the fashions of the day, nor forward to the day with restless anxiety when I am to be sustained upon the bubble of self-conceit by the whims of men. If I even expected that there was some day approaching when I might step into the car of fashion, if it was my wish, upon what poor grounds the hope would rest, when I see so many pious (lazy) young men that are now standing idle at the corners of our streets, waiting to hear it said that such a college is completed or such a room is finished, and as soon as they catch the sound, nothing is to do but to collect a little change among their neighbors, and they are off immediately. Then for hard studying -- not so much wht they are to do to glorify God and benefit poor sinners, but the fashions of the day, and what will promote their own interest in that particular circle which is of the same craft; and thus they are playing into each others hand. Today one wants a little money to convert the heathen; tomorrow one wants a little to buy a frew tracts to give to the poor; and if we are not so liberal as they think we ought to be, we are at once accused of spending too much of our money for ardent spirits, or of being drunkards. Then comes a deputy to tell us some pitiful tale on the subject of temperance; and so you see this is the reward we are reaping for our charity in building colleges, and educating young men for the ministry.
The plain truth is, we are so frequently sheared that we cannot yield a full fleece, and they should not expect it. If they would be content with the wool, we would bear it more patiently; but they will not be content therewith, for as soon as they find lean shearing, they must have sheep and all. And thus, lamentable to tell, we see whole flocks scattered and thrown into confusion by losing, in this way, a few of their number. Even in this dark corner of the earth we have felt some of the sad consequences resulting from having encouraged new teachers and new schemes; the cause of Zion has been made to bleed; brother has been turned againt brother; churches are separating, and much of that good and social intercourse once enjoyed by our fathers, and by us as neighbors and brethren, is now gone. The zeal for the whims and customs of the day hath eaten it up. Then I ask, if it is not better to go united and peaceably along the good old way, than to go in confusion in a newway; if it only be to gratify some sensual passio? Yes, and I rejoice that people are beginning to see, as well as to feel the effects of patronizing these fashionable and abominable schemes of the day. As an evidence of which, I send you Five Dollars for subscribers to your most excellent paper, the Signs of the Times, with their Post-Office address, for the ensuing year.
I should be pleased to have your paper circulate in this part of the country. There are no subscribers to it, that I know of, within 50 miles of me. By your request I will take the agency of your paper, and hope it will soon meet with the patronage it merits.
Elder S. Murfee was expelled from the Baptist Church of South Quay, where I hold my membership, at our quarterly conference, held on the 4th of the present month.
Very Respectfully, your friend and Brother,
E. HARRISON.
____________________________________
For the Signs of the Times.
Southampton Co., Va., March 25, 1836.
BROTHER BEEBE:-- Mr. Sands, Editor of a paper called the Religious Herald (more correctly the Herald of falsehood) has recently published in his paper an article denying the correctness of my statement to you, wherein I stated that Elder S. Murfee had been expelled from the church of which I was a member. In proof of the correctness of my statement, I enclose to you for publication an order of the Church signed by the Clerk. Not being satisfied with the injury he supposed he would do me by publishing that I had stated a falsehood - at least having such a poor opinion of himself, and knowing so well that no one, who knew any thing of the circumstances that induced me to write, would give any credence to his report, or give him any credit for his officious conduct in meddling himself with a matter that did not concern him, proceeds further, and after offering his apology for reading such a paper as the Signs of the Times, by which he expected to enlist so much good will by those who cry it down, allows himself to publish for truth, statements that are basely false and slanderous.
If it was not Mr. Sands' intention to do me an injury, why does he refuse to publish my reply now? Worse than the midnight assassin, he has attempted to rob me of that which cannot profit himself. How will he seek an extenuation after having unwarrantably assailed my christian character, by saying I had been regularly expelled from the Baptist Church without giving the slightest reaon why, and when he is better informed refused to correct his false statement? But Mr. ands may say he did assign a reason, which is this: He says, South Quay is a large and respectable church containing 160 members, and that some time last year the church called a presbytery for the purpose of ordaining me, but upon examination the presbytery refused to act. I will now give you a brief history of the examination, and the reason why they refused to act. Elder john Goodale, one of the number, told me that he had been informed that I wa an anti-temperance and anti-missionary man. I observed that I was an advocate for temperance, but opposed to temperance societies. I then asked him to explain to me who he called an anti-missionary man; he replied, one that did not go with all his soul, mind, and strength for the scheme. I then observed that I must be considered as an anti-missionary man upon such grounds, for I had appropriated shillings to other purposes that might have gone for that. This is a fair history of the examination of which Mr. Sands speaks. The two charges preferred against me, one for being opposed to temperance societies, and the other for not withholding the hand of charity from all other objects to support the missionary scheme - for I must have done so had I gone with all my soul, mind, and strength for the scheme. If there ever was any other reason why the presbytery refused to act, I am yet a stranger to it; and I defy Mr. Sands with all his pretended knowledge of the proceedings of South Quay Church to prove (I will not say to state, for I would as soon believe he would soon state one thing as another,) that there has ever been a charge against me in the church since I have been a member. I admit that Mr. Sands' statement is correct where he states that South Quay is a large and respectable church containing 160 members; yet in all this number there are only 30 white male members.
I will now show how regularly I with 17 others were "expelled." As it was expected at our last September Conference that some charges would be preferred againt Elder S. Murfee, business was so arranged by him and his party of 11 individuals as to prevent it. Many of the church yet being dissatisfied with Elder S. Murfee, determined to hold a called conference on the 3rd of October, at which time the charges were preferred and the case deferred until December Conference; at which time he was duly cited to attend and offer his plea, if he had any. He, however, acted in his usual obstinate and independent manner, and was forthwith expelled. But I will go back a little, and state that on the 3rd day of oct., on which day the charges were preferred against Elder s. Murfee, that he and his party of 11 individuals were present, but knowing the gravity of the charges, and bveing determined to sustain him right or wrong, refused to sit in conference; but the next Thursday, held by and for themselves a secret conference, and soon reported it abroad that they had expelled 12 members, and in a few weeks the other 6, which makes the 18 that Mr. Sands says were regularly expelled. Now if he know one half, yes one fourth as much of the business of our church as he pretends to know, he must have known that no person of common sense would have believed that any Church had such lame laws as to give 12 members the whole authority of the church in their hands, or permit them to hold a Conference and expel whom they pleased without even letting it be known to the remainder of the church. For 12 men to assume such authority in this large and respectable church, as Mr. Sands calls it, is worse than popery, and is in direct opposition to the law of our church. But see the intrigue of Elder S. Murfee and his party; there only being 30 white male members in the church, if they could have expelled the 12 as they pretended they had done, it would have left them in the majority; consequently when the day had arrived for Elder Murfee to make his defense, all would have been well, and business settled to suit themselves. But not so, no such illegal procedure was countenanced by the church; the 18 yet remain in the church, and I defy Mr. Sands or any other man to give one single reason why they should be expelled -- unless it be because they refused to be led by the nose by Elder S. Murfee and his party.
I wish I could give you a fuller history of the case, but I have no room this sheet to write more.
Your friend and brother,
E. HARRISON.
Southampton, Va., March 22, 1836.
BROTHER BEEBE:--By order of the South Quay Church, and in obedience to a resolution of the Virginia Portsmouth Association, 1833, I am authorized to forward to you for publication, Captain Simon Murfee's expulsion from the South Quay Church; and that he may no longer palm himself upon the public as a minister of the gospel, be it known that his credentials have been regularly demanded of him, by committee consisting of Elisha Darden, (Deacon) Abraham L. Gardner, (Deacon) Littleton Moore, and I. I. Lawrence, acting under the authority of the church, and that he yet retains them and seems to bid defiance to any authority but that of his own.
LAWRENCE C. DOUGHLREY, CLERK.
_______________________________________
SOUTH QUAY CHURCH.
South Quay Church was organized by Elder David Barrow, in 1775. The original meeting-house was the only building in South Quay village which survived the Revoluationary War.
We give in the present number, an extract from the pamphlet published by the South Quay Baptist Church, in reply to seven charges brought against them by certain who went out from them, and who stand expelled from the fellowship of all Regular Baptists, yet sustained by the Portsmouth Association, and probably by all other New School Baptists, and who are known as the "Murfee Party." We have neither time, room, or disposition to enlarge upon the able reply of the South Quay Church, the substance of which we have copied, and it will show for itself; but as our name, and that of our paper, is unceremoniously dragged into the matter of the charges, and as this Murfee party have placed us so conspicuously in the front of this seven-headed monster, we may be allowed to offer a remark of two upon this assumption of power.
When the new school party form their religious combinations with the world, to publish and circulate religious fables and Arminian heresy, it is, in their estimation, downright oppression and persecution for the old school churches to say they have no fellowship for these institutions, or for those who sustain them; but when our brethren patronize and read a paper like the Signs, which contends for the primitive faith and order of the gospel of Christ, and protests against the corruption of the plans of the day, - why, that is quite another thing.
The Portsmouth Association, and the Murfee party, can hold themselves guiltless, in denouncing the Signs of the Times, as a paper which ought not to be read, and they have unhesitatingly published Elder James Osbourne as an imposter, notwithstanding his being at that time held as a minister in good standing in one of their professedly middle ground churches, (for at that time Elder Osbourne held his membership in the 2nd Church in Baltimore, but has since moved his relation to one of our old school churches). They also seem to make it a criminal matter for a Baptist to hold fellowship with the Kehukee Baptist Association, yet all this will pass with them for benevolence, and an ardent desire for the spread of the gospel. They pretend to be greatly annoyed by our anti-effort, or anti-mission views, but we challenge them to produce on all the earth a combination of men professing to be disciples of Christ, who are so much opposed to the spread of the gospel of Christ, the ministers of that gospel, or the churches, asociations, or individuals who walk in the order of that gospel, as themselves are, or a more despotic, assuming, or persecuting people, than they themselves are, on all the earth.
For ourselves, we do not court their opposition, but we consider their ill natured reproaches far more valuable than all they could possibly say in our favor.
EXTRACT FROM THE REPLY OF SOUTH QUAY CHURCH, VA., TO THE SEVEN CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST THEM BY THE "MURFEE PARTY," &c., Copied from their pamphlet.
TO THE PUBLIC:-- We are not strangers to the fact that controversies have a tendency more freqently to stir up strife than to enlist public favor - be it so; our object is not to quarrel, nor do we design this pamphlet as an electioneering epistle, but to present before the public certain charges brought against us by some who have been expelled from our church, and now known as the Murfee Party, with our reply to the same; also, certain resolutions which we consider ourselves urged by previous circumstances to adopt. Various publications have appeared in the different newspapers published by the Murfee Party purporting to be statements of the same matter, and yet none of them agree. At one time they say they were compelled to expel eighteen, being notorious for disorder; a little after this, it is said they expelled only sixteen, and for expelling them they have introduced seven charges. We have waited until this late hour of the day, to see if they would not again favor us with a history of the affair, and be candid enough to tell us which of their former statements was correct, and to prove their's a legal course by referring to the laws of the church. But we have waited in vain, and frequently as they have changed their tune they appear to be tired; and their language to the public may truly be, 'we have piped unto you, and ye have not danced.' It is at this point that justice to ourselves and others, requires that we should lay before the public with our vindication the seven charges above referred to, upon which the association rejected our letter of correspondence; adopted a certain resolution impeaching our steadfastness, and also upon which the committee appointed by the association for the purpose of investigating our difficulties, made up their report.
The first charge then introduced against us which claimed the attention of the committee was -- "for reading and advocating a paper called the 'SIGNS OF THE TIMES,' (published by Elder GIlbert Beebe, New Vernon, New York,) earnetly contending for the doctrine of the old fashioned Baptists." This charge is admitted, and in our reply we ask, Where is that article, either in the constitution of our church or of the association, that authorizes any man or set of men, to dictate to us what paper we shall read? We have not seen such an article; if it exists, what is the penalty of its violation? and if it does not exist, was it not presumption in Mr. Murfee and his adherents to descry this defect, and introduce a charge before they could have a law established to that effect, with its penalty? Surely it was worse than foolishness, especially as it proceeded from men of such superior talent, to lay before the committee appointed to investigate our difficulties, a charge, when the committee, our accusers themselves, could find no law in reference to said charge whereby we could have been convicted.
Perhaps it would have been gratifying to some of the committee to have found such a law, for the paper everywhere speak against the popular craft of the day; but as no such law does exist, we claim the privilege of acting as free men, at least so far as to read a paper of our own choice, without consulting those modern teachers, who set themselves up as dictators. Upon the principle of justice, if we are condemned for reading a paper they had not recommended, should they not give us credit for reading such as they preferred we should read? and if they had acted thus, instead of finding a charge against us, they would have discovered that the credit to which we were entitled, would have over balanced the charge, for more of us were reading the favorite papers of the new school, than were reading the old school paper, or Signs of the Times, and no charge appeared in that case at least.
In the second charge, we are accused of being offended at the adoption of a certain resolution by the Association, in 1835. This charge is positively denied by us, and rests upon grounds too futile to require a passing remark.
In the third charge we are accused of having called a Presbytery for the purpose of having Brother E. Harrison ordained as a Kehukee Preacher. This accusation, so far as relates to the call on our part, is denied, and will we hope, be proved to the satisfation of every mind untrammelled by prejudice, to be groundless and mischievous. The presbytery called for the purpose of ordaining Brother Harrison, was called while we were all united in the same church, and a aprt of the presbytery that acted in his ordination, did so under the authority of an invitation from 'one of the party,' who now bring this foolish charge; consequently, if it was designed to ordain him a Kehukee Preacher as they say, it was known only by those who now make the accusation. We were not led into the secret. Our design was to have him ordained a Minister of the Gospel, without reference to any such term, and if the word [Kehukee] was ued in the church in any remarks made relative to this case, we have no knowledge of it. True, the first presbytery called to act in the case, refused, (which is explained in the fifth charge,) but their refusal did not deprive the church of her right to call a second presbytery. The committee themselves admitted this right, and the church exercised it, and made the call upon the original order which had the sanction of the party that now complains so heavily of brother Harrison's ordination. So then, if there is guilt due to any for making the call for the purpose alleged, it is due to them and not to us. We therefore reverse the charge, and let it rest on them for not having communicated to us their intention when the call was first made.
The fourth charge comes boldly to the point, and directly accuses us of being KEHUKEEANS. As Kehukeeism appears to be the bugbear, we trust Mr. Murfee and his crew will be a little patient if others should fret while we are trying to pare off this monster that has brightened so many chicken hearted men, until we can get him to an average size. Then we hope the gentleman will be induced to approach him so near as to examine him well, and we feel sure he will be enabled to tell the people there is not so much danger to be apprehended from him as he once expected. One thing that surprises us is, that this party should be so constantly engaged in crying out in the high places and on house tops, "Kehukee, Kehukee," as if they really saw something bad, and yet never tell what it is. Do they think that people are to be frightened at the sound? Children may be frightened at their own shadow, but men require to be convinced that danger is near before they fly. The truth is, they fear to tell why we are Kehukeeans, or to substantiate their charge, for by doing this, they will prove that we are now just what all the Regular Baptists in this association were ten years ago. It is the name of an association, and its people were troubled at an early period with the Arminian sentiment, orwith some who call themselves General Baptists. In the year 1763 or 4, Elders Vanhorn and Miller were sent as delegates from the Philadelphia Association for the purpose of assisting them in settling their difficulties, and soonn convinced many of the incorrectness of the Arminian doctrine. In a short time it was relinquished by all the churches, and on this principle they became Regular Baptists, and formed themselves into an association, and held their first sesssion 1765 at a place called "Kehukee," from which circumstance it received its name. A this time they considered themselves constituted on Calvinistic principles, and upon these principles they continued to flourish until the yeaer 1790, when it was found that their Association encompassed a large space of country, and numbered 61 churches. It was under these circumstances that it was agreed to divide the Association by the state line, leaving 42 churches in North Carolina, called the Kehukee Association, and 19 in Virginia, who formed themselves into an Association, and held their first session in Portsmouth 1791; and from this circumstance we are called the Portsmouth Association, and until within a few years were considered the offspring of branch of the Kehukee, our mother Association. To this day the same good feeling would have been evinced towards us by her correspondence, had we not lost our identity by wandering after new inventions and the many fashionable notions of the day. But when she is admonished of the necessity of withdrawing her correspondence from us or going with us after such schemes - she chooses the former, and thus becomes a separate, and we trust a God serving and God fearing, rather than a man pleasing people.
This statement, we hope, leaves this mighty scarecrow, with which Mr. Murfee and his party are trying to frighten the people, in such a shape, that they will at least look for themselves before they run from the sound. If nothing is meant by saying we are Kehukeeans, but that we are separate, uninterrupting, God serving people, we say your trumpet need not be sounded. If on the other hand, it is a modest way of telling us we are a penurious set of beings, that are utterly unworthy of the name of christians or philanthropists, we give you a hearty welcome to rail on, until the mouth that is now opened to utter the word, Kehukee, Kehukee, shall be filled with its own shame; and then, perhaps, the individual will seek a better conscience, unless he has been already seared with the iron of prejudice.
The fifth charge is introduced againt Broter E. Darden for having assigned to the congregation the reason why the Presbytery refused to ordain Brother Harrison. Thi charge caused much debate, and perhaps some unpleasant feelings; would that it had not beennamed. Indeed we do not believe that it was entirely personal; it should have apeared on the catalogue of charges to be exhibited before the committee, as they did not act in the capacity of mediators; but as it has appeared, we will give it some notice. Brother Hrarion's ordination was deferred from Saturdday to Monday, on the ground that all the presbytery were not present; and on Monday when they had met, and had come to the conclusion not to act, the pastor of the church was requested to asign to the congregation the reason why Brother Harrison had not been ordained. This was only done i npart, when E. Darden, deacon of the church, observed that the reason why the presbytery refused to ordain Brother Harrison was, because he was not a member of the temperance society. This brought some reply from the presbytery which included Brother Darden to contend for the correctness of his statement. The presbytery appeared to be unwilling to leave the congregation with the impression that they had made that a test of fellowship, and when the case comes before the committee of investigation, and they arrived at this point, Elder R. Howell, one of the prebnytery, was call ed upon to give evidence in the case. He stated that at the time appointed for Brother Harrison's ordination, one of his colleagues asked him if he knew his sentiments respecting the benevolent institutions of the day. He answered that Brother Harrison was opposed to the temperance society, but he did not think he was to any other. Elder Howell then asked the member of the presbytery, who was questioning him, if he made that a test of fellowship, and he replied that he would not assist in ordaining any man that was opposed to the temperance society. He then went on to say, that he knew they were very strict in the Chowan Association, but did not know they had become so in this Association, and as others who had wiser heads than himself made it a test, he thought it only reasonable that he should also. This evidence from one of their own body, we think, sufficient to prove the correctness of Brother Darden' statement to the congregation, and leaves the weight of this charge to rest upon the shoulders of some other individual. Should circumstances render it necessary, we shall feel ourselves at liberty to give a full history of the remarks used on the occasion, but at the same time earnestly hope, that time and a better spirit will produce better feelings on all sides.
The sixth charge accuses us before the committee of having as an expelled party, attempted to hold a conference on Friday before the 1st Sunday in December, 1835. It is certainly strange that a few individuals should charge the majority with attempting to hold a conference on one of their regular conference days, and at the same time say nothing of their having held a conference or transacting business on that day; but strange as it may appear, it was the best they could do. We did hold a conference on that day, and transact business of the first importance, for it was the day on which S. Murfee was expelled; yet for such a decision they find no charge against us, so conscious are they of the correctness of our course. It is also strange that Murfee and his party should find us guilty for only attempting to hold a conference, and at the same time say nothing of their having a short time before, held a secret conference, and transacted certain business which the law of the church expressly forbids. It was reported that 12 members were expelled at that secret conference, when the law of the church says, that no called conference shall be at liberty to act upon the postponed business of a previous quarterly conference, or act definitely upon any case of importance, unless a majority of the male members be present -- [proven to exist by the Rev. E. R. Hunter, one of their own party, when called upon by the committee.] It would have been something strange, had there been no law preventing eleven members to assemble in conference, and expel twelve; but to claim the right of acting contrary to the law, was certainly a usurpation of power never delegated to them; and had these gentlemen dispensed with this, as some other charges, they would not only have shown more repect to the law of the church, but also that they relied more upon the importance than the number of their charges. What will be their disappointment when they are convvinced that their's has been throughout, an illegal course, and they will not surely seek an extenuation by persisting in their former course of obstinacy.
The seventh charge is preferred against Brother E. Darden, for having acted basely towards S. Murfee; and when it was shown in what manner he had acted basely toward Mr. Murfee, it appeared that it was only for having denied the correctness of one of his statement in reference to a certain conference held by him and his party; the evidence in the case, however, when called for, sustains the statement of E. Darden. We do not say that Mr. Murfee is guilty of a willful mistake, but justice to himself required that he should first have ascertained that he was correct before he suffered the charge to be introduced against Bro. Darden.
We have noticed briefly this long list of charges, exhibited against us before the committee of investigation. Perhaps the committee will attach some importance to them that we have not discovered. Indeed the fact that this committee embraces all the members that acted in the case except two men, and who presented to the Association a resolution impeaching our stability as christians, is sufficient to induce the belief that their next report will in some degree correspond with the first, for the charges upon which they acted are the same. Be it so - we shall not be frightened nor surprised. They have refused to give us a copy of their report according to promise; we shall not therefore renew the application, but leave it entirely with them to make any use of it they may think proper.
VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTH QUAY CHURCH.
Whereas the committee appointed by the association for the purpose of investigating our difficulties, and to report to the next association, did in discharge of such duty proceed so far as to make out such a report, after visiting us, and exhibit it to S. Murfee and some other gentlemen not members of either party, as the true report to the next association; and whereas, the said committee have since refused to give us a copy of said report (after having promised) until they can have another meeting;
Resolved, That we will not receive the report of the second meeting of the committee as the original; believing that any alteration that may be made will not be in accordance with their own views, but according to the opinion of others, to whose inspection the report has been submitted.
And, Whereas, the Virginia Portsmouth Association did, at its last session, reject our letter of correspondence upon the ground that a second letter was presented, purporting to come from the South Quay Church, (though known to be presented by an individual sent by those who had been expelled from our church) and proceeded further to adopt a resolution strongly impeaching our christian stability upon charges exhibited in said letter, previously noticed:
Resolved, That we, the South Quay Church, look on such a procedures as a barrier to further correspondence with that body until said resolution be rescinded.
Resolved, That while we consider it a duty and privilege to be engaged in acting for the promotion of the happiness of each other, and the prosperity of Zion, we at the same time consider ourselves under no less obligation to protest against such schemes or societies as tend to destroy our union, and fill our churches with contention and strife.
We are aware that in protesting against some of the schemes of the day, above alluded to, we shall be found in a very small minority; but the fact that we are going with the crowd, is no evidence that we are going in the right way - (the Prophet Elijah would not have been right, he being alone, while Baal had 400.) By comparing our present situation with what it was twenty years ago, before any of the new schemes of the day were introduced into our churches, does not the cause of this great and lamentable change at once present itself? and is not the heart of every christian made to mourn that these things have ever found a welcome in our churches under the false garb of benevolence? Look back, we say, to the period when Baptists knew nothing of these fashionable traps - and does history furnish us with the number of divisions and contentions among them, that we are now made to witness, and even to weep over? No - they are one people. Wherever a Baptist met a Baptist, he met with a brother. We did not then see associations recommending brethren to shut their doors against faithful ministers of the gospel who are almost worn ut in the cause, merely because they refuse to lift their voices in favor of new schemes. Associations then had enough to do to attend to such things as would promote the prosperity of the Redeemer's Kingdom, and the happiness of each other; and ministers had enough to do to watch the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers. But alas! the change! Associations are now fanning the flame that is encompassing our churches with sparks; ministers are employed in forming new sects, and then in watching after the fleece they yield, and if a flock cannot conscientiously follow such a pastor or his whims, they must at once be reproached, slandered, persecuted, and have all manner of evil said of them. Brethren, these things ought not so to be - and as so many of our interruptions may be traced to sources of this kind:
Resolved, That we will have no fellowship with any of the new schemes of the day, which have for their object, speculation, or any institution where one is only entitled to a seat by paying a certain sum of money, or can fill an office only according to the sum he pay - the General Association not excepted.
Resolved, That we disapprove of persons traveling under the pretence of preaching, whose only object is to beg for the aforesaid societies.
Resolved, That we will have no correspondence with any church or association that will retain in its fellowship, S. Murfee, until he shall return to the church from which he has been expelled, and give general satisfaction, believing it to be a violation of the long established principle of the Baptists to countenance as a minister, one who has been regularly expelled from another Church, or who only exercises as a minister under such credentials as have been regularly demanded of him, by authority of the church that gave them.
