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.

(Note: The Ketocton Association took a decided stand and purged the modern mission system and it advocates, in 1834; and also finally admitted that a gross injustice had been done to Elder William Gilmore, and the churches in his pastoral care, but not until in 1854. Elder John Clark, and churches he served, were also admitted to the Ketocton Association, about that time, having withdrawn from the Virginia Corresponding Meeting, which was under the control of Elder Samuel Trott, who had accused Elder Gilmore. The Ketocton Association also stood against certain doctrines taught by Elders Beebe, Trott, and others.)

Report of the Association's Committee, August 16, 1834.

27. The Committee appointed to investigate the matters of difference between the Churches of Leesburg and New-Valley, report: That, after hearing a statement of the cause of the difference between them, a statement corroborated by the strongest circumstances, supported by various documents, and fully proven by the testimony of several highly respectable witnesses - your Committee, in the fear of God, who searcheth the heart, has, without any hesitation, arrived at the conclusion that the Church at New-Valley has conducted herself not only in accordance with the gospel rule, but with that gentleness and charity which becomes those devoted to the cause of God and the interests of Zion. In presenting the case to your consideration, your Committee cannot find language to express the feelings which its investigation has called forth in them. Accustomed to hear, occasionally, of departures from a godly life and conversation in Ministers of the Gospel, and to deplore the existence of such evils, your Committee was yet totally unprepared for the development of such a long continued course of persevering transgression, as manifested in the life and conduct of Elder Gilmore, Pastor of the Leesburg Church. Brethren, our hearts bleed within us at the wound inflicted on Zion, and at the reproach brought upon the cause of God and of truth by that man. Conduct which would be visited upon men of the world with public scorn and contempt, has been recklessly pursued and persevered in by him, although affectionately admonished and gently reproved, again and again. Now the Church at Leesburg, contrary to the clearest evidence, and in derogation of the plainest injunction sof the word of God, not only sustains such a man and continues him in her body, but she has actually united with him to prostrate, if possible, the Church at New-Valley, because she dared to raise her voice against such iniquity, and to discountenance such wickedness.

Your Committee therefore recommend to the Association the adoption of the following resolutions:

Resolved, That we can have no fellowship, with Elder William Gilmore, and the Leesburg Church, of which he is a member, or with any other Church or Churches that retain him as their pastor, or that hold fellowship with him.

Resolved, That this Association do sympathize with the New-Valley Church in her sufferings, and that this Association has the fullest confidence in the uprightness of said Church.

[Names of the Committee, from the 1834 Minutes of Ketocton Association: Phillip A. Klipstine (Broad Run), James H. Sowers (Salem), Isaac Chrisman (Zion), John Tutt (Goose Creek), and Hiram W. Taylor (Winchester).]

PREFACE.

As it is custom for publishers to write something by way of preface, we think it necessary in following this custom, to be as brief as possible. In consequence of the course pursued by the Ketocton Association, held with the Church at Broad-Run, Fauquier County, Va., 1834, towards the Churches of Upperville, North-Fork, and Leesburg, in taking advantage of our absence, and aspersing our character, after we had withdrawn, and returned to our respective homes, we thought it the privilege and duty of the Churches, to address letters to her at her next Annual Meeting, in August, 1835; because we know her conduct towards us was incorrect; which letters she refused to read, leaving us the only alternative of making this public appeal in self defence, to the Churches generally, and to the world, who we believe will do us more justice than the Association, by giving us a hearing. We depended much on the magnanimity of the Association, as we believed many of its members were conscious she had erred in condemning us unheard; and we thought she ought certainly to be willing to hear appeals, which were to be made to her sense of justice; and that if we could make her sensible of the wrong she had done us, she would as certainly retract it. But in all this we were mistaken, for she decided that not one word should be heard from us, thereby not giving us a chance to explain what our object was, or what it was we desired from her hands.

The following letters are the same, in substance, which were sent to the Association, with some notes and appendages which seemed necessary for the understanding of the common reader, who, we suppose, is not intimate with our matters. In wringing these papers we have studied all the forbearance which the nature of the case would admit, and, if a part of our language should appear harsh or severe, it is because both justice and truth demanded plain and candid dealing.

____________________________________

The Baptist Church at Upperville, Fauquier County, Va., to the Ketocton Baptist Association, to be held with the Salem Church, Frederick County, Va., on Thursday preceding the third Lord's Day in August, 1835.

We send this Address to your body, as a protest against some of the proceedings at her last Annual Meeting at Broad-Run, to wit: When our Delegates met in Convention, with those of the several Churches composing said Association, it will be recollected, that this Convention was gotten up, at the instance of the Church at Waterlick, as we understood the matter, to ascertain how many of the Churches yet stood unwavering on the old Ketocton platform, and to withdraw fellowship from such as were following after the popular institutions of the day. After all the Churches, by their Delegates, had subscribed to the Constitution of the Association, and Declaration of Faith, we nevertheless did believe there were many among you who differed from us, and some of you in doctrinal views, and that they are laboring hard to establish those Institutions of which we complain. Now it was on account of this belief, together with the confidence we had in the Church at Waterlick, and some others standing firm by our side, that one of our representatives thought fit to make a motion, as a further test of the matter; after seeing that the Resolution of S. Buck failed, and all the Churches had subscribed to the Declaration of Faith and Constitution of the Association, which motion we do not think was on any broader grounds than the Resolution passed the next morning for the further consideration of the Churches. Now as soon as the motion was made and seconded, the spirited opposition and clamour that suddenly broke forth, and that too, from some of those very Churches that we had fullest confidence in taking a decided stand, and that Waterlick Church stood divided, to us, did seem passing strange. It will be recollected that the Chairman at first refused to take the vote, "because," said he, "I am in favour of the Institutions that the motion, if adopted, is calculated to supplant." And Elder T. Buck declared he would not vote at all on the subject, but after a short conference with Elder S. Trott, who advised him to vote against the motion, as he, (Trott,) says he did, (and of whom shall we say something more before our close,) he, (Buck,) declared he had altered his mind, and would now vote, and vote against the motion, notwithstanding he had said after the reading of the Resolution prepared by S. Buck, (containing the substance of our motion,) that the Constitution and Declaration of Faith did exclude those very things contained in the Resolution. If so, why not vote for the motion, if indeed he did not wish to take any latitude beyond the "Old Landmarks." His declaration, "that he would vote against the motion," we thought had a direct tendency to forestall many others to vote against it, and so it fell, and with it, all our future prospects of getting along in peace and harmony with the Association, with all its amalgamation of doctrines and practices. Therefore, finding ourselves so much disappointed in many of those in whom we had the most implicit confidence, and full fellowship for, we were no longer prepared to remain in a body where such unaccountable inconsistency prevails, and we withdrew, without ever suspecting, for a moment, the Association would assume any higher ground than to cut us off from the privileges of her body, which we had told her we did not wish any longer to enjoy; and that, we thought, would end the chapter. But not so. We find another chapter written, of which, we think, we have great cause to complain. First, we find, on motion,

Resolved, That the Churches of North-Fork, Upperville, Leesburg, and Bethel, are still members of this Association, notwithstanding their withdrawal from us."

Now, for what purpose did you still claim us? Not, as we presume, that you might reclaim us, if we had erred, by soft and tender admonitions of brotherly love, but that you might handle us, according to the old Jewish and Roman customs, of first scourging and then letting us go, guilty or not guilty. But from the impression your rod has made, we are sensible that the end of it was not dipped in honey or in balm, but in something of very corrosive properties, which has inflicted a deep wound, that you, as professors of Christianity, or as common citizens are bound to heal.

We find, also, on your Minutes, a Committee of five persons only, out of twenty-six, (which composed the Association,) appointed to investigate the differences between the Churches of Leesburg and New-Valley. Now, for the Association to create a minority tribunal of less than one-fifth of the body to investigate such important matters, and for this small ecclesiastical court, in private, to hear the evidence on one side of the question only, and to determine the magnitude of crimes for the majority of twenty-one members, who had not heard the testimony, and only have to say to them, that we recommend our report for your adoption, and it was done, which is without a parallel in our history. This was done at the sixty-eighth anniversary of the Association, and was the first time that we have ever heard of any Association clothing with ecclesiastical power a minority, to exercise discipline over the Churches. Why was not the evidence taken in open court according to common useage, (evidence in all criminal cases is taken in open court, not before a select jury in private,) so that the whole body might hear and judge for herself - but the latter course would have been unconstitutional without the parties being face to face before you. We are fully persuaded that you are men of better sense than not to see that wrong lies at your door, and that you ought to remove it, for you well knew there was not an individual member of the Leesburg Church on the ground to defend her cause, or any other member implicated in the report. The investigation of your Committee was, as you well know, altogether of an ex-parte character, which you as well know is contrary to the usage of Associations, Churches, Civil Courts, or even a Roman Inquisition, to try even a party, or individual, without their having notice to appear and answer to the allegations of their accusers. But in this case there was no conflicting evidence; how easy then to gain the conquest. Now from these unprecedented movements, and other concurrent circumstances, we are led to believe there were certain persons among you, laboring insidiously to get rid of us in this way previous to your ex-parte investigation, so that an undue advantage might be taken of our absence, and that Elder Gilmore, together with the Churches under his charge, might be plunged, without ever being heard, into the vortex of shame and confusion, and the subject spread on the wings of your minutes, from which a portion of it has been spread on the much broader wing of the "Signs of the Times," which circulates, we believe, from Maine to Georgia, and from the Atlantic Sea to the far West. Now, as we believe your Select Committee were prepossessed, and some of them were known to be so, we cannot view their report in any other character than that of a slanderous report; for we yet lack the evidence of any wickedness being committed by Elder Gilmore, on account of which we should have excluded him from our fellowship and patronage. It must have been known to many of you that we had a meeting of Delegates from Upperville, North-Fork, and Seneca Churches, who met with the Church at Leesburg to investigate all the charges that were prevailing against Elder Gilmore. The Church at New-Valley was called upon, in due form, to attend, and bring forward her charges, if any she had, against him; but she refused to appear, nor is this the first time she has refused, for, if we mistake not, she has been twice or thrice called upon, in due form, previous to this, but each time refused to come up to the right tribunal, what your Committee have said of her acting in accordance with Gospel Rule, &c., to the contrary notwithstanding. We entered into an investigation with all the evidence we had ever heard of, as proceeding from the mouths of David Orison and Briton Saunders, the only male members of the New-Valley Church.

We did find that they had related their accusations against Elder Gilmore, of certain things that they themselves had seen, and also some things that children had given information of, that they thought were reprehensible in him. In their first leaking these things out, they acknowledged they did not think they would amount to a charge against him before the Church. Briton Saunders being asked by one of the members of this Church, if they had any evidence of guilt in this case, he answered there was none, that it was his etiquette that they complained of. They had told these things to so many brethren, some of whom live at a great distance from us, in so many different ways, differing so very essentially, that it was no evidence to us of guilt on the part of Elder Gilmore. If any one of these statements be true, it follows of course, the rest cannot be; therefore, we cannot believe any, when such discord exists in statements made at different times, to different persons.

We have said his accusers would not attend, but the way we obtained the evidence of his accusers was this - ten or twelve of us who were appointed by the three Churches, including some three or four by the Leesburg Church, attended at the trial at Frying-Pan of Elder Gilmore against Elder Trott, where Trott produced all the evidence he could obtain against Elder Gilmore to prove him guilty of said charges, and to justify himself for his conduct towards him. We, at the Leesburg Church, investigated the charges brought against him by Elder Trott at the Frying-Pan meeting. We then heard Elder Gilmore's defence, and then examined his witnesses, who had often interrogated his accusers, who had been on the alert for months past to ascertain, if possible, if he had been guilty of any thing which would justify them to withdraw their fellowship and patronage from him. Here the scene closed. The vote being called for, to know if they would sustain him or not, to which Bro. P. C. Rust objected, and gave the following reason -- that some might be biased by the opinions of others, and proposed that we should return home and make our report to our respective Churches, and let each Church make out her own report upon the evidence received by their Committee; so that on this plan no Church would know the decision of the rest, until all had decided; and when the reports came together, from the several Churches as above, they all perfectly harmonized in the acquittal of Elder Gilmore.

Now, according to their own telling, from the time of their first leaking these things out, they happened from two to fifteen years ago, and it is well known to your body, that the Church at New-Valley did continue to patronize Elder Gilmore as her Pastor until the fall of 1833, notwithstanding her knowledge of such a long continued course of persevering transgression, as manifested in the life and conduct of said Gilmore, according to the report of your Committee. Now, if it were a sin for us to patronize him for less than one year previous to the Association, after these things broke out, having no other knowledge than flying and exaggerated reports, how much greater was the sin of the New-Valley Church for patronizing him as their pastor fifteen years, under all those circumstances. Now, how your Committee could, having a knowledge of these facts, and having the New-Valley Church, or all the active part of it, before them, to testify to the great wickedness, so long continued in by Elder Gilmore, and that she continued to patronize him, having a knowledge as they themselves say, of his wicked course, down to the time above mentioned, can get along and shew any just reasons why it did in this one-sided business, so honorably acquit the New-Valley Church, testifying alone in her own behalf, without any conflicting evidence, and condemn us, is a matter we cannot see so clearly into, unless it was so that the newly constituted sovereign of five heads had so willed it, and that, right or wrong the Church at New-Valley must be painted as fair as the curtains of Solomon, and Elder Gilmore, and his adherents, as black as the tents of Kedar - that Jonah (Elder Gilmore,) must be thrown overboard, with a mill-stone about his neck, so that no fish might be able to take him to land, and his Flocks be left without a Shepherd, that grievous wolves might enter in, not sparing the flock. Now the storm that so enraged the waves, and tossed the ship about, before Jonah (Elder Gilmore,) was cast overboard, seems to have become more calm, and we now see him standing on the ground preaching to very large congregations of people, and very frequently going down into the water to administer the ordinance of Baptism, notwithstanding the great weight of your one-sided mill-stone.

Now from the strong language of the Report, and the deep coloring given to it by withholding from the reader any knowledge of the particular character of the sin, or sins, committed by Elder Gilmore, the reader is left to conjecture, from the mystery in which the report is wrapped up, what those sins which he has committed, and that we, as a church, have been made partakers of, are. He must conclude that they are of such a magnitude, or of so deep a dye, that Your Committee would blush to strip off the veil to let the Churches and the world know what all those abominations are. was it indeed owing to the extreme modesty of your Committee, while their hearts were bleeding within them, at the wound inflicted on Zion, or was it owing to strong doubts remaining on their minds of the real existence of the facts from the one-sided testimony that prepossessed them thus to act, and rap up their report in so thick a veil? The latter to us seems the most reasonable conclusion, from the fact that Elder Gilmore addressed a letter to each of the members of the Committee, requesting them to advise him of the evidence that was brought before them of his great wickedness, according to their report; which request they did not answer, but he has since had a personal interview with one of them, who evaded giving the information desired. Now would it not have been more consistent with the true spirit of Christianity, by a fair investigation, to have convinced us if you could, of our sins, and admonished us to repentance, than to have published the high-toned slander of your Report, which we conceive to be a libel on our moral character. Now against those unwarrantable, and unprecedented proceedings, we do enter up our solemn protest, and demand of the Association the evidence that was brought before her Committee, of the wickedness of Elder Gilmore, and request her to expunge from her Minutes, the one-sided investigation of her minority tribunal, and take a fair start; for, so long as the evidence is kept locked up in the bosom of that little court, we shall, we think, have the best of reasons to believe, that the evidence was not sufficient to have authorized the strong language of its report. We again say, we have no knowledge of any wickedness he has committed; if, indeed, you are in possession of the evidence that he has committed such wickedness, as is insinuated in your minutes, it certainly does become your indispensable duty to advise us of its true character, and that too by a fair investigation, for which we are at all times ready and willing, and shall rejoice to have an opportunity of meeting you, according to the rules laid down in the New Testament (Matthew 18:17), the disparaging insinuations that have been thrown upon us, to the contrary, notwithstanding. All those who pretend to justify the course of the Association, say we done wrong to withdraw before the character of our Pastor was investigated. We had no knowledge or expectation that any such investigation would take place, for you had just read the Constitution, and that forbids your dealing with individual member, or we should not have left you until it had been gotten through with, for we were then and are yet, able, as we believe, to throw thick clouds over the bright rays of your luminous witnesses. Therefore, we will say, that we are ready and willing at any time to meet the same tribunes at the proper place as above, and their witnesses, and if indeed there is sin lying on Elder Gilmore, come forward and let us search it out, for we presume we would be as far from sustaining him, or any other man, in acts of wickedness as your Committee, notwithstanding their disregard of our moral reputation; for the fact is, we have, as yet, no reason to believe him guilty. Therefore you must not think yourselves privileged by the Laws of God or man, to slander your fellow-men with impunity. We think we have good reason to believe that the great wickedness which Elder Gilmore has committed, seems to be only in the eyes of his enemies. In setting his face like flint against the errors of the present times, he has labored hard to prevent any additional planks being added to the old Ketocton platform, as some have labored insidiously to bring about, the old one being too straight for them. We further believe that he has been betrayed into the hands of his enemies by some standing among you, one in particular, who professed to be his friend on old school principles, to wit: Elder Samuel Trott, of whom we promised to say something more before our close. He being asked by one of the members of this Church, since your last annual meeting, if he did advise Elder Thomas Buck to vote against the motion made by one of our Representatives, so often referred to, he said he did. His reasons being called for, he said the motion was on too broad grounds, when he was told that it was not on any broader grounds than he had taken in the Signs of the Times. He still insisted they were too broad, not allowing us to be judges of our own motives, as you will presently see. He further stated, as a reason that he believe our object was to unite all the sound Churches to support Elder Gilmore in his course, which our informant understood him to mean Elder Gilmore's wicked course. He was then replied to, with some degree of warmth, that such a charge was without the slightest shade of truth. He still persisted in his declaration, charging, as you may see, not only us, but all those who voted for the motion, with a wicked and corrupt design. Now as the Delegates from Ebenezer, and one from Waterlick, did vote with us, to sustain the motion, how will they respond to his charge. We think they will answer in the negative, and wonder at his boldness; if so, we are not so much astonished, after hearing his bold and unqualified declarations at the Frying-Pan meeting, where he said "he did believe that all Elder Gilmore's friends had given him, was to bribe him to support Elder Gilmore in his iniquitous course; and, if he were certain of the fact, and it were possible, he would spew it out of his mouth."

In days that are gone by, the Churches were too faithful to have heard any of their Ministers, or Members, make such charges with impunity; but now, they can be winked at. Thus it is, that this individual has besieged the moral reputation of some of the Churches below the Ridge, by making the first attack on the character of Elder Gilmore, the Church at New-Valley furnishing him with materials to go on with. Now, whether these materials were small or great, one of two things must be the fact, that the New-Valley Church must have considered them small, or she, knowingly, acted wickedly, by retaining him as her Pastor, and must fall under the sentence of your Committee; for it is well known she continued her patronage of Elder Gilmore, as such, until after Elder Trott became the Pastor of the Frying-Pan Church. But what is the magnitude of those materials now? and at whose instance have they been magnified? It is acknowledged by Elder Trott that he proposed the plan of investigation to be held at the New-Valley Church. We ask why not at the Church of Leesburg, to whom Elder Gilmore belongs as a member, according to Gospel Rule? But we suppose Elder Trott had judged that the Leesburg Church had disqualified herself to be a fit tribunal, by sustaining him in acts of wickedness, according to common reports. If this be the fact, the Church at New-Valley must have been the most unfit tribunal, for two reasons - First, she continued him a long time under her patronage, as her Pastor, notwithstanding his wickedness, according to her accusations. Secondly, the Church at New-Valley was his accuser in this case; she would be both the witness and the judge. Now such plans of investigation as have been resorted to by Elder Trott, and the Association, is not to be found in the New Testament; therefore, we cannot submit to them, without remonstrating against such a course, from first to last.

We shall now conclude, by saying to you, that all we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, we are prepared to prove. All that we have said from foreign testimony, to them we must refer for the truth of what they have said. Now we thought it the most prudent course to appeal to the same tribunal under whose condemnation we lie for redress. If it is so that you will not re-consider the matter, we insist upon you not to augment the burden, knowing that all men believe they are privileged by the laws of nature to defend their persons, their property, and character, both in word and deed, as the case may require.

Read and adopted by the Church, at our August Meeting, 1835.

PETER C. RUST, CLERK.

APPENDIX TO THE UPPERVILLE LETTER.

We shall now inform our readers, that the above was presented to the Association by one of the two brethren that we sent for that express purpose. He addressed the Moderator, by saying, that he was the bearer of a letter from the Upperville Church, with a request that this Association would read it. A simultaneous cry of, out of order, was immediately heard. The vote of the Association was, however, taken, and the reading of the letter rejected. The Church at Upperville, (formerly called Goose-Creek Church,) has been constituted upwards of seventy years, and has always been a Church of the old school to the present moment, and has been a member of the Ketocton Association ever since the constitution of that body, until her sixty-eighth anniversary, in 1834, at which time she withdrew, as you have seen above. How we do assure our readers, that neither ourselves, nor our brother, who presented our address to the Association, who has been a member in her councils, with a few exception, for near thirty years, have any knowledge of any constitutional, or adopted rule, of said Association, to justify the cry of order, or the rejection of its reading. No, we venture to say that this was not the reason; the principal actors on the stage stood self-condemned, and could not bear the idea of having their deeds brought to the light in so conspicuous a way, before such a concourse of people, who seemed to manifest in their feelings, and some in their expressions, an anxious solicitude to hear the reading of our letter. We believe the above to be the reason why she retired behind the curtains of order, or thicker ones of sheep's clothing, and call them the Constitution of the Association, but none of these fabrics will be sufficient to cover the goat's hair, that appear so conspicuous in the report of her Committee, (so often referred to in our address,) and also the resolutions that stand connected with it, where Elder Gilmore stands charged, without one single specification, of some very great wickedness, and the Churches of Upperville, North-Fork, and Leesburg, being made partakers of the same. Now the Committee has not been so presuming as to say, that it had any evidence of these Churches having any knowledge of Elder Gilmore's guilt, as they have set it down; therefore, it may be plainly seen, that they have taken the responsibility upon themselves, of slandering us, for which we shall hold the Association accountable before an enlightened public, until she removes, by a counteract, the Report, and some things contained in the Resolutions connected with it, which we hesitate not to say, is, in our opinion, the deepest stain on the pages of her history. We have pursued, as we think, a Christian course, to obtain a redress of our grievances, but the Association has turned a deaf ear to us, and seems determined to remain deaf, under the cover of her acts being those of a religious body, and that she is no way amenable to the civil law. This hint of the civil law we should not have dropped had it not been for the fact, that one of the members of our Church, in whom we are bound to confide, had some conversation with one of the most prominent members of the Committee, who took occasion to say, "why did not Elder Gilmore seek redress," (as he understood him to mean by the civil law.) He was then asked for the specific charges against Elder Gilmore, and we would then know what to do - to which he was silent - still leaving us in the dark, respecting the desired information. Whether this be a true version of his meaning or not, we must leave him at present and turn again to the subject.

We have shewn that we did appeal to the Association without success. We now, in a second place, appeal to an enlightened public, to determine from the facts and documents laid down in this publication, whether the course of the Association has not been extremely tyrranical, and a very great departure from the paths of moral rectitude. If the Association had redressed our grievances, we should not have been heard from any more on the subject.

We shall now go on to give a brief statement of circumstances that led to a division and subdivision of the Ketocton Association. Some of the Ministers of said Association, and also some Ministers sent as Corresponding Messengers from other Associations, some of whom we thought were unsound in doctrine, and most of them striving to introduce all the benevolent institutions of the day, as they call them, which we believe to be unscriptural - we were the first that made any attempt against those innovations. We submitted a query to the Association held with the North-Fork Church in August, 1832, asking her if she could have fellowship with Elder William F. Broaddus under existing circumstances. There being a tie, Elder Thomas Buck being the Moderator, gave the casting vote against the subject being taken up, notwithstanding he said, in time of the session, that he was not with them, and he could not go with them, (meaning those of the new school,) yet he was still found with them at the next Association, held with the Happy-Creek Church, in 1833. Six of the Churches, including the Upperville Church, sent up a request in their letters that Elder Broaddus should be refused a seat as a Corresponding Messenger from the Shiloh Association, until the vote was taken on the subject; which request grew out of the query from the Upperville Church, in 1832, to the Ketocton Association, when Elder Gilmore had taken a very active part to sustain the query; and again at the Association of Happy-Creek, in 1833, to refuse him, (Elder Broaddus,) a seat; at which time such a scene of argument took place as we never before witnessed. Here, as well as at North-Fork, the whole host of Elders were again arrayed against Elder Gilmore, manifesting a deep-rooted prejudice against him, by their passionate speeches in reply to him, and for no other reason that we can see, than that of his so powerfully defending the old school principles and practices. The friends of Elder Broaddus insisted that he should have an opportunity to defend himself; and if they had called for the circumstances as above named, they should have had them, for they were at hand, and we intended to lay them before the Association if called for. But they were too ingenious and full of policy, even from first to last, to call for any of the circumstances. Here again was Elder Thomas Buck found strengthening the hands of those Ministers and Churches that he had said he could not go with, nor stay with. Now reader, strange as you may think of it, at this very Association was David Orison and Briton Saunders found, fighting hard by the side of Elder Gilmore, to sustain hm and the six Churches against Elder Broaddus having a seat in the Association; and also voted for Elder Gilmore as Moderator of said Association - word to the wise is sufficient.

We shall now inform you that the vote being taken, there was found 21 to 11 against Elder Broaddus having a seat; so that matter was at an end. Well, the next step was a circular letter, addressed to all the Churches composing the Ketocton Association, by the Church at Waterlick, of whom Elder Thomas Buck is the Pastor, requesting them to meet in Convention, at Broad-Run, in 1834, one day previous to the Association, for the purpose above shewn in our address, at which meeting he was found fighting in the ranks of those whom he had from time to time, said he could not, nor would not, go with. Still he was with them, deceiving both them and us - holding them as his allies until he could effect his purpose, on account of his known prejudice that caused him thus to act, for he has said that he did not believe him guilty - that he sought to weary him and his Churches until they would withdraw, and then the inheritance would be his. We have already shewn to our readers that we did withdraw, because we could not fellowship such dissimulation and shuffling as has been too plainly manifested in that body several sessions past.

We will now take a view of the part he acted at the late Association held with the Salem Church. After the letters from the several Churches were read, it was found that they had all sent up an expression of their opinion of Samuel Buck's resolution, which was referred to the late Association, in 1835, for a decisive answer, and it appeared from the letters, that ten of the Churches were in favor of adopting the resolution, and five against it, which made the whole number composing the Association. The Zion Church sent up the same resolution in substance, which was taken up in the Association, and Elders Thomas Buck and Samuel Trott delivered very lengthy and able speeches in favour of its adoption. Elders Oglevie and George also delivered very lengthy and able speeches in opposition to the resolution - but it was adopted by a vote of 14 to 9. Now we have shewn from the Minutes of the Association, in 1834, at Broad-Run, that we aimed precisely at the same resolution in substance in the Convention that is now adopted by the Association in 1835. We have shewn in our address that Elder Thomas Buck, after being advised by Elder Samuel Trott, loudly proclaimed he would vote against the motion in Convention. He now, 1835, as loudly proclaims himself in favor of the same resolution. Was he indeed opposed to the resolution when in Convention? We answer - no. We may be asked what then were his reasons - we believe they were as follows: If the resolution had been adopted, it would have cut off the new school Churches before Elder Thomas Buck had accomplished his main object. He saw that it was necessary to hold them fast by the beard with one hand, and by many pretentions of brotherly love, until he could rid the Association of Elder Gilmore and his Churches. This object being effected he had sufficient time to prepare the other hand to feel for the fifth rib, at the Association in 1835, at which time he could turn about on his allies, and let them know now that he had no further use for them - that he had held with the hare and run with the hound, until he saw a fair chance to snatch the spoils to himself. He could now let them go, and search the fields and forests in quest of prey for themselves.

We have taken some pains to shew the inconsistent course pursued by Elder Thomas Buck, and the effect it has had in the Association, and also Elder Trott, so far as he has been concerned. As it respects Elders Oglevie and George, their course has been consistent, from first to last, with what they professed, for which we are disposed to give them credit, for we do like to see men consistent, whatever their prejudices may be; but, on account of their having favoured the new school doctrines and practices, we are wide apart.

We shall now submit what we have written to an enlightened public, for them to read and judge for themselves. Now, before we close this Appendix, we shall once more challenge our accusers into the open field of investigation, as mentioned in our address; and if, indeed, they will marshall their forces, and sound the trump to let us know, just as certain as we hear the trumpet's shrill voice, will we meet them in firm phalanx; and if they are as well agreed as we are, we will never cease until every man's tent, on both sides of the question, be searched, to see where lies the wedge of gold, and Babylonish garment that has caused so much disorder in the camp, and, if any thing is found in our tent that ought not to be there; and not until that is found to be the fact, are we willing to be lead to the valley of Achor to be slain. Joshua 7:24.

Read and approved by the Church, at a Special Meeting for the purpose, August 30, 1835.

PETER C. RUST, CLERK.

The Baptist Church at North-Fork, Loudoun County, Virginia, to the Ketocton Baptist Association, sends this Remonstrance:

We feel that we have sustained an irreparable injury from your hands, and having charity to believe, that as regards most of your members, ye did it ignorantly, we respectfully ask a hearing in relation to this matter; and we claim a privilege, which is dear to humanity, and which is the common right of all men and of all communities; that of seeking redress for grievances.

Such was the course of the Association towards the Churches of Upperville, North-Fork, and Leesburg, as detailed in the 27th and 28th articles of her 68th annual publications, that this Church feels contrained to protest, in the most solemn manner, against its proceedings, as being UNWARRANTABLE, TYRANICAL, AND FALSE. And,

1st. They are unwarrantable because they are unfair. The Association, by its Committee, have condemned those Churches unheard. They were unnotified of the investigation: no friendly counselor was there to plead their cause: no witnesses were heard on their behalf: nor was an individual whom you have embraced in your denunciation, aware that such a court was to sit, or that such cases would be brought before it; but we were arraigned by our enemies; testified against by our enemies; and we must add, that if a disposition to do us justice is not yet manifested, we will have too much reason to believe that "our enemies themselves were our judges." Thus were we arraigned, sentenced, and executed, unknown to us; and the immediate jewel of our souls (a good name,) torn away from us, as it were, in the dark, by a foreign tribunal. Well might your own Clerk exclaim, "can any judicious Christian, after mature reflection, justify the report, when they consider that the investigation was "ex-parte," &c. See Signs of the Times, 3rd Vol. No. 2, page 23.

2nd. They are unwarrantable, because they are unjust. These Churches being found guilty of being accessory, after the fact, to crimes, the existence of which is unknown to them. They, indeed, are told, that Elder Gilmore has been guilty of a long continued course of persevering transgression, that he has "inflicted a wound on Zion", "brought a reproach on the cause of God and truth", and endeavored, in conjunction with "the Leesburg Church, to prostrate, if possible, the Church at New-Valley;" and that our condemnation turns on the fact of our having patronized Elder Gilmore. Well, the principle of law is, that the receiver is as bad as the thief; and if we are guilty of this great wickedness, we refuse not to die. But if we are innocent, then will the Association have to answer for trying "to prostrate, if possible, all the four Churches who have sustained him." But if he is guilty as you say, then the New-Valley Church must be prostrated by your decision, notwithstanding all the songs of praise which you have sung to her glory, and all the painting with which you have attempted to adorn her, to hide her deformity "from public scorn and contempt," for be it known unto you, the New-Valley Church professes to have been a witness to this "long continued course of persevering transgression," that the bare recital "caused your hearts to bleed within you, for the wound inflicted on Zion." Yes - she treasured it in her bosom as a secret deposit!! For from two to fifteen or twenty years, she was cherishing him as her Pastor, with all his sins upon his head, during the whole time receiving the sacred emblems of the broken body of the LORD JESUS from his hands, and would not let him go to serve other constitution.**

[** It often occurred, in this time, that Elder Gilmore had calls to the Pastorship of more Churches than he could possibly serve, which caused great alarm amongst his Churches, fearing they would lose his valuable labors, which drew forth from them strong expressions of attachment, both written and verbal, pressing him not to leave them. In these marks of regard, none were more forward, or apparently more sincere, than these very members of New-Valley, who are the originators of these reports against him. Now, if they ever knew any thing against him, they profess to have known it long before the period of which we speak. But we cannot believe that they really did ever know any thing disorderly, or, that they ever suspected him at the time they were so heartily approving, by their actions, his course. Reader, can you believe the testimony of witnesses whose actions contradict their words?]

In 1832, Briton Saunders wrote his noted parable. An investigation was then demanded, but was evaded by Saunders. They still held to this monster of iniquity, as you have made him, for near a year longer; fought by his side at the Association at Happy-Creek, in 1833; still receiving the Gospel from his lips; and retaining him until October, 1833, about a month from the end of his engagement, when she dismissed him abruptly, swindling him out of a year's services, and even then she preferred not a single charge of immorality against him; but stated, as a reason of his discharge, that his frequent other engagements caused them to be disappointed. If he is guilty, then indeed is she "partaker of other men's sins!" - I. Timothy 5:22.

But you perceive they acted as if they disbelieved it; and they have frequently aid that he was not, as far as they knew, guilty of any immorality; nor have they said, at any time, in our hearing, that he was guilty of any thing criminal. Therefore are we innocent of countenancing any wickedness, through perfect ignorance of its existence.

II. These proceedings are tyrannical, because they were unnecessary. Indeed we cannot conceive any purposes that this flagellation could be intended to answer, but that these Churches must be made to feel the smart of your august power, and that their Pastor should be sunk into everlasting infamy. What the motives were it is hard for us to say; but it is impossible that your object was to rid yourselves of disorderly members, (if such you deemed us to have been,) for we had cut the connection, and withdrawn before that ourselves. Now you tell us, and the world, that it was an "abrupt withdrawal,' but the withdrawal was not abrupt, for we had declared a year before, in the face of the Association, our determination not to stay in such a bedlam of heterogeneous materials. We had indeed seen with deep felt sorrow, the rapid declension of the ministry, and some of the Churches, from the pure doctrine of Grace, to the doctrines and institutions of Fullerism, and we knew not where the flood of error would stop. We therefore laboured to arrest its progress; and it was in this contest for correct principles that the first seeds of discord were sown. The Church at North-Fork was grieved with the course of the Association, when at her own house of worship, in 1832, it sustained a foreign Preacher, in the face of a complaint made against him by the Upperville Church, when the whole testimony of that Church was suppressed to screen this disciple of Andrew Fuller.***

[***The Upperville Church Letter, which she sent to the Association, stated that they were troubled by W. F. Broaddus, and that they had written testimony to the fact; but Elder Broaddus and his friends managed like a set of quibbling Lawyers, for three days, to keep the testimony from being read, and succeeded.]

North-Fork Church complained to the next anniversary of your body, but was met by this severe rebutter, in substance, that "the character of brethren in the Ministry" is too sacred a thing for Churches to meddle with, although the allegations were all proven. We consequently knew too well the partiality of some of you, for "the image of the beast," as Elder Trott calls the modern proselyting system, to be deceived by the fact that you all did, in the Convention at Broad-Run, in 1834, subscribe to the Ketocton Constitution and Confession of Faith; therefore it was that we tested you further, by "a motion to appoint a Committee to draft a resolution declaring non-fellowship with those, who, in any wise, favour the benevolent institutions of the day," as they are improperly called; and your rejection of that motion, by a vote of 28 to 16, proved to us your sincerity; we therefore "gave notice that we were no longer members of the Ketocton Association," and that was our only sin!!!" See 68th Ann. Pub., page 6.##

[##The reader will perceive that the charge made against us, that our withdrawal was abrupt, cannot be sustained. But the fact is, we did withdraw, not hastily, but with mature reflection, and from pure disgust at the principles and practices of the Association. And this we maintain we had a right to do, and that the Association has no authority to justify her in dealing with us for this act. She certainly ought not to have aspersed our character, but was merely authorized to record the fact that these Churches had withdrawn. It also follows, that the Association traveled out of its jurisdiction to get at us. This shew a deep anxiety to try us, very incompatible with that impartiality which is so indispensible to just judgment. Neither jury nor witness are admitted in civil courts who manifest such deep interest in the issue."]

2nd. They are tyrannical, because they are unconstitutional, and violative of the independence of the Churches. It is apparent that the whole of these proceedings turn upon the guilt or innocence of an individual who is arraigned, tried, condemned, and executed, as the principal, while we are only considered as accessories. Now there is not the shadow of ecclesiastical power delegated by the Churches, to the Association, to deal with individuals; but "the Churches are" acknowledged "to be free and independent, and constituted by the King of Zion, the highest court on earth." - Const., Art. 4. But the Association proceeds to reverse the decisions which were made in this case, by the Churches concerned; usurping authority not conferred upon them, violating the freedom of the Churches, and flying in the face of its own disclaimer in the 4th Article of the Constitution, of all authority over, or control of the Churches, in the internal regulations and discipline of the same," and that too, as we believe, for the unholy purpose of "ruining a servant of Christ!!!" which we consider is the very essence of tyranny.

3rd. They are tyrannical, because they are oppressive. The Association, from being at first the mere creature of the Churches, has become to be regarded as a great supreme ecclesiastical court, both legislative and judicial - the mistress of the Churches. Hence we see, that if a Church excommunicates members, the Association replaces them in fellowship, as will appear in the resolutions contained in the 11th and 29th articles of the minutes of your last session. The consequences have been serious to us. The excluded members of North-Fork being "assured" of the patronage of the Association, have, from that time, been unceasing in their opposition to this Church. They soon after demanded our place of worship as their right; alleging that "the Association has favoured us, and continued us in their fellowship", which, they say, encourages them in the demand which they make. (See their Memorial.)**

[**It is truly remarkable how this party has borrowed arrogance from the Association. In their Memorial to the Church referred to above, they address us thus: "You that consider yourselves the Church at North-Fork:" and they have taught their deluded friends to believe that we are defunct as a Church, and that persecuting us would be doing God service. It is quite evident that their purpose was to get us to acknowledge them as owners of our house, when we should have been tennants at will, so long as we should not be turned out of doors. In confirmation of this they claim the house as their own, and we have been told that we might regard it as a favour to be permitted to occupy it once a month. Indeed a genteel-man, high in county office, and also a Magistrate, disgraced himself by the ungenteel threat, (as we have been told,) to have a visiting Preacher taken out of our pulpit!!!]

They subsequently made a tool of Elder Joseph Baker, who has constituted them into something which he calls a Church, disregarding the fact which he knew, that they were excommunicated, as one of them acknowledges, not for their good deeds, and some of them from four to ten years before our present difficulties occurred, and several of them gave their vote each against the other at the different times of their exclusion. But they were thus united by Baker, (who says that Elder William Marvin was to have been there to assist him, but that he did not come,) without any evidence of good standing***, into an opposition party, and in this character they have hissed the wickedest portion of the world upon us, breaking our house by violence, and entering it by force, and occupying it, monthly, against our known will.

[***It has been a rule of the Baptist order, that when a new Church was to be constituted that letters of dismission were expected from those who had been members of other Churches, certifying their good standing therein, both as regards their faith and orderly walk. But they had evidence of the bad standing of each other, or they would not, at different times, have voted for each other' excommunication, from North-Fork Church.]

Nor have we been unmindful of those Churches whose members have joined with this party to disturb our peace. "They too, have been," so far as we know, "deaf to our remonstrances." Some of the members of Waterlick, giving it as their opinion, to our Committee, that the Church could not do more than to reprimand Elder Broaddus, notwithstanding they said his own letter of explanation was sufficient evidence to deal with him; saying, that the Association alone could finally dispose of this matter. And they also knew there were witnesses enough at hand to prove his immorality; enough for the Church not only to silence him, but to excommunicate him, if they would only admit their testimony. (See letters from North-Fork to Waterlick and to Winchester, and Elder Joseph Baker's letter to Waterlick.) From all which, it appears we have, in this Association, another melancholy instance of the tendency of all human institutions to despotism.

III. One reason this Church has for believing that the report of your Committee is false, is, because it is in diametrical contradiction to the report of the Committee which she sent to witness the investigation of this same case, by the Leesburg Church. We have as much reason to repose confidence in our Committee as you can possibly have in yours. They are a numerous: they are men of as strict integrity, and of as undoubted veracity: and they had unlimited opportunity to become acquainted with the facts; for they were, most of them, at all the meetings, where all the enemies of Elder Gilmore, that could be obtained, were arrayed, and where they were more than disposed to tell "the whole truth," **** and they live, as it were, on the threatre of action, and have an intimate acquaintance with all the parties. Thus had they acquired a great mass of facts, and an intimate knowledge of all the minutia of this case, which never can, nor never will be known, to persons who reside at the distance of your newly organized ecclesiastical court. Thus prepared did they enter the Leesburg Church meeting; which was not an ex-parte matter, but where all were invited and challenged to come with their charges, and where even hear-say was admitted by the Pastor of the Church, as evidence against him. And if they had any interest that could have swayed their judgment, it was to have sacrificed him to the fury of his enemies, for they are all men dependent on public patronage for support in their various avocations; and they well know the storm of persecution that was gathering in dark portentious clouds, ready to burst with devastation, over the devoted heads of all that would dare to do him justice. Under these circumstances they challenge our credit. Hear what they say:-- The following is their report:

"We, the undersigned members of the Committee appointed by this Church, at the request of the Baptist Church at Leesburg, to sit with them, that we might witness their proceedings, and assist them, if necessary, whilst they should investigate certain reports injurious to the character of Elder William Gilmore, who is a member of that Church, report, that we performed the duty assigned to us; and that, when we arrived at the place and time appointed, we found the Church assembled, with large Committees from the Churches at Upperville and Seneca, with the accused ready for trial. But his accusers, Briton Saunders, David Orison, and other members of the New-Valley Church, notwithstanding they had repeatedly promised to come if called upon, and they were notified of the investigation, and invited to come and bring their charges, and bear their testimony against the said Elder - they did not appear. But we were pleased to find circumstances so favourable to investigation, that even the absence of those, who profess to have aught against him, would not prevent a full and free disclosure of all reports and facts, connected with the different cases; for there were present many good brethren, members of different Churches, who had made the application at different times and places to the said Saunders, to Orison and to others, stating to them all they professed to know against the accused. The testimony of these brethren was received by the Church, to the same effect, as if given by the accusers themselves; and all other evidence, for and against the accused, that could be produced, being given, and after a very patient hearing, the Church decided, unanimously, that they were all well satisfied - the evidence itself being his complete acquittal.

Your Committee, also, after having weighed all the evidence as impartially as they were capable, have come to the following conclusions:

1st. That if the darkest part of the testimony alone was taken as evidence, if it proved anything, it would establish some improprieties against some other individuals, but could not criminate Elder Gilmore. But,

2nd. That such was the contradictory nature of the whole testimony, together with the conduct of the accusers themselves, in holding the accused in fellowship, long since the circumstances i said to have occurred, and the existing facts which were well established, that there had long been cherished in the breast of a leader in those reports, some secret animosity of private grudge, which must have moved them, to contort actions, perfectly innocent in themselves, and which the accusers have frequently declared, were not criminal, into circumstantial evidence, with the malicious intention of ruining a servant of Christ, by prejudicing brethren at a distance against him, whom they have, four times, refused to meet with their charges, before his own Church.

We therefore sustain the Leesburg Church, believing, that in acquitting Elder Gilmore, they have acted judiciously, impartially, and correctly.

Read and received by the Church at North-Fork. WILLIAM G. WRIGHT, CHARLES TURNER, JAMES KITTLE, EDWARD WILSON, ISAAC EATON.

August 9, 1834. C. TURNER, CLERK."

[**** This alludes to the fact, that Briton Saunders stated at Frying-Pan, that he, himself, saw a transaction; which, at a previous time, he had said he did not see; but to one person he had said the young people saw it, and to others he said the negroes saw it.]

2nd. Another reason we have for contradicting the truth of your proceedings, is because they are refuted by the judgment of the Church at Leesburg,* strengthened and corroborated, as it is, by the decisions of the very able and respectable Committees from Upperville and Seneca in Maryland, who, separately and apart from each other, and from that of North-Fork, unanimously acquitted him. Now it does seem, that the decision of either of these tribunals, having all the evidence before them, ought to make your petty court, with its exparte evidence, kick the beam. But to minds unprejudiced, the unanimous concurrence of all four of these empanelled juries, is the most triumphant vindication of injured innocence.

[*The course of the Church at Leesburg we are prepared to defend, as being judicious and correct, and her investigation as being complete. From her judgment we believe no scriptural appeal can be made, as she "is the pillar and the ground of the truth," and admitted to be "the highest court on earth." Nor can a re-investigation be had, except she shall grant a re-hearing. She first invited Elder Gilmore's accusers to arraign him before her. Having failed to get them to arraign him, she notified them of the day of trial, and invited them again to come and bear their testimony against him; (and as they did not appear, she took up the reports as they had told them to others, especially as they had related them at Frying-Pan, in defence of Elder Trott.) This she did in the face of the day, at a time and place where all were privileged and invited to come. Elder Gilmore being opposed to this investigation being in private, published it whenever he preached, so that all were informed of the meeting and its intention. But if this is not enough to satisfy all God-fearing persons, we are yet open for investigation, and ready to meet them before any tribunal which shall be in accordance with the Bible.]

3rd. Still we have more reasons for declaring our conviction of the falsity of the highly coloured report of your Committee. We long ago were favoured of the Lord, to be enabled to discover the most extensive and execrable conspiracy that ever came to our knowledge, for the destruction of one harmless individual. Such, indeed, it was, that if you could only comprehend it, in all its parts, your "hearts would bleed" afresh "at the wound inflicted on Zion."

Of the numerous individuals who have joined this crusade against Brother Gilmore, some have been enlisted on account of their failure to cozen him out of a few more paltry dollars; others wished to occupy his enviable standing among the Churches; a still larger number were haters of the truth, of which he is an able defender, and were precipitated into these ranks by their bad passions. And more yet, poor souls, have been gulled by the artfulness of the recruiting sergeants in this unholy war. Some are preachers, some professors, some semi-professors, who say that they are identified with the old school Baptists; and others, the rank and file, are wicked worldlings.

Conspicuously at the top of this bad eminence, stands the celebrated ELDER SAMUEL TROTT. He was brought to Virginia under the fostering influence of Elder Gilmore, (who praised him to the skies, because he thought him an able defender of the faith,) he, like the frozen adder which the man took to his bosom, no sooner was he warmed by the cheering rays of prosperity, than he commenced biting him.

The Saunders party, at that time, scarcely knew existence, and was without an able leader. But he soon gathered the chaotic materials, and gave them the form and consequence of a formidable army, of which he became the generalissimo. His attacks were not open, manly war, but they were more insidious and undermining; injecting his poison at first with cautious skill, into the minds of the members of these Churches, until he thought he had the train properly laid at home; then by his peregrinations and epistles, he spread the slander obtained at New-Valley, far and wide, giving it the darkest coloring of which it was susceptible, that if he had not, (as he has confessed,) sufficient evidence to conflict his victim, that by innuendo he could excite suspicion, and that "would be to the jealous, confirmation strong as holy writ." Now was the time to spring the mine, which was to have blotted out from the face of the earth, a most useful minister of the everlasting gospel. To do this and still maintain the appearance of friendship, Elder Trott wrote a pressing letter to Elder Gilmore, advising him to have an investigation before the Leesburg Church, which he recognized as the only scriptural tribunal, but which investigation he subsequently did defeat, as appears in the postscript of the New-Valley letter to the Leesburg Church, which says that they were persuaded by their Brother Trott to bring it before a council of picked jurors, principally from over the Ridge. This was a cunning device, for Elder Trott well knew, that the Pastors and a large number of the Churches who were called upon to send them this assistance, had been previously so highly wrought upon by himself and others, that the majority of the councilors would come to the judgment seat with strong prejudices. And the accused had not been furnished with the allegations that were intended to be brought against him. Thus they thought to have caught him unprepared; but Jacob's God was with him, and they failed of their object -- for the council was composed of men, some of whom were not disposed to sanction their improper course.

Notwithstanding Isaac Chrisman took the chair, they did not organize themselves for business; but he together with a majority of the council, advised the New-Valley Church to recommence the proceedings, and take a fair start, to proceed scripturally, according to the 18th chapter of Matthew, and bring him before his own Church. They then dispersed of their own accord.

But they never were disposed to go "in accordance with gospel rule; nor ever could be brought to face him before his own Church, notwithstanding Mr. Chrisman, who, as one of your Committee, says that they had done so, when he certainly knew that they had not done so.

The conspirators still continuing to vend their detraction, Brother Gilmore arraigned Elder Trott before his own Church on two charges; of having trespassed against him, and against the Old School Baptist cause. Both these allegations were well established by numerous witnesses, yet his very partial brethren sustained him, in direct opposition to the testimony.

We are aware this is a hard charge, and we are sorry to be under the painful necessity of accusing any Church of partial judgment: but it was so apparent, even from the very commencement of her proceedings in this trial, that every disinterested spectator must have seen that the mind of the Church was made up before any testimony was received.** Nor can we blame, so much as pity them; for such was the unremitted industry of Elder Trott and his emissaries, that no stone was left unturned that could be turned, but the minds of the members were so previously warped, and so ingenious was the management, that indeed it is not wonderful, that through their wickedness they should have erred. The Chairman too had been prepared, with great solicitude, to act his part, for Elder Trott had written such a defamatory letter against Elder Gilmore, to Elder A. H. Bennett, that they both were ashamed of it, so that it was with the utmost reluctance it was produced to be read before the Church.

[**At the very commencement of these proceedings, and several times afterwards, the Church seemed determined, by their votes, motions and declarations, to dispense with hearing the witnesses, and to decide without evidence. And some of the members have acknowledged that their minds were previously prepared to give the same verdict, even before they had heard any of the testimony.]

The conspirators, having rallied around and saved their general, still hunted the character of their victim -- with sagacious cruelty they pursued it throughout the Ketocton, Columbia, and Baltimore Associations; nor were they scrupulous of the means to accomplish their end; but unsatiable, they still continued, until scarcely a state in the union but which bears the imprint of their slanderous course; until at last, approaching, as they supposed, the last act of this tragedy, they securely tree'd not only the character of Elder Gilmore,, but the fair fame of these Churches in the Ketocton Association, at Broad-Run, where they aimed a death blow at all these. Here also they had a picked jury - men, some of whom did not willfully wish to do wrong, but whose minds had been perverted by previous preparation, and whose zeal was aroused by fresh shouts of "away with him! away with him! crucify him! crucify him!" and immediately they produced the 27th and 28th articles of your minutes, which bear on their face incontestible evidence of the partial and persecuting spirit which dictated them. #

[# To shew that we are not alone in believing that the overstrained language of the report of the Association's Committee is sufficient to convict them of partiality, and a disposition to persecute us, we will make another extract from the clerk of the Association, who would not do them injustice. He says: "Neither the Leesburg Church nor Elder Gilmore were present to offer a defence; and that the most full and impartial investigation resulting in the most clear and convincing evidence would not justify the killing expressions contained in the report against Elder Gilmore." - Signs of the Times, Vol. 3, No. 2.) What think you, reader, of a jury who could condemn, not only one man, but several communities of innocent persons unheard?]

And which articles we beg of you, for your own sakes, for the sake of justice, and for the sake of "the cause of God and truth," to expunge from your minutes.

Now having, sustained the positions with which we set out, that your proceedings in our cases, are unwarrantable, tyrannical, and false, and having defended the Churches against the unjust aspersions cast upon them by your Committee, we appeal from their decision, not to the Association, nor to any unscriptural council; but believing that these Churches and their pastor stand upon the best possible ground, we are prepared to carry our case to a tribunal where all must meet us, to the AWFULLY GRAND, AND TERRIBLY GLORIOUS JUDGMENT SEAT OF CHRIST. And, in the mean time, our hearts' desire is, that He may give us more of His Spirit, and that we may be found more often at the throne of His Grace, where our enemies may never be forgotten, and where we may ever be enabled to pray, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do." - Farewell.

Adopted by the Church at North-Fork, August 8th, 1835.

CHARLES TURNER, CLERK.

The Baptist Church of Jesus Christ, at Leesburg, to Ketocton Association, to meet at Salem, the 13th of August, 1835.

We received a circular dated April 21, 1834, from the Waterlick Church, in which they say, our object in sending this address is to propose to all the Churches of the Ketocton Association, to meet, by their messengers, at Broad-Run, on Wednesday before the third Lord's day in August next; there to inquire, &c., how many of the Churches are in fellowship, and will unite on the Constitution of the Association, and the Declaration of Faith, printed 1806. If it is found there is such a difference of opinion that we can no longer live together, then let us part in peace.

We met according to appointment - sixteen Churches were enrolled, constituting the Convention - Thomas Buck, Sr., was called to the Chair, and P. A. Klipstine, appointed Clerk. On motion, it was

Ordered, That the Constitution of the Association be read.

Ordered, That the Declaration of Faith, as held by the Association, be read.

Ordered, That the Churches, which are so minded, come forward by their messengers and members present, and subscribe to the Constitution and Declaration of Faith of the Association, adopted by her, &c., in 1806, as read.

Which was done unanimously, as stated in your minutes of 1834. This formal test of our fellowship was exceedingly unhappy, and not only calculated to increase her disunion, but to deceive the saints abroad, for we all knew we were not happily united together in our religious views; and it was truly distressing to see the new school Preachers and members come up to the books and subscribe to them. Samuel Buck, a member of the Waterlick Church, more honest in his purpose than some others, (as we think,) aware of the insufficiency of this nominal mode accomplishing the object for which the Churches were convened, brought with him a draft of a resolution, which he read. A motion was then made, not by Elder Gilmore, as Elder Hinton has said in the Herald, or any member of our Church, but by a member of the Convention, and seconded by another, to appoint a Committee to draft a resolution, in substance as expressed in the resolution which Samuel Buck brought with him, declaring non-fellowship with those who in any wise favor the benevolent institutions of the day; and here again we had truly a distressing scene, in witnessing what some, who call themselves old school ministers and members, can do. Elder Samuel Trott, who was not a member of the Convention or the Association, advised Elder Thomas Buck to vote against the motion, and so Elder Buck did, and Elder Marvin, too; and as the motion failed, by a vote of 28 to 16, and as we took it for granted the work of the Convention was finished, and as we were not only worried out with the new school party, but mortified and distressed with the dissimulation and treachery of the professed old school ministers particularly, and others, and as the circular from Waterlick proposed, "if it is found there is such a difference of opinion that we cannot longer live together, then let us part in peace," the Churches of Upperville, North-Fork, and Leesburg, gave notice that they were no longer members of the Association, (as stated in your minutes,) and went home. In the 9th article of your minutes you say: "On motion, Resolved, That the Churches of North-Fork, Upperville, Leesburg, and Bethel, are considered members of this body, notwithstanding they have declared their withdrawal from us."

There is either so much ignorance or design, or both, in this resolution, that it cannot have any effect other than to throw contempt on the Association, and as every person must know they were not members, we will pass it by as unworthy of our notice, and as unworthy the notice of any gracious individual.

10th. Article. "Brethren P. A. Klipstine, J. H. Sowers, I. Chrisman, J. Tutt, and H. W. Taylor, are appointed a Committee to investigate the matters of difference between the Churches of Leesburg and New-Valley; they are permitted to call on any brother for information." We protest against the Association assuming any such ecclesiastical power. We protest against the Committee having any right to investigate any thing in which we were concerned. We protest against the Association or Committee having any control over us, or jurisdiction of us; and we have not language to express our astonishment at seeing the names which we do see in your minutes, composing that Committee, who carried on that ex-parte, one-sided investigation in concert with New-Valley, in our absence, which sham doings cannot even form a tolerable counterfeit. And there is no way by which you can divest yourselves of the reproach, but by expunging it from, or blotting it out of your minutes, for all you had a right to do, was to drop our names as having withdrawn from you.

27th. Article. Your Committee, therefore, recommend to the Association the adoption of the following Resolutions: "Resolved, That we can have no fellowship with Elder William Gilmore and the Leesburg Church, &c., or any other Church that retains him as their Pastor, or hold fellowship with him."

Does your Committee, by recommending such resolutions, and you, by adopting them, think that you can deceive the saints and the world in this way, when you know that Elder Gilmore, the Leesburg Church, and the Churches that hold him in fellowship, have had no fellowship for you, as an Association, for some considerable length of time, and that they cannot be in fellowship with you, and that is the reason why they have come out from among you. It was not you who withdrew your fellowship from us - we withdrew our fellowship from you, and would not be in connection with you, and you know it, and you have only exposed yourselves by your resolutions; and as it is our duty to pray for our enemies, we do hope the Lord will give us hearts to pray for you.

"Resolved, That the Association do sympathize with the New-Valley Church, &c., and have the fullest confidence, &c., in said Church."

Strictly speaking, there is no Church, and in this case, there has been none to govern, not one male member but Briton Saunders and David Orison, and only four females, and two of them are their wives. So you see at once that these two men and their two wives are the Church. But is this the worst of the case? No - Briton Saunders is the Alpha and Omega - the first and the last. If there had been a Church we never should have had the wheels of Church discipline, agreeably to the New Testament, clogged, as they have been, by wolves in sheep's clothing, or any others. But if you live you will sympathize with them more than you ever yet have, for neither you nor they can deceive the Almighty with this sort of management and contrivance, contrary to his word. That God, who cannot look upon iniquity with the least degree of allowance, will, in his own time, and in his own way, avenge unsullied virtue and soft innocence, and then you will know what will be the fate of poor Saunders and some others, and what will go with your great confidence. We know him and them, and you do not, and he and they are the subjects of our sympathy as well as yours.

28th Article. "Resolved, That this Association exclude, first, Bethel Church, for a departure from sound doctrine, &c."

What a burlesque upon the Association to exclude Bethel for unsound doctrine, when it is notorious that one half the Preachers and some of the Churches, and many of the Members in the Association are just as unsound in doctrine as Bethel, and W. F. Broaddus, their Pastor; and preach and believe in substance the very same doctrines; and the other half of the Preachers are trying to take consequence from them by associating with them, and preaching for them and together, from time to time. 2. Upperville and North-Fork Churches of their abrupt withdrawal, and their patronage of Elder Gilmore, and her disorderly conduct towards New-Valley Church, as stated in the report, &c.

How do you know that the Church at Leesburg conducted disorderly towards the Church at the Valley, when you have never been in the way of, or sought information on the subject, except from that side which you have been predisposed to favour by your very partial and unjust proceedings and doings from first to last. Now you know the withdrawal was not abrupt, although you have given that as one reason for excluding us. We say it is not the truth, and you know it, for you know we were very dissatisfied two years before at North-Fork, and the year before at Happy-Creek, we told you, never to be taken by surprise; that we should go on until we removed you from us, or we withdrew from you, for we were determined not to live in such a bedlam. And as it regards disorderly conduct towards New-Valley, we are prepared to prove that it is false. We understand Church Discipline, and when it shall become our duty, we will make it appear to the confusion of our enemies, and those who lie in wait to deceive. And as it regards patronizing Elder Gilmore, our Pastor, we do not intend that either you or Elder Trott shall have the authority over, or control of, the internal regulations and discipline of our Church; although you have labored very hard and very artfully to destroy, not only our character, but our independence, and to hold it over us, and to rule us with a rod of iron; in order to do which, you and he have not only disregarded the word of truth, but the Constitution of the Association, which says:

4th Article. "This Association disclaims all authority over or control of the Churches in the internal regulations and discipline of the same, for she considers them free and independent, and constituted by the King of Zion, the highest court on earth."

Done by order of the Church, at our Church Meeting, July 25, 1835.

JOHN M. WILSON, CLERK.

The above is the letter, in substance, as revised for the press, which brethren William Gilmore, John M. Wilson, and Henry Stevens carried to the Association, as a protest against their proceedings last year, (1834,) and waited with untiring patience, as no opportunity offered until about the close of the business the last day, when Brother Gilmore addressed the Moderator, and asked if he might say one word, and one only - as the vote of the Association was taken on the subject, they decided, by a large majority, that he should not have the privilege of saying one word, so we could not even tell them that we had a letter, what we came for, or what we wanted.

As we are now disposed, to bring the subject before the public in pamphlet form, we deem it expedient to give some account of the mode of discipline exercised by the Leesburg Church and their Pastor, in this affair, from the beginning and this is the commencement.

The 25th of December, 1832, Briton Saunders wrote to Brother Gilmore; in which letter he rehearsed a parable of old date, and then went on with more ambiguity, we think, than we have ever seen in a letter of the same length, without preferring one solitary charge against him. But as Brother Gilmore was acquainted with his ambiguous, sly, sneaking, insinuating mode, on the 3rd January, 1833, just eight days, he answered his letter, not by rehearsing an old parable, but, as the disciples said, Lo now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb or parable.

At January Court, the moment Brother Gilmore got his eyes upon him in the Court-house yard, he advanced, without taking them off, up to him, and asked if he had received the answer to his parable, he said he had. Saunders then said, you appear to doubt my being actuated from the purest motives. Brother Gilmore said, I do, sir. Saunders then made some insinuations, and dropt some hints about what the children or negroes had seen or said, and something from David Orison, many years ago. Brother Gilmore then told him of his abominable hypocrisy, and that he had always been a snake in the grass; and said to him, it is well known, not only to me, but to my friends, that you have not been one of my supporters; you have tortured my feelings, and trampled upon them, and not only mine, but you have insulted and trifled with the finest and most tender feelings in your own house - and rebuked and reproved him very sharply - to use his own language, he said, he, Gilmore, was very severe upon me. Brother Gilmore then admonished him by saying: you know your duty, go forward and do it; lay it before the Church of which I am a member; it is time to quit the surface and sound the bottom everywhere. About this time Brother Gilmore was sent for to dinner; he said to Saunders, you had as well go with me and get your dinner, and went on - he had been in the house but a short time until he came in and dined with other brethren, and sat and talked as usual, and then went away.

On Saturday before the fourth Lord's Day in January, Brother Gilmore went to his monthly meeting at the Valley as usual, and there appeared to be more plain, simple friendship and kindness on the part of Saunders toward him, then he had ever seen before at that place; and Orison, and all the rest of the members were, as they had ever been, very affectionate. He preached on through the Winter and in the Spring.

Mrs. Saunders went to Brother Gilmore's and took Sister Gilmore upstairs, and said, I am very sorry Mr. Saunders wrote that letter to Brother Gilmore; I tried to prevent him from sending it, and have been so distressed that I could not sleep or rest day or night, and have heard that you had said you had no fellowship for me and Mr. Saunders. Sister Gilmore said, I have said if I were in the place of the individual implicated, I would not have fellowship for him until he explained his insinuations - he ought to be made to explain himself; if there is any thing bad, let him say so. Mrs. Saunders then said, we do not believe there ever has been anything bad, and we do not believe any body believes there is any thing bad, and I want for us all to be together in friendship and fellowship as we always have been. Her motive must have been to heal the breach Saunders had made, and restore the feelings he had injured by his letter, who has always had the disgraceful disposition to try to pick holes in cloth of the finest texture and dresses of the finest needle work.

Sister Gilmore relating to Brother Gilmore what Mrs. Saunders had said, he was disposed to try to divest his feelings of all unpleasant sensations, as far as possible, and continued to preach for them, and they were very attentive to him, through the summer, until the Association at Happy-Creek, in August, 1833, and there the whole Association saw how Saunders stood by him, and supported him in public, and voted for him as Moderator of the Association, and him and his wife, in private, for she was along. They went where he went, and staid where he staid.

Brother Gilmore then went to the Columbia Association, and when he returned in September, the brethren, generally, were glad to see him, and none appeared more so than Saunders, Orison, and the rest of the members of the Valley; not the most distant hint that there was any thing the matter, or any thing wrong.

On the fifth Lord's Day in September, Elder Trott preached at the Valley; and at October Court, in the street Saunders handed Brother Gilmore a letter, and turned off. It was a discharge from the Pastoral care of the Church, dated October the 5th, not containing one solitary charge against his moral character; not hear the time of their Church meeting, not signed by B. Saunders, Clerk, but by B. Saunders in his own name, singular; here is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. He says that Elder Trott advised him to this abrupt discharge, without any investigation, which Elder Trott acknowledges to be the fact.

On the third Lord's Day in November, Saunders, at his own house, applied to Brother Wilson to arraign Brother Gilmore before the Church at Leesburg - as he had not heard one word before on the subject, he asked him what was the matter; Saunders said, nothing criminal; it is his common etiquette. But as Brother Wilson thought from his appearance there was something more, he pressed him to tell the whole affair; he then repeated that it was nothing criminal, but strong circumstances: he then asked him to give one of his strongest cases, to which he replied that Elder Gilmore had taken a certain individual from his house to the Point of Rocks, (which is about three miles; they started after breakfast and returned to dinner.) Brother Wilson then asked if they went by themselves; he said no, Sister Gilmore and some others went with them. Brother Wilson then said, Bro. Saunders, for my own part I cannot see any impropriety in the individual going in company with Bro. Gilmore and wife, and others, to the Point of Rocks, to see the Rail-road and Canal. He then added what the children had seen, but said I do not mention this as a charge, for neither me nor my wife saw it -- and this is the whole amount of his strongest case -- and here Brother Wilson says, I must say that Saunders himself has since acknowledge to me, in presence of several others, that the individual did not go to the Point of Rocks with Brother Gilmore and wife, and the truth is that neither Sister Gilmore nor the individual went with him. Is this lying? if so, is it not of the basest character, to slander the innocent?

Here, reader, you have the origin and the author of the story published in the Washingtonian, printed Dec. 21st, 1833, in Leesburg, Loudoun County, Va., of Brother Gilmore's frolic to the Point of Rocks - now you know from whence it sprang, and what it is worth, and the author of its publication is welcome to all the glory.

After Saunders had given his strongest circumstances, Brother Wilson said to him, if you think these cases are of that nature, and strong enough to bring a charge against Elder Gilmore, it is not only your privilege, but your duty, to bring them to the Church of which he is a member; and as I am a member of that Church, I will take the responsibility on myself to say to you, that we, as a Church, will investigate the matter. At another time, Saunders related the same, in substance, to Brother Stevens, qualifying his remarks as before, when speaking of Brother Gilmore, by saying there was nothing criminal. Brother Stevens replied, in substance, as did Brother Wilson. They were now circulating these reports through the world in every direction, as much to the discredit of Brother Gilmore and the Leesburg Church as was in their power.

And here, from a painful sense of duty, we are compelled to introduce the name of Elder Samuel Trott, whose designing inconsistency must be exposed in giving this history of discipline. January the 1st, 1834, Elder Trott wrote to Brother Gilmore, requesting him to ask the Leesburg Church to investigate the subject, and to invite Committees from Upperville and North-Fork, to sit with them, as the proper course to pursue. For the express purpose of bringing about this mode of investigation, at our next Church Meeting, January 25, we wrote to the Valley, which letter we hoped would convince them of the impropriety of their course in circulating these reports abroad, to the dishonor of the cause, and would dispose them to bring in their charges, if any they had; but if it should not, we let them know we should bring the subject before their Church at their April meeting, taking it for granted we should succeed, in this way, in bringing about a gospel investigation in the Leesburg Church, and so we should, if it had not been for Elder Trott, (ah, we might say in truth, there would never have been any thing to investigate, if it had not been for him,) who was a stranger just brought to Virginia by Brother Gilmore - he did not belong to our Association, or live in our County. At their next meeting they answered our letter, in which they said, if Elder Gilmore came, he should be attended to; or if the Church at Leesburg called on them for information, they should have all the satisfaction they could give them, &c., &c. Not one word about calling a Committee from any place to do any thing. Done by order of the Church, at our meeting of business, Saturday, February 15, 1834. Briton Saunders, Clerk.

But did we receive this act of the Church as they had finished it off? - No. Tuesday, the 18th, Elder Trott preached at the Valley - Brother Gilmore was there - nothing was said or done at the Meeting-house. Elder Trott went home with Saunders; there he put his priestcraft to work on the subject, and made as null and void the letter as though it had never been written, and when it came to us it had this postscript:

"Dear Brethren - Subsequent to the above, by the persuasion of Elder Trott and Elder Marvin, we have agreed to call a Committee, &c., which Elder Trott, no doubt, has made Elder Gilmore acquainted with, &c. Tuesday, February 18, 1834. Briton Saunders, Clerk."

Without comment, you see Elder Trott stands committed and exposed by his letter of January 1st, to Brother Gilmore, requesting him to pursue a certain course, and the 18th of February, persuading Saunders to a course diametrically opposite. Saunders says, by the persuasion of Elder Trott and Elder Marvin: here he goes on with his old trade - we forbear giving it a name, for Elder Marvin is the Pastor of the Church, and was with them on Saturday; and all he or they could think of to answer their purposes was done then, and Tuesday he was not there; he was gone home over the ridge. Saunders says Elder Trott has made Elder Gilmore more acquainted with, &c. He did call at Brother Gilmore's the next day, and Brother Gilmore asked him what they were going to do at the Valley. He said he knew nothing about it, he had nothing to do with it; you will get their letter. Although it was raining hard, they could hardly get him to sit down, or stop a minute. Sister Gilmore said, Brother Trott, what is the matter with you; he appeared miserable, and went off -- poor man, we are sorry for him; he has brought it on himself, unnecessarily. This work began to open the eyes of the brethren; for, although they knew he was the traveling agent circulating these reports, and then requiring Brother Gilmore to clear them up; but he had done it in such a sly, artful manner, that they did not know before that he was the modern Haman of the plot.

At March Court, Saunders handed the letter with the postscript to Brethren Wilson, Stevens, and Muse, and reared back and said, You need not go to the Valley, for I will not be arraigned, neither shall any member of our Church be arraigned - the brethren then said, do you come and arraign Brother Gilmore before our Church, he is willing to be arraigned. He said no, he would not do any such thing, and went off. Here is skulking from investigation for you. We then appointed brethren Wilson, Stevens, and Muse to attend the Valley Church Meeting in March - they went, and asked them if they would consider the letter from Leesburg; the unanimous answer was, we will not; then they proposed to withdraw the Leesburg letter, and for the Valley Church, or any members of that Church to bring their charges, if any they had, against Brother Gilmore before the Leesburg Church, with an assurance that the Church would immediately take up the subject; and it was the wish of Elder Gilmore that it should be investigated in a scriptural manner, and that he was willing to be arraigned. The unanimous answer was, that they would not bring it before the Leesburg Church - as they had said in their letter, if the Church at Leesburg would call on them for information concerning Elder Gilmore, they should have all the satisfaction they could give them. Brother Wilson then informed them that they had come for that express purpose, to ask them for that information which they refused to give, although they had promised to do so in their letter.

On Friday before the fourth Lord's Day in April, the Committee Elder Trott had persuaded them to call, were to meet at the Valley; a number of brethren from all the Churches in Virginia, of which Brother Gilmore is Pastor, went to see who they were and from whence they came, for we did not know. Isaac Chrisman took the chair, when two of the Committee spoke in turn, very much to the purpose, on the unscriptural course they had taken, and declared they would not act, and through their influence Chrisman said to Saunders, I must say you have gone wrong, and advised them to go back and begin as the Bible directed, and bring their charges before the Leesburg Church, andf they broke up without organizing themselves for business or doing any thing. After they had come to this conclusion, Brother Gilmore said, this is a grave subject, of deep importance -- I have always, from the beginning, determined to take a deep hold of it; then looking Saunders directly in the face, he said to him, I never have intended that you, sir, should stretch the tongue of slander on that individual whose virtue is unstained, and on whom suspicion has never rested with impunity, (pointing to the individual, who was present;) now bring your charge to the Church at Leesburg, and we all dispersed.

The next we heard, Saunders and others were reporting far and near, (false as it was,) that Elder Gilmore had spoken almost all day, and had broken up and disappointed the meeting; and how sorry we were when we heard that Elder Marvin, (who had never appeared in their ranks before, and who had suffered his temper to get advantage of him;) was reporting it in Maryland and elsewhere, when he knew it was not so.

In May, Brother Gilmore went as a Corresponding Messenger from Ketocton to the Baltimore Association, Black Rock, Md.; although Elder Trott was only a Corresponding Messenger from Columbia, and they were both a great way from home in another state -- he there so poisoned the minds of the brethren, and circulated all these reports to an extent which we cannot describe; turning in with Elder Joseph H. Jones, (who had declared himself in favour of the benevolent institutions of the day, in the Signs of the Times,) with whom Elder Trott had said he would give the Association something to do, if he lived to get there, for the course he had pursued in Virginia, in connection with that party who had withdrawn from Ebenezer on account of Elder Trott being called as Pastor.

Saturday before the second Lord's Day in June, Brother Gilmore went to the Church at Frying-Pan, of which Elder Trott is a member, and said to him, you have trespassed against me, do you repent? as he did not give satisfaction, Brother Gilmore took two or three more and repeated the same words, and he still did not give satisfaction. Brother Gilmore then said, I shall lay it before the Church. When the meeting was opened and an opportunity was given, Brother Gilmore said, I have two charges against your Pastor, Elder Trott; he has trespassed against me and against the Old School Baptist cause publickly. A day was then appointed to investigate the allegations. Brother Gilmore fully sustained the charges by strong and clear testimony, but from what Elder Trott had said to Elder A. H. Bennett, who he had gotten for Chairman, and a letter which he had written to him, which Elder Bennett tried to keep from being read, and of which it was evident Elder Trott was ashamed, and well he might, and the manner in which he had prejudiced and biased the minds of the members of the Church, that they wanted to decide soon after the meeting was opened, without hearing the witnesses, for they said their minds were made up; and when the testimony was given in it was manifest that they did not pay any attention to it, and in direct opposition to the testimony he was sustained by a large majority of the Church; some withdrew and came to Leesburg. In the close Brother Gilmore said to him, notwithstanding you are sustained, you have laid a foundation for your own downfall; you will get your reward, and so we think yet; we do not think he could influence them to do now as they did then, under that high state of excitement; the Church is in a withering condition, and so are all the Churches under his care, it is said.

At our meeting for business in June, Brother Gilmore requested the Church to have the reports investigated by calling Committees from the other three Churches of which he is Pastor. We then appointed brethren Elder William Gilmore, John M. Wilson, and Henry Stevens a Committee to attend the Church meeting at the Valley in July; they attended, and Saunders and wife and Orison and wife were the Church; Brother Wilson informed them that the Leesburg Church had appointed Thursday the 31st of July to investigate the subject, and had invited Committees from Upperville, North-Fork, and Seneca to attend, and then requested them to bring their charges, if any they had, against Brother Gilmore, and then invited them to attend as witnesses. Brother Gilmore then rose from his seat and said, the investigation will take place, the Committees will attend; I now request and invite you to attend and bear your testimony against me; and then we left them. They did not attend, but the Committees from all the Churches attended, and as we had obtained at Frying-Pan from them the darkest colouring they could give the subject, we were prepared and did go through the investigation. And although they had reproached or tried to reproach others to injure him, there was not a vestige of testimony against his moral character, and such was the triumph of our Pastor over all his enemies who had circulated these reports that the Committees returned to their respective Churches with proclamations of more than ordinary victory; and as Brother Peter C. Rust, to prevent one Church from being biased by another, had proposed for each Church to make up their own decision at their respective Church meetings. So they did, and he was acquitted by them and us from any imputation of guilt.

Here we stand sustained by the word of God in the mode of discipline, which we have exercised without a jar in our Church. With the Bible in our hand, as an army with banners, ready and willing to unfurl our colors and meet any person that the great Law-giver in Zion authorizes us to meet, who will come up to the standard in the investigation of any subject a directed by the great Head of the Church.

Done by order of the Church, August 29, 1835.

JOHN M. WILSON, CLERK.

The Primitive Baptist Library of Carthage, Illinois

Organized June 8, 1988
A Conservative, Old-Line Primitive Baptist Website

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.

PREFACE.

The Baptist Church at Upperville, Fauquier County, Va., to the Ketocton Baptist Association, to be held with the Salem Church, Frederick County, Va., on Thursday preceding the third Lord's Day in August, 1835.

The Baptist Church at North-Fork, Loudoun County, Virginia, to the Ketocton Baptist Association, sends this Remonstrance:

The Baptist Church of Jesus Christ, at Leesburg, to Ketocton Association, to meet at Salem, the 13th of August, 1835.

The Primitive Baptist Library of Carthage, Illinois

Organized June 8, 1988 A Conservative, Old-Line Primitive Baptist Website

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.

PREFACE.

The Baptist Church at Upperville, Fauquier County, Va., to the Ketocton Baptist Association, to be held with the Salem Church, Frederick County, Va., on Thursday preceding the third Lord's Day in August, 1835.

The Baptist Church at North-Fork, Loudoun County, Virginia, to the Ketocton Baptist Association, sends this Remonstrance:

The Baptist Church of Jesus Christ, at Leesburg, to Ketocton Association, to meet at Salem, the 13th of August, 1835.

Organized June 8, 1988
A Conservative, Old-Line Primitive Baptist Website