FACTS AND DOCUMENTS

CONCERNING THE

OBITUARY NOTICE OF R B. SEMPLE,

In reply to the attempts of Messrs. Broaddus and Ball.

SPARTA, Caroline, January 31, 1832.

Dear Sir, IN the Millennial Harbinger, (No. 1, vol. 3,) I find a communication to the Editor, from my old friend Thomas M. Henley, (a liberal contributor to that work,) purporting to be an "obituary notice of Bishop Robert B. Semple." Feeling as I do, entirely confident that there is in this "notice" an erroneous representation of a circumstance relative to my lamented friend, your deceased father, I have considered it due to the cause of truth and the memory of the dead, that this circumstance should be examined into and the error corrected. In this communication Mr. Henley states that Mr. Campbell, Sen. "delivered a discourse on the reformation now going on; after hearing which brother Semple bid him God speed. That same evening they partook of the loaf toge her; and after making some inquiry into the reformation we are laboring to bring about among all the worshippers of Jesus Christ our Lord, at parting he gave the old gentleman his benediction."

Such is Mr. Henley's statement to the Editor of the Harbinger; who, in his remarks, rehearses the substance of it with much con placency, filling up some little vacancies in Mr. Henley's account, to finish out the representation:-"He heard my father deliver a discourse in Fredericksburg," &c. "He also had a conversation with him at dinner, in the house of brother Leitch, Fredericksburg; with both of which he was so well pleased, as not only to unite with him ⚫ in commemorating the Lord's death, but, in bidding him adieu, to give him his benediction, and to bid him God speed in the work of reformation." Such is the second edition of this statement, revised and amended.

In calling in question the correctness of this statement, without intending to bring a charge of intentional misrepresentation of facts, I mean to say that I am persuaded it is calculated to produce a very erroneous impression. As Mr. H. (I well know) is too apt to mistake his own suspicions for ground on which to levy a charge-so it is not unlikely that his own hopes may appear sufficient ground for drawing a favorable conclusion.

At any rate, his matter ought to be set in a proper light. So I think, and so think all to whom I have mentioned it. My object, therefore, in addressing you on this occasion, is, to suggest to you (and a suggestion will doubtless be sufficient) the propriety of examining into the fact of this circumstance, in its real bearings, and having the result published in the Religious Herald, and wherever else you may judge expedient. Mr. Campbell will surely do you the justice to publish it in the Harbinger Your mother, whose piety and veracity none will question, can give you information which will go far towards neutraliz ng the impression this statement is calculated to produce. From her I received at the house of our excellent friend Mr. Webb, on the day after your father's funeral, su han account of his feelings, while the venerable old gentleman was in Fredericksburg, as would put it beyond the heart of man to consider the statement otherwise than as having a grievously erroneous bearing.

That your father might find no fault with any thing advanced in the documens said to have been exhibited to him (which they call the grounds of the reformation) is very possible, as they descend to no particular points of doctrine, and that, in his usual form of adieu, he might say, "The Lord be with you," is quite probable; but for a moment to suppose that he approved of the sentiments called "Campbellism," seems to be entirely out of the question.Did any expression to that effect escape from him in his family?

"Had it not been for this most happy incident," (says the Editor, alluding to the communion and the benediction, &c)- "had it not been for this most happy incident, his sun had set behind a cloud. " This is the closing remark in the obituary notice! So, then, this dispelled the darkness that would have shrouded his dying bed. And is it thus the "reformation" is to be promoted? I certainly wish well to the cause of real reformation, but not to this way of setting it forth.

It is matter of curiosity to compare some things which friend Henley has said of "Bishop Semple" during his life-time, with what he can now say, since he is laid in the grave. For instance, in the Harbinger before the last, p. 552, "I regret exceedingly to see Bishop Semple and the Messrs. Montagues guilty of misrepresenting their brethren," &c. And now, in the obituary notice-"You know he was a truly good man, and few men have labored more to promote the happiness and salvation of mankind." However, it is well to relent, even towards the dead.

I have written by candle light, ready for the mail to-morrow; have been much longer than I had designed, and must close. My best regards to your mother and the family.

With esteem and best wishes, yours,

'AND. BROADDUS.

The publication to which Mr. Broaddus refers, I had heard of some days previous to the receipt of his letter, and had procured the number which contained it from a gentleman of this place. I read it with much surprise, mingled with some degree of satisfaction. Surprise that Mr. Henley, who, in the Harbinger of December, had spoken of my father in terms of severe and unqualifi ed condemnation, should, in the short period of four weeks, so far subdue his feelings as to use the expletives "good." "truly good," in connexion with his name-Satisfaction, that a spirit of relentment had been "extended even towards the dead," and an atonement made to the memory of a pious father, whom I am sure never inflicted a wrong (willingly) upon the feelings or repu tation of him or any other individual with whom duty called him to act.

To the question, Did or did not my father use the language ascribed to him by Mr. Henley, "revised and amended" by Mr. Campbell? Without intending to insinuate intentional misrepresentation either to Mr Henley or Mr. Campbell, I have proof conclusive to my mind (so far as a negative can be proved) that no such language was used, nor any thing like it, designed to convey a similar import. This proof consists in express declarations made to myself and others, after the interview referred to, with Mr. Campbell; and his deportment towards Mr. Campbell confirmatory of the sincerity of those declarations. The pres sure of my engagements at this time precludes me the opportunity of collating all the testimony and condensing it in such form as should render it suitable to attend a publication for the press. The statement which I give, confirm ed as it is in several particulars by the letter of Mr. Warren, and, if necessary, could be confirmed by twenty others, will, I hope, prove satisfactory. On Saturday, the day of December, Mr. Campbell, Senr. was introduced to my father in this town. Whether he had been invited to preach by some members of the church or not, I cannot say. The question was discussed, however, in my presence, by some disaffected towards Mr. Campbell, whether they should attend his preaching. My father contended that he ought to be invited to preach for the reasons assigned by Mr. Warren, and enjoined it upon them to attend. All did so. He accordingly preached on Sunday morning. He spoke about one hour, less than one-third of the time he sometimes devotes to the exposition of his views. His remarks, so far as I could understand them, were principally preliminaries, attended with explanatory references, introductory to the argumentative part of his discourse. After concluding, my father succeeded him in a few supplementary remarks, supplying what he conceived had been omitted. In these supplementary observations he said, in effect, "that so far as Mr. Campbel went, he found nothing objectionable; but he stopped short of all he thought

-Not

ought to be said," and then attempted to supply the deficiencies.~ having studied the subjects which divided them, I was unable to trace the distinction between their opinions, but think they differed on the operations of the Holy Spirit; on this, though, I cannot speak confidently. Mr. Campbell rejoined by saying that his discourse was not concluded, and in the evening he would touch upon those points adverted to. My father dined with Mr. Campbell, and in the afternoon took the sacrament. As to his misgivings on that occasion, I beg leave to refer to Mr. Warren's letter-in passing I would say, tha Mr. Warren was an intimate and confidential friend of my father's-is a highly respectable citizen of our town, and an intelligent and pious member of the Baptist church. After the services of the afternoon were over, I went in company with my father and Mr. R. Dunaway of Lancaster county, (who was then on a visit to this town) to his residence near this place. In our ride out, and during the evening, the sermon of Mr. Campbell, his opinions, and the "reformation," was the subject of frequent comment. As to the sermon, he expressed the same opinions of it that were advanced by him from the pulpit in the morning-obviously "fearing the Greek" in the canciliatory spirit which he Mr. Campbell assumed. If one word escaped his hips approbatory of the known opinions ascribed to Mr. Campbell, or the principles of the reformation as avowed, they escaped my observation. Mr. Dunaway possibly may have recollected them if such sentiments were advanced by him. He accorded to Mr. Campbell a frank and generous manner-warm and cordial feelings, and more than once said he thought or hoped (1 do not recollect the precise expression) he was a christian.

To all those who were upon terms of intimacy with my father, it is known that in the latter months of his life he was greatly averse to controversy, or the discussion of controversial subjects. The correspondence between himself and Mr. A. Campbell (into which he was inadvertently drawn) conducted as it was, with much asperity on both sides, was a source of much unhappiness to him. He was anxious to close it, and with it, the breach which it had caused. Some of his friends had become Mr. Campbell's disciples, among whom was a portion of his church at Bruington. To the members of this church it is known his devotion was great. It is a church he had planted, and around which every feeling of his heart was entwined. His early affections had been fixed upon it, and these affections had “grown with his growth and strengthened with his strength."

"To his soul he grappled them with hooks of steel." To see the people whom he thus loved, distracted by divisions and dissensions, and this church, once the abode of brotherly love and christian fellowship, rarely equalled, now disordered by contrarient views and discordant sentiments, planted a thorn in his pillow that pierced him in his dying moments. Never did man strive more-never did one feel more-and never were greater sacrifices made, to restore the peace, harmony, and good feelings which had for forty years characterized this church. Finding it impossible to bring it about, save upon a relaxation of the stern mandates of justice, his over ruling desire to effect his object caused him to make sacrifices to the prejudices of a people more unreasonable in their exactions than any of whom history gives an account. Of the propriety of his conduct it is not my province to speak. The end so desirable I suppose might justify the means. To the attainment of it all his efforts were directed. For the sake of peace (as Mr. Warren suggests) he did do that which his judgment could not approve. For the sake of peace he might have done more than was publicly witnessed on the day of his ministra tions with Mr. Campbell. But that he ever bid him God speed in effecting a reformation, such a reformation as is professed by the advocates of reform in this section of our state-nothing save his resurrection from the dead, and testification of the fact in person, could satisfy me of its truth. Verily might it be said, if such had been the fact, that, "like the spaniel, he licked the dust from the foot that kicked him."

RO. BAYLOR SEMPLE.

FREDERICKSBURG, February 11, 1832. A letter from brother Sands to brethren Warren and Clark, containing a paragraph addressed by you to myself, has been handed me with a request that I would give a statement of "the facts" relative to the interviews between our venerable and now departed father Semple and Elder T. Campbell, when the latter was in this place. I comply with this request with some reluctance; for controversy in any shape I dislike; the more so, when it is likely to be made public. However, as my hrethren here deem it my duty, and as my silence might be attributed to an improper motive, I will endeavor to give as fair and candid a statement as my knowledge of the facts will permit.

Mr. Campbell arrived at this place on Friday evening, and put up at brother Fife's, where he remained during his stay in town. Mr. Semple was introduced to him on Saturday; but, being on business, nothing passed between them more than the ordinary salutations and inquiries. On Lord's day morning, a short time before the usual hour of public worship, Mr. S. came to brother Fife's and had an interview with Mr. C. I was not present at this or any other private interview between them, and can therefore state nothing upon my own authority; but understand from brother Fife's family that the most friendly feelings were manifested on both sides. They went to the meeting-house together. I was not at the morning meeting, having gone to Falmouth to preach. I understand, however, from the brethren generally (all, indeed, whom I have heard speak on the subject) that they came into the house together: that Mr. 9. as he was sometimes in the habit of doing when another minister was to preach, took a seat by the stove, and Mr. C. went into the pulpit.

It may not be improper here to observe that I had myself given notice at our church meeting on Saturday night, that Elder Campbell would preach the next morning, having myself invited him to do so. And also that Mr. S. had been to the meeting-house previous to his having the interview with Mr. C. at brother Fife's: and learning from one of the brethren at the Sunday School, that the appointment had been made for Mr. C. made inquiry as to his credentials, standing in the Association, &c. and finding that no inquiry into these matters had been made by any of the brethren, he made some objection to Mr. C's preaching, and said he should like to see him, and was accordingly directed to brother Fife's.

Mr. S. made no objection to his preaching after he returned to the meetinghouse with Mr. C. Whether his objections were obviated by the conversation that took place between them, I pretend not to say.

After singing and prayer, Mr. C. preached. His subject was Titus i. 11— 15. and iii. 1-9. Mr. S. went up into the pulpit before Mr. C. had finished his discourse. And Mr. C. thinking by Mr. S's coming up that the usual time occupied in preaching bad expired, stopped. Mr. S. then rose and made a few observations by way of supplement to what had been already said. He found no fault with any thing that had been advanced-thought they would all be profited by such preaching—that if there was any fault to be found, it was not with what HAD BEEN SAID, but with what wAS NOT SAID-that something more should have been added in relation to the work of the Holy Spirit: that the word "grace," v. 11. chap. ii. which Mr. C. thought meant simply the gospel, Mr. S. thought meant not only the gospel, but the gospel rendered efficacious by the Holy Spirit. Mr. S. then prayed with his usual fervor, that a blessing might attend what had been said agreeably to truth, and that success might crown the Jabors of him who had spoken to them, &c Previous to the dismissal of the congregation, Mr. C expressed his approbation of what Mr. S. had added, and and said he should himself have made some observations on the work of the Holy Spirit, but for the want of time, as he had reserved them for the latter part of his discourse, and that he would speak upon that subject at night. They retired from the meeting-house together, went to brother Leitch's and dined in company with brother Lipscomb of this place and Dr. Anderson ef

Spottsylvania. They had some conversation. Mr. C. read a paper, which he said exhibited the principles of the reformation. Mr. S expressed his approbation of these principles except in one item, viz. "that the New Tes ament as it now stands is sufficient for all purposes of church discipline." He thought that general principles were inculcated in the New Testament. but that particu lar rules might be advantageously drawn from these principles. Nothing but the most friendly feeling appeared to prevail between them. They left brother Leitch's together to go to meeting in the evening, but Mr. S. calling to see a sick sister, Mr. C. went on to meeting with the other brethren who were in company.

When I went to meeting in the evening, Mr. C. was there; and soon after Mr. S. came in. He took me aside, and observed that our friend Mr. C. was present, and wished to know what I thought of the propriety of his communing with us; that he did not properly belong to our denomination, and was it not contrary to our custom of close communion to admit such? I answered, that with us baptism was the great point which prevented our communing with other denominations; and that this objection did not exist in the present case, as there was no doubt of Mr. C's having been baptized. He replied that fellowship was a point of more importance with him than baptism; but if I had no scruples in the present case, he was satisfied, and added that he had had some conversation with Mr. C. and was much pleased with him; that he believed him to be a good and pious man, though in error.

We went to the table toge her, and after a short exhortation from Mr. S. we administered the supper-he the bread, and I the wine, as was our usual custom when both were present. Mr. C. communed with us. This was the last time they were together. Whether they parted in the meeting-house or went out together I cannot say, nor do I know what conversation took place between them after the supper, or whether any.

At night Mr. C. concluded his discourse, commencing this part of it with a further illustration of his views of the word "grace," in which he differed from the meaning given by Mr. S. in the morning. In his observations on Titus iii. 5. he thought the Apostle referred to the ordinance of baptism. At this meeting Mr. S. was not present, the state of his health not permitting him to be out at night.

In looking over brother Sands' letter, and comparing it with what I have written, I believe I have "covered the whole ground" so far as "facts" are concerned, and have answered, I conceive, each of the inquiries therein proposed, except, perhaps, the 5th and 8th, viz.-4th. "Did Mr. S. speak in commendation of the distinguishing traits of Campbell's views, or express his regret for having opposed them?" And 8th. "Did Mr. S. either in the pulpit or out of the pulpit, speak favorably of Campbell's views of faith, operations of the Holy Spirit, or baptismal regeneration?" These may be answered by a decided negative. He was never known by any of the brethren here to express any such commendation or any such regret.

The above is, I believe, a fair statement of "all the facts" that occurred, touching the point in dispute. In making inquiry as to those "facts" which did not come under my own observation, I have had no party spirit to gratify, I have consulted all the brethren who I thought had any knowledge of "the facts" in question. I submit it to you with this request, that if it is published, it may be published entire.

With sentiments of christian affection, I remain your brother in the Lord, GEO. F. ADAMS."

P. S.-Since writing, I have read it to the following brethren, whose entire approbation it meets, viz.— William Warren, George Roe, James Peyton, R. B. Fife, W. T. Williams, James Williams, Abner Leitch, Lewis Wren, Robert C. Bruce, and Thomas U. Lipscomb.