The pilot and transcript. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1840-1841, 1840-08-04

2
church session ON the 9Th of August, 1888 (Sce
Session Book, p. 660 the consideration of it laid
over Archibald George and John Wilson ap-
pointed ga Committee to wait ON DIR. Amman aud
have conversation with him. "-September, 3,
1888. "The Committee appointed to wait on
DIR. Samuel AMMAN, reported that after a CONVEX
sation held with him, they obtained his consent
to acittdrat0 his letters 1t was ordered, on mo-
tisn, that the Session Clerk hand over the same
to DIR. Annan,o Up. 69.)-October l, 1888. 'sfhe
clerk reported that he had complied with the
order Of the Session by returning to DIR. Samuel
Amman his letters" (p. 69)-May g, 1884. sap
plication was made by DIR. Samuel Amman,
through George Carson, for dismission, to join
the third Presbyterian church here, which was
granted, and the clerk ordered to give ccrtii-
cate of the sameo Up. 79).
Now, Sir, look at these frightful records and
then read your miserable statements. SsThis
could not submit to- says DR. A. He consents
to withdraw his letters, says the committee!!-
In a short time abdicated, ;" says DIR A. From
and before September, 1888, to May 6, 1884,
says the record, DIR. A. remained, pretending to
be satisfied and reconciled.-Is it probable l
would have remained such length of time,
demands DIR. A. The record replies, there
only one correspondence, one dispute; that &C.
Cured in July, 1888, and you left in May, 1884;
which gives Just the same number of months,
days, and hours, whether you apply them to
your "aljt1y" or to your 'tp1t5lic insult" and
your letter of July IL, 1888, says expressly, @I
never have made complaints 0f the former, till
after you made them of the latter!!!-Dr. A. says
the insult was to him, and gives the personal
circumstances. His letter Of July IL, 1888, says,
'Ethe public reprimand" was given to 'Esome
members of the session."-You now say, that
you wished to leave the chaach, for the 'spttJlic
insult" but in 1888, you wrote that you only
wished to resign the eldership, and ''teOtld glad
ly aUoid' ''tcithdrdsoing altogether! Now
you say, 81 wrote him note the next morning
(aiter the reprimand), stating that | would not
submit to such an indignity, and that would
prefer quitting the church" But the cores
Pondence shows, that your first letter was of a
totally different kind; and was so vague, as to
the ground of offence, as to be misunderstood;
and that you had no wish to quit any thing but
the eldership.-You now say, "He informed me
in reply that could not leave his church with
out his permission, and that of his session.
whereas my first reply says not one single sylla-
BILE about your leaving the church at all; but
relates to Jour resigning your Office only.-You
PROCEED: 81 sent him another note, in which l
said would leave his church whenever pleas
ed;n whereas that second note, copy OF which
lies open before me, was intended to open more
fully your grounds for wishing TO resign your
eldcrship, only; and you therein distinctly say,
sfT acould pre- fer continuing simple hcGrer i1l
yottr church,! You say again, SHE sent ttoo
of the eIdeTs' &c.: whereas the records OF the
Session show that never met that body from
July 2, till November 10, 1888; that is from be-
fore the date of your first letter to me, till after
the return of your letters to you by the session
clerk; the fact being, that was dangerously I'LL
or absent from the city, for nearly four mohths
eero effect an adjustment, and get me to remain.
| declined - these are your statements he
facts are, YOU did not decline, II their object
was that stated by you, for you renamed eight
months: and the adjustment submitted to you
Al: folx hac
have yourself, or expect to be dealt with; and
such was the impression your conduct produced
on the minds of the session-that when you ask
ed for dismission eight months afterwards
there were very serious difficulties about grant
ing it. and but for my urgent interposition IN
vo,r behalf. it probably would not have been
GRANTED; and was at any rate (unless greatly |
err granted in an unusual and qualified form.
This is an appalling catalogue; but 1t IS not
complete; and one of your statements demands
more particular refutation. You say, s'Dr. b.
observed 1t, 0hat is your refusal to take up
collection) jumped up, and in his most Perempto-
nv manner spoke as follows 81 have always
thought it was the duty of the elders to take up
the collection. If have been mistaken will
take care. for the time to come, to have persons
employed to attend to it, so that it may be per-
formed without delay, and all things may be
done decently and in order in the house et God"
This scene occurred, as you say, ON the day be-
are correct on the 18th of July, 1888 Let US
see the minute errors which here, as every
where, vitiate every thing you say. For exam
ple yov saw ssfnonthlg collections; whereas there
is seasonal record (p. 64 on the 4th OF June,
not ONLY proving that the collections We're 'ceehs-
ly but also appropriatins them to SUCH objects as
would appear to commend themselves to every
loyal Christian heart, viz: the first Sabbath in
the month, to contingent expenses OF the church;
the second, to the poor; the third, to the Sunday
Schools; the fourth, to the cause oil tract dlstri-
bution Again: there were at that time, ten Ru-
ling Elders in the congregation; while there
were but three bags for collection, at that time,
in the body of the church; so that some arrange
ment and designation of lessons was indispensa-
bic; and you, Sir, being the youngest elder, and
the most improbable in all other respects, might
have been Justly expected, by the other elders,
to aid in this service; and the notion OF Its be-
ing somebody else's duty, and not yours, (Which |
is the reason you give Tor refusing 10 perform III
is strange enough.
But, Sir. let me say, first: that whatever |
weakness ] might have been guilty of, and what |
ever offence / may have committed, you, the |
Youngest and least reputable of ten elders, were |
the only one that ever suggested to me, that they
were grieved at what said; you, one of the most |
improbable OF a church, numbering then about |
three hundred members, were the only one that
ever complained to me of the particular act I'M
der review; yor, were the only person, in a con-
gregatios amounting then to six or seven hun
DIRE / souls, that ever called me to account about
l., while wit one accord, all of them who have
known, have condemned your conduct. Sec
o7uiiy: as soon / knew you were offended,
disclaimed all intention to give you offence; as
soon as heard your false statement now renew
ed in new form, at the end of seven years, l
assured you, you were in error; you were indu-
.ed by the session to acquiesce in the view which
hey and |, and every b dy e.se but yourself, took
ret, at this distant PERIOD you reiterate the orig
nal INSIST tement, in a more exaggerated and
obnoxious fora than at first-and urge it against
ne, as though it had never been denied, disap-
proved, settled, acquisced in for eight months,
md your withdrawal permitted under the i'm
PRESTON of these facts.
But, sir, above all-you have distinctly, delib-
,ratelv and | fear with full knowledge mis-