Richmond planet., 1902-08-02

violated. 4 meeting was called and an
effort made 20 try and exclude me in
my absence and it was only by the
most strenuous efforts that they We're
prevented from so doing.
THE Law OF GOD.
The Holy Bible, Matt. 18th Chapter
provides the mode and method of deal
ing with a brother Has the church
complied with its specific DEGREES? If it
has not, why not? Il not only refused
to obey the laws Of God, but declined to
be ided by its own laws. The case
should have been reported TO the Deacon
Board and the Deacon Board should
have sent TO me Deacon citing me to
appear before them. l should have
made my statement and If I did not
give them satisfaction, should have
bsen sent on to the church and il 1
t-lled or refused to hear the church
then it would have been in a position to
treat me as Publican and sinner.
A VIOLATION OF CUSTOM AND LAW,
AS the matter now stands, the church
is up against the law of God and not up
against John Mitchell, Jr. The follow
ing is the ch Nrge,- q written communi,
cation, which was not sent TO me by
any committee:
RICHMOND, VA, July 18th 1901
First Baptist Church,
To Brother John Mitchell, Jr.,
Dear Brother:-You are hereby sum-
, moned to our next church-meeting the
first Monday night in Aug, 1901 co show
Al
4 should not be withdrawn from you
I upon the following CHARGE
/, Brother John Mitchell, Jr., is here
by charged with pubhshir 8 the private
letter of Rev. Johnson TO the church
! and the business of the church in disre-
gard of the church Polity and the
authority of the Baptist Church, same
appearing in the PLANET of July 9Th, 1901
Nelson Williams, Jr.
Done by order OF the church, July
10th, 1901.
Rev T. III. Briggs, Chairman,
b. p. Vandervall, Church Clerk
THE QUESTION OF QUESTIONS.
Was such a communication In violat-
! ion of the Scriptures and the Baptist
| Polity? Was it a violation of the
| custom and usage Of the Baptist Church?
| 1t would not be proper to characterize
/ the statement of the church when it
, says that on the night of the alleged
trial, was arrogant. / was polite. /
obeyed the chair. l suspended when
ever point Of order was made, no
matter how blunt it was and / smiled
through hout the proceeding. To say,
was disgusted, would be TO add that ]
was al used
THE MoB-SPIRIT.
Here were a class of people, practicing
the very errors and initiating the very
! vices that 1 have been condemning in
the white mobs for the last twenty
years. i saw the same spirit in Ohes.
terfield county, when the l6-year-old
Simon Walker was on the verge of
eternity, having been condemned to
death. saw the same spirit in Nanse-
mond county, when the now departed
Isaac Jenkins was beaten, hanged and
shot. / saw the same spirit In Char
lotte county, Va, when ! was threat
ened by a white mob for standing up
for principle as / am doing in this
case. l saw the same spirit in Lunen-
burg county, Va and at Farmville, Va,
when the two women were condemned
to death in violation of right and in de.
fance of law. fought it out then and
will do so now.
COULD NOT LEGALLY PASS THE MOTION.
was accorded the floor at the First
Baptist church by vote of the church
| have been the presiding officer of the
National Afro American Press Associa.
ton OF which my esteemed friend, Hon
; Cyrus Fields Adams is now President
and am presumed TO be we'll posted on
parliamentary law; but will some one
tell me how any one could make a mo-
tion TO exclude me while / held the
floor? Gould it be done legally? If the
church gave me the floor by vote
would not the church have to take il
away from me by a vote unless, i Of my
own will yielded the floor?
STRANGE RULING.
But the First Baptist Church :'parlia
mentarians" knew better than this. Out
of an approximate membership of $500,
was illegally excluded by vote Of 56 tC
ga. But the committee makes a most
damaging admission again. 1t saw.
that was charged with one thing anC
excluded for another. What more nee[
be said2 The case of right ends here
Such an admission in any carnal court
would guarantee q new trial. But
these people not only state that they
did this, but that they also denied the
plea Of the accused for a re-hearin9.
CHURCH VIOLATED THE PoLrTY.
This was in violation of the Baptis
Pohty, Page 204, Section 1. This ples
was published and the public can iudg,
whether / did it in the proper spiri
and In keeping with that same Polity
! which says that an excluded membe,
should give his reasons for claiming
that he did not have a fair trial, AMI
that he was unjustly judged" Certain
ly 1t was right and proper that th
church should have stated its reason
3 for not replying to my communication
! applied for Mutual Council an,
this In violation Of the Baptist Polity
9 Page 2O4, was not granted. was di
/ rooted by the Baptist Polity, for whicl
8 this same church professed 10 have 8
. much respect to apply to a sister churcl