Any mention of the Bantam Presbyterian church must start with US Grant's uncle,Samuel Simpson, and Grant's bro-Oliver m Asher Medary's dau in Bethel, and moved to Galena,ILL. [Gov] Samuel Medary stopped,abt 1825,to visit his former classmate,Hannah Simpson [m 1821 Jesse Grant]. The Simpson's,and the Medary's are in the records of the Neshamminy Presbyterian, s e Bucks Co,Pa. And even earlier,1750's ,the Simpson's attended Rev Elder's Paxtang church near Harrisburg,Pa. So,the Simpson's leave a record of 100+ years of s e Pa-s w Oh Presbyterianism before the Bantam church was founded. Not so with many of the Ayreshire,s w Scotland colony that replaced,1820, the earlier pople n Nicholsville. Somebody give a date for their immigration. They had attended Presbyterian churches in Scotland 70 years longer. They had different customs and belief's. They were,Porter's excepted,the Old Style Presbyterians.You may remember,John,the Scotland raised Isa-Mrs George Cook,of N Sugartree,in the Bantam church. On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 15:28:58 -0500 John Emmitt <jwemmitt@mindspring.com> writes: > Hi Herman: I went to Batavia yesterday and copied information > about Bantam Presbyterian Church from Eileen Whitts book. > Found it quite interesting but still confused about some aspects of > it. > The data She gives is from church records found in Philidelphia PA. > > The Nicholsville Church was formed in 1831 and in 1839 they > split over their attitude about slavery. The New School was > violently > opposed and was involved in the abolishionist movement. The Old > School > while most members probably thought slavery was wrong they thought > the > Church should stay out of the controversary and leave the matter to > the > politicians.. Both Old & New Presbyterian congretions > held seperate services in Nicholsville and used the same name. Its > not > clear but > they may have shared the same building(my idea) at Nicholsville. > When the > War started > in 1861 the New School did decide to locate in Bantam. The war > sentiment > (now too late to stop the war) > and how to share expenses of the Church in Nicholsville could have > hastened > the move to Bantam. (my supposition) > > It is hard to believe either School would have supported slavery > knowing > some of the early church history. See Excerpt of Eileens book > below, from > 1835 4 years before the church split > > "It excited us to see in the records that Harriet Beecher Stowe's > brother, > George Beecher , had preached at the Nicholsville Church and had > baptized > children there. We were also impressed to see the origional > signature of > Harriet Beecher Stowe's husband, the Rev Calvin Ellis Stowe, when as > a > moderator of the Cincinnati Presbytery, he had approved the > Nicholsville > minute books by this simple entry. "Approved, C.E. Stowe, moderator" > in 1835". > > Now Bantam. She listed most of the early pastors and years when > they served. > There is a membership list starting in 1880 to about 1946. Your > parents > and mine are listed. Many of the entries give death dates which > Eileen > says "are probably not available > anywhere else". This list of deaths alone would make a article for > the > Newsletter. > > There is also a list of baptisms some birth dates are given. There > is also > a list of Pastors to about 1946. There is an interesting note " In > 1896 > they reported buying a new organ > for $65.00 and new stoves for $18.00" (did they use 2 stoves one on > each > side of the church?) > > The membership has always been fairly small. !881, 68 members, > 1882, 100 > members, > 1887, 55 members, 1888, 35 members, 1994, 56 members, 1896, 25 > members > 1899, 23 members, 1902, 32 members, 1910, 20 members, 1915, 25 > members, > 1945, 80 members. In many of these years there were more people > in > Sunday School than the total membership. > > The records are full of Fagleys, Justices, Baudendistels, Whites, > Emmitts, > Davis, Channells and others we knew. Some of the Channels were as > far back > as 1869. The 2 earliest Channell entries used only one L at he end. > Not > sure they were related to the ones we knew. > > John > >