Introductory

Luray, Virginia, 1909

______

What is Truth?  Pilate asked Jesus this question, but did not wait for an answer. Reader, do not be guilty of thus lightly dealing with such a sacred thing as Truth.  It has been said:

“The worth of Truth no tongue can tell,
‘Twill do to buy but not to sell.”
 
To know the Truth is to be free --- Christ said to his servants, ---”And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”  Some handle Truth as a matter of small importance. Often it is bartered and sold, --- often crushed to earth, and always unpopular with evil minded men.

But there is coming a day when Truth shall be vindicated.  Crushed to earth it shall rise again.  It must eventually conquer, for God is on the side of Truth.  But how stand we in this matter religiously?  Moses said to Israel, “Who is on the Lord’s side let him come to me.”  Some are not on the Lord’s side.  There must be a division, for there is a contest between Truth and Error.  On which side are we enlisted? Let us examine ourselves.  Let us go to the Law and the Testimony.  Let us dare to be right.  A great statesman once said “I had rather be right than be President.”  The old order of Baptists have ever proven that they would rather be right than to be popular.  They cannot be both popular with the world and right with God. For worldly popularity and Christian graces are antagonistic.  The Apostle tells us plainly that if we seek to please men we are no longer the servants of Christ.  And our people are not charged, even by their enemies, with seeking to please the world.  Possibly they have less regard for the esteem of the world than has any other denomination on the earth.  This is commendable.  Not that they would seek to make enemies, nor do they take pleasure in opposition. But the Baptists are a sincere people, generally speaking.  They want to know the truth and to faithfully walk in it, and are willing to suffer for the truth if need be, knowing that Christ has said “Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven.”  And, too, the Baptists take the Bible as their guide in all religious matters, and honestly endeavor to rightly interpret it without fear or favor.  This is also commendable, and the more conspicuous because of its rarity. For is it not true that in this day of boasted knowledge and religious progress but few are found willing to take the word of God as their only authority for doctrine and practice?  What people, as a denomination, will do so, except the Primitive Baptists?

As a matter of fact, various societies, Sunday Schools, Theological Schools, Instrumental Music, etc., have been added to the simple service of the Christian religion without any authority from the New Testament, yet what denomination today tell the people this truth except the Primitive Baptists?  If our people did not have the courage of their convictions and sufficient regard for the teaching of the Bible to do so, would it be done? Is it not true that such additions have become so popular with the religious world, that to oppose them is looked upon as the height of folly? And have not the greater number of the professed followers of Christ become so wedded to these institutions of men, organized in modern times, that they evidently value them more highly than they do the Christian Church itself?  The writer is witness to this fact that not long since an evangelist in Harrisonburg, Va., stated in a published sermon that Sunday Schools were of vital importance, --- for said he --- “Tear down the Sunday School and the Church will die --- keep up the Sunday School and the Church will prosper.”

We are free to admit that churches built up by man upon such foundations would crumple and fall without them, but not the Church of Christ.  Its foundation is not the institutions and wisdom of men.  It has a better foundation and is not dependent upon other foundations for its perpetuity. The institutions of men may come and go, but the Church of God will stand as long as the world does.  The reason is because Christ is the Builder, and He said it would stand.  Hear Him: “Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”  That rock was not the Apostle Peter, nor any other man, nor any of the works of men; but the revelation of God.  It is nothing short of a divine work, --- the giving of life eternal to the dead in sin, --- the giving of a new heart and mind and the writing  upon such mind, and heart, the laws of God --- the giving of eyes to see, ears to hear and hearts to understand the wonderful mysteries in the glorious plan of redemption alone through the atoning blood of Jesus.

Now those to whom this revelation is made are called out of nature’s darkness into the marvelous light of the Son of God.  This is the Church.  And this Church, so long as it maintains the principles of its founder, and keeps up the practice of the primitive saints, are viewed by the world as a peculiar people in the general acceptation of the term.  But God has “purified unto himself a peculiar people.”  And our enemies being witnesses, the Old School Baptists are a peculiar people.  Not peculiar in dress, nor in the way we wear our hair or cut our beard, --- not peculiar in the eating of certain kinds of food and abstaining from other kinds, --- but peculiar in our belief and practice.  Does not one of the peculiarities of our people consist in earnestly contending for the doctrine of salvation by grace without works, --- of preaching the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and righteousness, and of man’s helplessness and total depravity; --- of advocating election, predestination, etc., not only in their articles of faith, but also from the pulpit and the press?  And does not another of our peculiarities consist in our contention that the practice of the Apostolic church should be maintained as well as its doctrine, and in our willingness, like the primitive Christians, to be a sect everywhere spoken against rather than give up the simple religious service taught in the New Testament?

Evidently this is true, for it will it will not be denied that these are prominent characteristics of Primitive Baptists today.  We might ask then, what is there about them to justify the antagonism we meet? The doctrine we preach is not our doctrine, but the doctrine of God our Saviour.  The religious practices we advocate were first taught by Christ and His apostles.

If taught by the Master and followed by his Apostles, who should object to them? Were they not meant for examples to us? Are they not good for all time?  Surely no one with a sound mind and a good heart will contend that the doctrine and practice of the New Testament can be improved.  But this is a day of “Soft-Shell Doctrine,” and “Do-as-you-please-practice,” and as a denomination, the Old Order of Baptists stand alone in defense of the so-called hard doctrine of the Bible and its simple but out-of-style practices. But there are thousands of people all over this country who are tired and sick of so much cold religious formality and who in their hearts are hungering for the strong meat of the Gospel and thirsting for the sincere milk of the word.  They want the plain simple service of the Apostolic Church wherein is manifested love for God, for His word, and for His people.  They want “A thus saith the Lord” for what they believe and practice, and would follow no man farther than he follows Christ.  For such “Pilgrims and Strangers” our people have a heart fellowship, and we would say to them, “Come and go with us.”  “Come out from among them, and be ye separate saith the Lord.”  The Jews, God’s people as a nation, in order to please the Lord and truly serve Him, had to live a separate people.  When they did this, God blessed them and they were prosperous and happy in the land God gave them.  Is it not thus with God’s Spiritual Israelites even now?  And should they not delight in the Lord and have no other gods before them?  Are not Primitive Baptists such a people, and are they not truly concerned about keeping the Lord’s house in the order He left it? Are they not careful to add nothing to, or take from His word?

If so, then there is the great need for Primitive Baptist churches, since but for them, thousands of the meek and humble of the earth would have no spiritual home wherein is true communion of souls and sweet fellowship in the simple service of the Master.  And as all other denominations the country over, are apparently vying with each other in bringing the world, and worldly practices, into the church, let us have at least one denomination in our midst, that is seeking to keep the world and all its institution out of the church. While others are having their Religious Schools, Theological Seminaries, Salaried Ministry, paid Choirs, Instrumental Music, various Societies, Social Clubs, Bazaars and whatnots, let us have one church free from all such things.  We wish others would refuse to turn their houses of worship into houses of merchandise, but if they will not, let us have one denomination in this country that will not make merchandise out of religion in the name of the pure, humble and unselfish Nazarene.  But the Apostle to the Gentiles said, “The Time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”  That time has come as the facts, and the testimony of God’s people, long have proven.  And the Primitive Baptists today need not expect their principles and practices to meet the approval of the popular denominations around us.  But we have a right to look for better things from those who  call themselves Primitive, or Old School Baptists.

And yet from this latter source has come the most determined opposition to the principles and practices of our people.  Men of our own selves have sought to bring in strange doctrines and new practices to the subverting of many and the disturbing of peace and fellowship among the churches. And in doing this, such leaders have almost without exception, pled a purity of spirit and honesty of purpose, and manifested a deep concern about the old church.  They would raise it to a higher plane of popularity and usefulness.  They would lift it “out of the ruts” and make it respectable and attractive to the world, --- seemingly forgetful of the fact that if this could be done it would no longer be the Old Church and the “sect everywhere spoken against.”

This spirit of unrest and dissatisfaction with “the good old way” has led to several divisions.  The first of these was in 1828-1932 when the Baptist denomination of this country split, forming what is now known in name, Primitive Baptists, and Missionary Baptists, or Old School Baptists and New School Baptists. To the unprejudiced mind it is easily shown from unmistakable history that those assuming the title of Primitive or Old School Baptists in that division were those holding to the old doctrine and practice, and were of course the original Baptists, while those advocating new things, were New Baptists, and really a new denomination.  About the same time of general disturbance in the Baptist denomination there was a man of ability and influence, who with his followers was excluded by the church of his membership in the Red Stone Baptist Association of Pennsylvania. This man was born in Ireland, came to this country in 1807, and was baptized by Elder Loos, a Baptist Minister, in 1812. His name was Alexander Campbell, and he founded the denomination now known as Disciples of Christ, and in some sections called Christian Baptists. Thus another new denomination sprang into existence.  After these disturbances there was a half century of comparative peace among the Old School or Primitive Baptists.  But this peace was not to continue undisturbed.

In the latter half of the nineteenth century the spirit of unrest began to be manifested. Dissatisfaction with the old way of the fathers was evidenced in the public and private service of some.  Improvement on the old way of teaching is urged.  The children of Baptists must be saved, and the New Testament plan is not thought sufficient.  The “Heathen” must have the Gospel preached to them, and the Old Baptist system of depending entirely upon the Lord is not considered the proper one.  And so a fireside campaign is put on foot to prepare the Baptists for the public introduction of the things thought to be needed. And the result of all this was that a party within the church was being formed, tutored, and nourished by certain local ministers within the bonds of the Ketocton and Ebenezer Associations, but led mainly by Elder E. H. Burnam, a minister of talent and influence that finally divided churches where peace and fellowship had long been undisturbed.  This party showed their hand in a test of numerical strength, first at the Ebenezer Association which met with the church at Robinson River in 1889, and where by a narrow margin Elder Burnam’s effort to exclude Elder Benjamin Lampton’s Circular Letter, was voted down. Not sufficiently discouraged by their failure, and not willing to let the old church live in peace, the issue was again brought to a test at the meeting of the Ebenezer Association with Alma church in 1890.  Here they again failed to elect their moderator and were by the Association virtually non-fellowshipped and excluded. It was then they undertook the reorganization of the Ketocton Association, which in substance meant the organization of a new Association, composed of those in sympathy with them, which they named Ketocton after the old Association, then in existence and had been for one hundred and twenty-four years.  In this division a new denomination was formed, known in this section as Regular Baptists, having entirely discarded the name Primitive, or Old School. Sometimes they, like the Lutherans and Campbellites, are called after the name of their most prominent leader, but they do not adopt it as their denominational name.

Thus far the writer has endeavored to give a general outline of the principles and practices of our people.  If the reader will peruse the testimony of the many witnesses in this Mt. Carmel Church Case he will be enabled to see clearly who the Primitive Baptists are, and what they stand for.

But it is also thought well to give some information as to what led up to this suit, and the spirit our people manifested towards those who not only brought strife and division in the churches for the sake of their new things, but who would also take from them their church property.  Our people thought that members who were not satisfied with the original doctrine and practice of the old church, should leave in as peaceable and genteel way as possible, and go to those denominations which had what they were clamoring for.  But this they would not do. And as in all such cases, the old party is charged with narrowness, selfishness, ignorance, etc., --- and also with being the cause of the strife and division.  But with fair minded men such charges are seen to be untrue.  Certainly our people at Luray acted as well as they could be expected to do, under the circumstances. When the division came the church membership at Mt. Carmel was about equally divided, and rather than go to law over the property our people agreed to divide time in the use of the building, the Old Baptists holding to their regular meeting days.  For twenty years this arrangement was continued and would possibly be in force today but for the circumstances which led up to the law suit.  Briefly, the circumstances were as follows:  The church building was at the head of a cross street.  In the building of a railroad through town the depot was located almost directly behind the church.  The Town Council of Luray evidently considering our people the rightful owners of the church building, and legally able to contract for the removal of same, entered into such a contract with our Trustees for this purpose. But before any provision of said contract could be carried out, the other party, now the Regular Baptists, got out an injunction, forbidding compliance with the terms of said contract, even though our people had agreed that in the event the old church building was torn down and another built in accordance with contract, no change would be made effecting the previous arrangement of worship, but that the new party should have the same division of time for their services.  The contention of the Means Party was that they be allowed equal interest, and join in the new deed as half owners.  Legally, under the old deed this could not be done, since the original conveyance was made to one denomination and not to two denominations. Besides it conveyed the property to “The Old School Baptists * * holding the doctrine of Election, Predestination, and the final perseverance of the saints to glory, etc., and that the elect were chosen in Christ before the world was.”  And therefore the contention resolved itself into the question: --- Which party are the Old School Baptists?  And our people either had to legally resign what they felt was conveyed to them, or meet the issue in court.  They chose to defend their property rights, and how well they succeeded, is shown by the record of the case and the result of the trial.

The compiler of this work wishes to further say, that the spirit maintained throughout all this legal contest was, generally speaking, commendable.  As a matter of fact religious controversy is generally conducted with too much personal feeling.  This should not be, and when personalities are indulged in it shows a lack of that broad Christian spirit, and matured judgment which dictates that our antagonism should be directed against error, and not individuals. And in the Mt. Carmel Church trial this was mainly true, and that part of the evidence which appears personal in nature has been eliminated from this work. It has not been the purpose of our people to create strife, dissention and ill-feeling among brethren, neighbors and friends, nor to agitate and keep such a spirit alive when brought about by others.  As a rule Old School Baptists love peace, harmony, and that friendly feeling toward all that characterizes the humble child of God.  They are perfectly willing and anxious that others have the right to serve God according to the dictates of their consciences, but want the same privilege themselves.  And this Church case is not published with any desire, or intention, to widen the breach that has been made, or to again stir up any ill-feeling among otherwise good friends that has been, by the hand of time, somewhat allayed. Nor is it published in any spirit of boastfulness because of the verdict rendered in our favor.  In fact, the anticipated publication has been delayed for more than five years, mainly that such motives could not, with any degree of truthfulness, be charged against us. But our object in publishing and sending forth this book is, we trust and believe, a more noble one. We want this record in a more convenient form for the benefit and information of our own people of the Ebenezer and Ketoctan Associations.  We also want it for our own children, that they may clearly see our principles and practices, and wherein we differ and why we differ from other denominations.  And we feel that our brethren in other sections of the United States, who had to meet the same innovations introduced among their churches as did our people in Virginia, will receive especial benefit from this record.  For even now, in certain sections of the country, new things are being introduced among Primitive Baptists to the disturbing of fellowship and dividing of churches, and it may be that the publication and circulation of this trial and decision, will be an encouragement and help to those who are contending for Bible doctrine and practice.  We trust it may.

Primitive or Old School Baptists are not ashamed of their principles and practices, believing assuredly that they are founded upon the fair and impartial interpretation of God’s Word.  Nor are they above suffering for the Truth, however unpopular that truth may be, knowing that Jesus who was, and ever will be, the way, the truth, and the life, himself was unpopular with the religious world.  But He taught the comforting lesson that if we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him.
 
May the sending forth of this record be blessed of God as a witness for His eternal truth, and may many of God’s humble children be comforted, built up and instructed, and His precious name be glorified.

R. H. PITTMAN
 

FURTHER EXPLANATION

COMPLAINANTS-In reading this book bear in mind that those styled the Regular Baptists, the Means Party, and the Burnamites, are the Complainants.

DEFENDANTS-And those styled the Old School Baptists, the Primitive Baptists, and the anti-Means Party, are the Defendants.

 WHO BEGAN THE SUIT-The Complainants began the suit and therefore their testimony comes first in the book as it was first given before the Court. The Defendants’ testimony is found in the latter part of the book.

 COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANTS-Maj. R. T. Barton, Mr. M. L. Walton, Mr. W. F. Keyser, and Maj. E. J. Armstrong, represented the complainants.

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS-Ron. H. H. Downing, Col. R. F. Leedy, Hon. A. G. Weaver, and Mr. R. F. Berry, represented the Defendants.

THE JUDGE-Ron. T. N. Haas, of the Circuit Court of Page County, presided.

TIME AND PLACE-The case was tried in Luray, Virginia, 1909.

WITNESSES FOR COMPLAINANTS-Elder E. H. Burnam, Elder John Huff, Elder J. B. McInturff, Elder Wm. Huff, Elder W. T. Pence, Elder J. L. Paris, W. F. Keyser, Herbert Barbee, Mrs. May S. Thompson, Mrs. Laura C. Perry.

WITNESSES FOR DEFENDANTS-Elder T. S. Dalton, Elder C. H. Waters, Elder R. H. Pittman, Elder J. R. Daily, J. W. Grove, J. B. Compton, I. C. Bumgardner, Mrs. J. K. Booten, John H. Booten, Mrs. Mary A. Miller, M. V. Gander, Rev. H. M. Strickler, Dr. J. F. Long, E. T. Brumback, D. H. Gander, E. L. Yates, J. B. Ruffner, W. E. Grayson, T. R. Campbell, A. M. Hite, David Spitler,C. J. Mauck, John W. Long, B. F. Coffman, Isaac Spitler, J. B. Aleshire, F. H. Tharp, F. W. Weaver, Milton Moyer, Martin Strickler, V. H. Ford.

 THE DECISION-The Judge’s decision was in favor of the Defendants. An appeal was contemplated, and notice of same entered, but the case was never taken to a higher court.

 ELIMINATIONS-Testimony of a personal nature has been eliminated. Also that which appeared as repetition, etc.  Also reference to pages in Counsel’s argument, as such reference was helpful only in reading the type-written testimony. Some eliminations are noted in the body of the book where they occur. And all testimony of the following witnesses left out for reasons given at the close of testimony:---Elders J. L. Paris, Wm. Huff, W. T. Pence and J. R. Daily.
___________

Complainants Testimony
__________

In the Circuit Court of Page County, Virginia
__________

S. L. BATMAN AND OTHERS,
vs.
JOHN W. GROVE AND OTHERS.

Depositions taken before M. M. Richey, Commissioner in Chancery, at the office of E. J. Armstrong, in Luray, Virginia, on September 7, 1908, pursuant to notice hereto annexed.

PRESENT:

For the Complainants:

R. T. BARTON, ESQ.
M. L. WALTON, ESQ.,
MAJ. E. J. ARMSTRONG,
and
WM. F. KEYSER.

For the Defendants:

H. H. DOWNING, ESQ.,
and
COL. ROBERT F. LEEDY,

___________

E. H. BURNAM, a witness of lawful age, called by and on behalf of the complainants, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: *

(* Note - All depositions were taken under oath with about the same formality as above, but this information is, in the following depositions, eliminated for the sake of brevity-Compiler.)

By MR. BARTON:
 
Q. Please state your age, residence and occupation?

A. I am at present a citizen of Virginia; 76 years old, and occupation, minister exclusively.

Q. Of what religious denomination are you a minister, and how long have you been such?

A. I am a minister of the Regular Baptists, or Old School Baptists, as it was called, and is yet in many places.

Q. And how long have you been a minister?

A. I have been a minister , ordained, since the 4th day of April, 1857.

Q. Have you ever been associated  in any way  with the Mount Carmel Baptist Church at Luray, and if so, in what way and for how long?

A. I was chosen the pastor of the Mount Carmel Church in December 1891, I think that was the month---, and was the pastor of the church about five years, until about the year 1896, when I was succeeded by Elder C. L. Yates.

Q. Prior to that time were you in the habit of visiting Luray, and if so, to what extent?

A. I have often visited this county-the churches in this State-commencing with the year 1867. I suppose during that time I must have been here almost every year after the year 1867---well, say, 1875. My second visit was here in 1875. I was here then in 1876, 1877, 1879, I think, and I am not sure whether I was here in 1880 or not, but in two or three years in the ‘80s, I don’t now remember, 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, and 1890 and 1891.

Q. On these visits to Luray, how long would you remain there?

A. The length of my visit varied according to circumstances. It was usually after the filling of appointments that had been made for me in the various churches, several churches, which might last, I should think, one month or more.

Q. Did these visits and your pastorate of the Mount Carmel Church familiarize you with conditions in the church here, and especially with the belief and doctrine held by the members of the church.

A. It did.

Q. I am reading to you now from the deed of Buracker and others, dated March 8, 1849, and made an exhibit in this suit, as follows:

“The said piece of ground and meeting house thereon to be for perpetual use of said Mount Carmel Church of Old School Baptists and their successors holding the doctrine of unconditional and eternal election, predestination of God, final perseverance of the saints to glory, etc., that the elect were chosen in Christ to salvation before the world was.”

Please say if that is a correct statement of the faith and doctrine held by the members of the Mount Carmel church, and also if that was the general doctrine of the church to which you belong at large?

A. This statement embodies the faith of our people--of the people with whom I had membership. All these words, “Unconditional and eternal election, predestination of God, final perseverance of the saints to glory, etc., that the elect were chosen in Christ to salvation before the world was.” There is not a word in that, that does not meet with a response from all our people throughout the land, here and everywhere.

Q. Do I understand you to say that that was the doctrine of the church throughout the country at large?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Have you any authority or references which you can give us of printed books or declaration of faith that sustain that statement?

(Here the witness introduced in evidence articles of faith from Fristoe’s History published in 1808; also quotations from the London Century Confession of Faith issued in 1689 : Also quotations from the Philadelphia Baptist Association from 1707 to 1807; also quotations form Gill’s Commentary, published 1811; and possibly quotations from Benjamin Keach and Abram Booth of England, but as it was agreed by Counsel that witness need not read the authorities, but mark the places, giving the page and book, this evidence did not appear in the regular Counsel’s deposition, and therefore, could not be included in this book without considerable extra cost. Such evidence is filed with the Court’s. Record and would have to be copied. However, it is but fair to say that while the evidence is of interest to Baptists generally, yet it all ante-dated the division of 1832 when the Old Baptists’ position was clearly defined, and for that reason had no special bearing in this case.
Compiler.)

Q. Has there ever been any departure on the part of any considerable body of the membership of the church from the doctrine, which you have stated, from the deed of 1849, and as treated of in the books  which you have cited, and if so, when and under what circumstances did that occur. Speak with especial reference to any such division in the Mount Carmel Church at Luray?

A. Since I was here there has been put forth the idea that a man could be saved, if regenerate, without faith. The faith of Mount Carmel Church, as the faith of all the Baptists of our connection, Old School Regular Baptists, has been by the grace of God through faith. There has been a departure from that in the putting forth of the idea that men could be saved without faith.

Q. By whom has that departure been made?

A. That was made by what we call the Anti-Means Baptists, in 1891. by Dr. Waters, editor of Zion’s Advocate.

Q. I hand you copy of the publication called Zion’s Advocate, of June 1891, and call your attention to the places marked on pages 123 and 124. Please state whether or not that is the publication to which you refer.

A. Yes, sir; this is the book. This is the book to which I refer. Zion’s Advocate and Herald of Truth of June 1891.

Q. Who was the editor of that?

A. The editors were Elders C. H. Waters and T. S. Dalton.

Q. To what church did they belong?

A. They belonged to the Anti-Means Baptists. They were leaders in that body. I once had personal knowledge of both of them.

Q. Without asking you a question was that Rev. Dalton, was he ever Pastor of the Mount Carmel Church here for the Anti-Means?

A. He was.

Q. Do you know about what time?

A. I think that Elder Dalton came here in January or February 1891. He was here a short time before I came and was at that time the pastor of the Anti-Means Baptists.

Q. How long did he remain---about how long?

A. Well, I couldn’t say decidedly, but I should think from, say, five to ten years.

Q. Give us the quotation now?

A. (Reading.) “Faith is the fruit of the spirit and not the soil into which the spirit is planted. Hence it, like repentance, knowledge of the truth, power to hear the gospel and further the growth in Christ is the evidence of spiritual life in the soul and not the means by which life is obtained. Eternal life may exist without all or any of these evidences. Take, for instance, the case of John, the Baptist, had he not the spirit before his natural birth when he leaped at the salutation of the mother of his Lord. Regeneration had certainly taken place but could it have been manifested by his exercise of faith, repentance, etc.? Certainly not. Upon this principle we can rejoice in the hope of the salvation of the infant, the idiot and the heathen who has never heard the name of Jesus. Spiritual and eternal life may exist then apart from a belief in Jesus, repentance towards God or knowledge of spiritual things, all of which are consequent upon and follow after regeneration, and it may please the Lord to remove the subject of his grace from this time state, ere he has developed this spiritual growth, and rear him up beyond the River.”

That was the declared faith of this paper and as I have reason to believe accepted by the people, because subsequently, in 1898, when I gave my opinion of this doctrine, I was assailed by the Editor of this same paper, Elder Daily, John R, Daily, which led to a dispute between us lasting for two or three years. He declared himself the advocate of the same thoughts and ideas.

Q. Now please state whether or not this and other departures, if there were any others, from the faith as laid down in the deed of 1849, extended to the church at large, and especially if it caused a division at Mount Carmel Church in Luray?

A. This division that took place here was of the same nature of the division throughout the country and everywhere. Those who had been associated before, so far” as I have gone in the states of Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Kentucky and Tennessee, have been divided on that point. People which I found everywhere maintained that sentiment.

Q. When did this division occur?

A. It occurred, as it is evident, at least as early as 1889 and 1890, somewhere about that time; that is, a practical, open division. No doubt the difference existed before, but that was when the open disturbance took place. So far as I know, the start of it was in 1889 at Robertson River Church, when I was present. I opposed the division with all the power that I had. I pleaded against it. I pleaded for toleration, but it was denied us, and I left there with a sad heart. I was not present, however, one year thereafter, when the very event took place which I predicted --- a division between the parties.

Q. Was this departure, of which you have spoken, a departure from the faith as laid down in the deed of 1849?

A. As I understand the doctrine of predestination, it was a departure because the Holy Scriptures teach not only the predestination of the saints to eternal life, but it carries with it, their regeneration and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Q. Now state if there was any further departure from the faith as laid down in the deed of 1849, especially with reference to the words “final perseverance of the saints to glory, etc.?”

A. This book---this same paper---Zion’s Advocate and Herald of the Truth, of the same date, June, 1891, contains this as one of its articles, on the second page of the cover, and numbered seven, seventh article: “The final preservation and eternal happiness of all the elect of God by grace.” Now the faith of the Old School Baptists or Regular Baptists, as they used to be called and are still called by us, was salvation by grace through faith, and the perseverance of the saints in grace to glory. The perseverance!  The word perseverance instead of preservation. A clear distinction must be drawn between the two words. Preservation does not necessarily include faith, but perseverance could not exist without it. None persevere unto eternal life except through a God-given faith. Therefore, we hold that there has been .a clear departure from the original faith on these two points that I have named. We hold to the ancient faith, just as it was, and expect to do so while life lasts, as the truth of God.

Q. Now please state whether there was any division in the church at large or in the Mount Carmel Church at Luray upon the subject of means and Anti-means, and please state what these terms indicate?

A. In 1890, the time to which I refer, when the division finally came at Alma Church, Page County, Virginia, in August. I say, at that time the pastor of the church at this place, while there was no division, no dissension, was Elder Charles L. Yates. The Elder from the church went up to the association. He was also the Moderator of the previous meeting and was entitled to the seat as Moderator, when he was refused his right to sit there, and another person was elected in his place, and when the time came on for the reading of the letters, the letter from Mount Carmel Church was rejected, and on the ground that the pastor believed in means and Sunday schools and missions.

Q. Can you state what the Anti-Means believe in in that respect?

A. The Anti-Means evidently disbelieve that, from their refusing the letter on that ground. It clearly implied that they did not believe in the means which we believe in, or Sunday schools or missions. And now I will state what our people have always understood by means. Not that a man or all mankind, or all the angels of God and men combined, could ever regenerate one, but that God, as our fathers taught, spoke through the gospel by his Holy Spirit in the preaching of the word at his pleasure to the regeneration of men. I was asked the question by Dr. Purifoy in 1889 at Robertson River Church, whether he understood me as saying that those men on the day of Pentecost were regenerated through Peter’s preaching and said I, “Sir: You heard me say that God’s holy spirit regenerated those men through the gospel which Peter preached.” I then declared the faith of our people, as it has always been understood. It is God who regenerates, and God alone, and through the gospel.

Q. Has the regular body of the church, to which you belong, since and always adhered to the doctrine of means?

A. In the sense that I have explained, yes, sir.

Q. Will you look at the paper now handed you, marked “Exhibit No.2” and called the minutes of the 49th Anniversary of the Ebenezer Association, and especially the words marked on page 3, and state what was the significance of the change in the committee’s report, eliminating those words?

A. The words read this way :

“The gospel or preached word is not the means of salvation, but points to Jesus saying, ‘Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.’ “ The meaning of the writer of this, the original writer, was that the gospel was in no sense a means of salvation. The striking out of these words “is not the means of salvation,” the paper shows that these words were stricken out by the committee, which showed that the committee, composed of John Clarke, M. J. Sears, Philip McInturff, John A. Corder, Joseph Correll, believed that the preached word was a means of salvation, and the association adopting their report showed that they concurred with the committee in their belief.

Q. Now that we may understand the effect of what you have stated better, please state what was then, and has been, the organization of the Baptist Church, especially bearing
upon the rights of each separate congregation or church, so to speak?

A. I would say that our people do not recognize the word, church, in the sense that other denominations do. We have no such thing as the regular Baptist church. There never has been anything such as the Baptist Church. There are Baptist Churches. They are independent bodies. There was no great body of people formed, as for instance, the Methodist Episcopal Church, or the Episcopal Church, or the Presbyterian Church or the Lutheran Church, and to use the word, church, with respect to the great body of the church as such, is simply to depart from our own course, and imitate the manners of others from whom they have dissented.

Q. Now tell what an association is?

A. An association is simply a body of churches, each independent within itself, agreeing to associate for their mutual edification and strength; that the association has no authority or power over the churches. A cardinal principle among the Baptists heretofore has been that the church—local church, I mean--is the highest ecclesiastical body on earth, and from its decision, there is no appeal, except to the Great God before whom we are all to appear.

Q. Now please state what was the effect of these divisions or dissensions upon the special church, known as the Mount Carmel Baptist Church at Luray. Please narrate what occurred in that body about the time you have spoken of.

A. It was very unfortunate and sad. I was here in 1890, after that unfortunate occurrence. I was here and I was with this church here. In the month of September, the meeting after that unfortunate division the month before, I was here and Elder Charles L. Yates was the pastor, and the church then received a letter of invitation from the church at Bethel to unite with her and other bodies at Salem Church, down in Clarke County, for the purpose of considering the interests of our people. The church heard the letter read and appointed a committee, on the next day to prepare a letter in answer, and the next day, on Sunday, the vote was taken on the adoption of that letter, and an immense majority stood up in favor of it. There were four dissenting voices. Those four by voting at all placed them on the side of the church, because it was taken affirmative and negative and by their voting at all it showed that they recognized the authority of the church in this act. That letter was sent, together with others, down at Salem Meeting House in Clarke County. Those present there from the different churches reorganized the Ketocton Association, upon the original principles of that body.

Q. Was there division actually of the worshipers in the Mount Carmel Church at Luray, and what form did that take? Did they get another pastor or were there two pastors, or did they worship elsewhere. Please explain it all.

A. It resulted in a division, and each had its own pastor. At the time that the church, of  which Elder Charles L. Yates was the pastor, met its brethren in Clarke, the Anti-Means Baptists, as I heard---I cannot say whether that was so or not. I heard it, Met here---

Mr. Barton. Go on, Mr. Burnam.

A. (Continuing.) I say that they met, and what was done, I don’t know, more than they formed a distinct body. The body that came from Alma was one and undivided at the time.

Q. Did these distinct bodies continue to have separate pastors, and where did they worship?

A. They had separate pastors, and worshiped in the same house.

Q. By what arrangement did they worship there.

A. After I became the pastor of this church, both parties met in the same house. The Anti-Means Baptists occupying, as well as I remember, one Sunday in the month and the church itself, the remaining part, the remaining Sundays in the month. There was some sort of an agreement I don’t know what it was---which had been entered into before I came here, and I suppose it was in accordance with that agreement that this was going on before I became their pastor.

Q. Do you know whether that condition existed since and exists now?

A. Yes, sir; it has continued, as I understand, until the present hour.

Q. You were referring to the church building in dispute in this litigation?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are you able to speak of the relative proportions of those who remained in the church and those who formed the separate body known as the Anti-Means?

A. It was always my understanding that the Regulars had a majority.

Mr. Downing. We object to that. Were you present when the vote was taken.

The Witness. I was not here.

Mr. Downing. Then you cannot speak of your own knowledge which had the majority?

The Witness. No; I don’t know.

Mr. Downing. Then I object to the answer.

Mr. Barton. My question really related to what you knew as pastor of the church here, when you were pastor in 1891.

Col. Leedy. I object to the form of the question because hypothecated upon the theory that it was all a foregone conclusion that the Anti-Means Party were not the church.

A. I never saw the record of the other side, nor of our own except as the clerk reported it and as it appeared in the minutes. More than that I cannot say, any further than it was always my understanding---

Mr. Downing. Wait one minute. We do not want your understanding here.

Mr. Barton. Let him answer the question, then you can object to it.

A. (Continuing:) That was my understanding at the time, that the Regulars had a majority.

Mr. Downing. We ask that his answer be stricken out, because he speaks from hearsay.

Mr. Barton. Do I understand you to say you were not present when that vote was taken?

The Witness. I was not present.

Maj. Armstrong. The vote was taken when they were going into another association before the division, when they voted to go to Salem and form another association?

The Witness. It was an immense majority. It must have been.

Mr. Downing. That ought to have been unanimous. They were all your people.

By MR. BARTON:

Q. Were you present at the time the vote was taken to go into this Ketocton---to reorganize this Ketocton Association?

A. I was.

Q. Was that before the actual division of the Mount Carmel Church?

A. So far as I know, it was.

Q. Now please state what the relative proportion---

Mr. Downing. We object to that because he does not know when the division took place.

A.  I think it was about 36 to 4.

Q. Which were the 36?

A. 36 voting in favor of the letter, accepting the invitation of Bethel Church to unite with them in the reorganization.

Q. Were those what are known as Means Baptists?

A. Yes, sir; they were the Means or Regular Baptists. They were the church as it had been.

Q. They were not the seceders?

A. They were not.

Col. Leedy.  But simply seceded.

Q. So far as you can, will you please give the date of this occurrence? The time of this vote?

A. It was on the Sunday, I think, of the September meeting, 1890.

Q. Mr. Burnam, in. this deed of 1849, the church is designated twice by these forms: “The Old School Baptist Church known by the name of Mount Carmel at Luray” and again, “The Mount Carmel Old School Baptist.” Please state what the significance of the words “Old School” are and whether or not they were used as descriptive of the church before the division?

A. They were used as descriptive of the division which took place between them and the body of Baptists known today as Board Baptists.

Q. What and when was that division?

A. That division was here in this State, I think in about 1832, in other parts of the nation the division took place earlier. In the County where I was born in Kentucky, it took place in 1824. In the State of Missouri it did not take place until the ‘40s. There was no one year when the division was made universal. It was at a different time in different localities.

Q. What was the name of the other party?

A. They were called sometimes Arminian Baptists; sometimes Missionary Baptists; sometimes New School Baptists. They were New School Baptists as contra-distinguished from our own people.

Q. Was the word “primitive” ever used in connection with them?

A. I never heard of it here.

Q. What is the difference between the Old School and the New School Baptists?

A. An Old School Baptist is one who believes the truth in all its relations, as I understand.

Q. What does a New School Baptist believe?

A. One who believes a part of it.

Q. Mr. Burnam you have spoken of a difference in the church on the subject of means and anti-means in about 1832, was there any such division, so far as you know, in the
Mt. Carmel Church on that subject prior to 1890 or 1891?

A. Yes, sir. O, yes. The division in 1890 or 1891, I think I have already said, was in consequence of the church being dropped out, because of its pastor, Elder Yates, holding to the use of means, as I have described.

Q. Now I am asking you prior to the time Elder Yates was dropped out, was there any division or separation in Mount Carmel Church?

A. No, sir; not at all.

Q. Now to what extent was there a division between the churches in Virginia, in the different churches in Virginia, in 1832 on the subject?

A. I never heard of any, if there was any.

Q. Now the question I have asked, as to what extent there was a division at large in the State of Virginia?

A. Well, does that mean as to the numbers---the numerical facts.

Q. I only meant it really as a general question, as to whether it was much or little; whether it separated the churches to any large extent, or simply to a small extent. Of
course, I did not suppose you could give the number now.

A.  I think it was very general, so far as that is concerned. It was general.

Q. Does this question of means or anti-means affect the doctrine as laid down in the deed, which I have read, of 1849?

A. Not at all. I don’t see it at all. I don’t see it. There is nothing there. Nothing in those words.

Q. Were you the editor of a religious paper at any time, and if so when and what was its name?

A. I was the editor of the Regular Baptist Magazine for four years, at one time, and then there was an intermission, and its resumption, which lasted six years. The whole period being 10 years.

Q. Will you state whether you have ever been called on to describe the effect of the division of 1832, so far as adhering to the original faith of the church was concerned, and if so, what was the result of the division of 1832 upon the adhering to the doctrine of the church, or departing from it?

A. I think it was very disastrous. I think that it resulted in our own people becoming remiss in their principles, in the execution of their principles. They were not as active
as they would have been, except for that pronunciamento of 1832.

CROSS EXAMINATION

By Mr. Downing.

Q. Mr. Burnam, were you present at that meeting, which you allege was had in September, 1890, when the vote was taken in answer to the invitation of Bethel Church?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where was that vote taken?

A.  It was taken in the church here.

Q. Is there a record of that vote?

A. I don’t know. I suppose so. I never saw the record, and I do not know.

Q. The church keeps a record, doesn’t it, of all matters of that sort?

A. Yes; I suppose it does.

Q. Were you the pastor of the church---the entire church here---at the time that that vote was taken?

A. I was pastor of what I believe was the entire church.

Q. Then you were called by this church before there was a division in
this church?

A. No, I was not. I was called I think in December 1890. Asked to come here. I was not in this country at the time. After the separation, expulsion, whatever it may be, the dropping out of that Mount Carmel Church at Alma.

Q. You know there was a separation of the church in 1890?

A. Yes.

Q. And you know you were not made pastor until 1891?

A. I did not become the pastor of the church until 1891.

Q. Then, don’t you know as a matter of fact, that you were not pastor of that entire church?

A. As the two bodies might be considered one body, I was not, but I do not so regard it.

Q. Weren’t you the pastor of a faction or a portion of that church only?

A. I was pastor of the Regular Baptist element of that church.

Q. You have not answered my question. You are on cross-examination and I ask you, if you were not the pastor only of a portion of that church?

A. I have already answered, sir. The Regular Baptist element of that church.

Q. You are what?

A. I say, I was the pastor of the Regular Baptist element of that church.

Q. Regular Baptist element or division of that church?

A. Portion, or whatever word you please to put it.

Q. I am glad to have whatever is the fact or truth about it. Were you at Ebenezer Association when that association expelled Mount Carmel Church?

A. I was not.

Q. Don’t you know whether that occurred or not?

A. If the evidence of anything is any proof of its existence, I do know it.

Q. You have referred to it in your examination in chief, and have said that the church was expelled?

A. Dropped out, say.

Q. Non-fellowship was declared for it?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know for what reason?

A. The letter refused. It is no part of my faith that an association has any right to excommunicate a church. They have the right to drop it from its role, but that is all it can do.

Q. I am not asking for your explanations, but for facts.

A. Well, you will get it.

Q. Do you know the reason of the expulsion or the refusal of Ebenezer to receive the letter from this church?

A. I know only what was the universal sentiment of the expression of the people after that event I was not there, as I have said.

Q. Do you know whether Ebenezer had warned this church, prior to that time, that if it persisted in the means theory, it would be expelled?

A. I know of no such thing.

Q. Is it customary for churches to belong to associations unless those churches agree in faith with the association?

A. They agree in faith.

Q. Must agree in faith?

A. Yes; but they are in no wise subject to the dictation or suggestion of the association.

Q. That is another explanation of yours. How long had Mount Carmel Church been a member of Ebenezer Association?

A. I suppose at that time, it might have been for fifty, perhaps, forty or fifty years.

Q. Do you know whether Mount Carmel Church elected another minister in the place of Mr. Yates?

A. I know it did not.

Q. Was not Mr. Dalton elected the minister of that church to succeed Mr. Yates?

A. Mr. Dalton was elected by the anti-means.

Q. Well, wasn’t Mr. Dalton elected by a portion of the original Old School Baptist Church to succeed Mr. Yates, who was expelled by that same portion?

A. He was elected by that portion called the anti-means church as their pastor.

Q. That is what I mean?

A. But I will not admit the other part of it.

Q. Now is it customary for the church to send a letter to the association?

A. Yes.

Q. Each church forming that association?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it not the invariable rule that the association writes a letter to the churches which compose the association, at each session of the association?

A. That was the custom. That has been the custom of our people. Do you mean a circular?

Q. It is called the circular letter, is it not?

A. Yes, sir; the circular letter.

Q. Now is it not a fact Mr. Burnam that in 1889, you undertook, at the Robertson River meeting to suppress that circular letter and substitute certain articles of faith in its stead?

A. I did. I undertook to do away with that letter and substitute the original articles of Ketocton Association, in way of peace, and for the preservation of concord and peace.

Q. Is it not a fact that the association repudiated your effort, and the circular letter was read?

A. It is a fact that the circular letter was adopted.

Q. And that your motion to dispense with it and substitute articles of faith was rejected?

A. Yes.

Q. Then that association was opposed, was it not, to the faith that your articles expressed?

A. That is just what I believed, that they were opposed to the original articles of Ketocton; that is exactly so.

Q. Is it not a fact that Ebenezer Association since that time has been opposed to your faith and the faith of the people who are with you now?

A. I am not posted with regard to their acts, but I presume they are opposed to their original principles. I suppose they are. They repudiated them then.

Q. Is it not a fact Mr. Burnam, that there was a portion of Bethel only, sending you this letter asking you to meet them in an association?

A.   It is my understanding that a majority of that church---

Q. That may be true, too. Is it not a fact that it was a portion of the church?

A. Yes; I suppose that may be admitted.

Q. Is It not a fact that all the churches, as you call them, that formed the reorganized Ketocton Association were only a portion of the original churches, whether a majority or minority?

A. In various instances, it was the case.

Q. Is it not universally true. Do you know of one exception?

A. Yes.

Q. Which one?

A. The Salem Church. There was no division in Salem.

Q. There was no division there. Mr. Burnam, isn’t it true that Ketocton Association is still an organization?

A. It claims to be.

Q. Isn’t it a fact that it held its 142d anniversary recently in the town of Front Royal, Virginia?

A. I don’t know whether it did or not.

Q. You cannot speak as to that?

A. That is what you call the Ketocton?

Q. Yes. There Is a Ketocton Association?

A. Yes.

Q. That has been in existence for the 142 years?

A. Yes.

Q. And your reorganized Ketocton Association has been in existence, how many years?

A. It was reorganized in 1890. It was the Ketocton Association continued, because it was the Ketocton Association as it originally was. It stood under the original articles of faith.

Q. What was the last annual association you held; what number? You number these associations, don’t you?

A. 142, I think.

Q. You number yours the same?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I would like to ask you more particularly upon what grounds the separation took place between the New School and the Old School Baptists?

A. Well, that is a question that would require a good while to explain, but I will say generally it was on a doctrinal dispute in the main---a doctrinal dispute---I know it was
with us.

Q. Wasn’t it principally relating to the question of missions, missionary societies, etc.?

A. No sir. That was only an incident.

Q. Do you and your people believe in missions and missionary boards and missionary societies?

A. We believe in missions, but not missionary boards nor missionary societies.

Q. To what extent do you believe in missions?

A. We believe in the missions which God has established in his holy word.

Q. Do you believe in sending missionaries abroad to convert the heathen?

A. We believe in missionaries sent by the holy spirit of God and released by the church to go and preach in foreign lands or at home, just as God shall order.

Q. Then, to an extent, you do believe in foreign missions?

A. Certainly, if it be pleasing to God to send a man to foreign lands.

Q. On the question of Sunday schools, do you believe in that to the same extent?

A. We believe in Sunday schools, according to our own view of what Sunday schools ought to be.

Q. Do you believe in instructing the youth in the Bible in church on Sundays?

A. Yes; we do.

Q. Isn’t that a Sunday school?

A. Yes.

Q. Then you believe in Sunday schools?

A. Certainly.

Q. Do you believe in instrumental music in church, as part of the Church worship?

A. That cannot be answered on behalf of all the churches. I cannot say that all of our churches accept that, but some do.

Q. Does this church believe in it?

A. This one here does.

Q. Do you believe that the preached words ever accomplishes the regeneration of sinners?

A. Do you mean within itself? sir?

Q. Yes, sir; the preached words, the Bible delivered.

A. It does not.

Q. For what purpose, then, do you believe preaching is necessary?

A. In behalf of God for the quickening of sinners; his elect people, in behalf of God.

Q. I understand you to say that there never could be Salvation without Faith?

A. I will say that there is no recorded instance in there, of anyone being saved, apart from Faith, and the teaching of Holy Writ to me is that Salvation is by the Grace of God through Faith. And I will add that disbelief in Christ is recorded as condemnation and Death.

Q. You do not mean to say then that one having no Faith now, yet may be a Child of God?

A. I deny that there is any recorded instance of anyone ever being saved eternally where there is no faith.

Q. Do you mean to say that a sinner in this house, in this room, who has no knowledge that he is one of the elect, and afterwards becomes convinced that he is, will be saved?

A. No man in this house who is not convinced that he has sinned has any right to say that he is one of the elect.

Q. Well, man has not perhaps any right to say that. But, do you believe that there may be men in this room who are sinners at this time, and yet may hereafter receive the Salvation of God?

A. Certainly, certainly.

Q. Then, one may have no faith, and subsequently be saved?

A. Not without faith.

Q. Oh, no. Not at the time of his salvation, of course, but he may not have the faith now and subsequently acquire it.

A. If God give it to him.

Q. According to your doctrine, did not God predestine that man to be saved before he was born?

A. Undoubtedly.

Q. Then there may be one here who will go to eternal glory who has now no faith?

A. And who never will have faith?

Q. Oh, I did not say that.

A. That is material to the issue.

Q. And I do not think anybody else has said that. I think there is the difference between you and that magazine article.

A. My faith on predestination is that God’s people---that while predestinated to eternal life are predestinated to eternal life through sanctification of the spirit and a belief of the truths. If anybody denies that let him go to God with it, with his denial.

Q. You have drawn a distinction between perseverance and preservation?

A. I have.

Q. Please tell the commissioner whether or not it is your belief that God has predestined one to be saved, whether that one can by means of his own fall from grace?

A. He cannot.

Q. He cannot be lost?

A. He cannot be lost, because the means as well as the end has been provided for.

Q. Then he will be finally preserved?

A. He will finally be kept by the power of God through faith up to salvation.

Q. Won’t preserve be as good a word as perseverance?

A. It will not.

Q. He will be finally saved, will he not?

A. He will not be finally saved simply by preservation. He will be finally saved by perseverance through faith.

Q. With which he has nothing to do?

A. Which God will impart to him.

Q. God gives him the faith as well as all of these other endowments?

By Mr. Leedy:

Q. What has his perseverance to do with it?

A. God imparts, Mr. Leedy, grace of faith to work out his course, to work out his salvation according as God has worked in him with his regenerating grace.

Q. After all, God does it all, doesn’t he?

A. Certainly, it is God working in us to will and to do according to his will and pleasure.

By Mr. Downing:

Q. I understand that you came here in 1867 for the first time?

A. Yes.

Q. You know nothing of what had been the practice in this church or the faith and doctrine of this particular church independently?

A. No, except as expressed through letters and otherwise. One of the most distinguished ministers of this country, of our people in this country, visited my country in 1853.

Q. You know nothing of your own knowledge?

A. I heard Elder William C. Lauck preach the gospel before I ever came here and he preached the very doctrine that our people held in Kentucky at the time we were there.

Q. Do you know that Mr. William C. Lauck was opposed to Sunday schools, and to Bible societies and to missionaries?

A. I do not.

Q. If you were to be convinced of that fact you would then say that you had been misinformed about Mr. Lauck, would you not?

A. Of course, if there is any information that I do not possess, that would affect the question.

Q. I think I can give you some information upon that subject, but I won’t take the time now. Is it not a fact, Mr. Burnam, that the principle difference between you and those who are with you is that you believe in means and they are opposed to means?

A. Well, yes, to a certain extent, that is true but that is not all of it. They believe something that I do not believe, and we do something that they will not do.

Q. You do something that they will not do?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is that?

A. We believe that men ought to pray for the salvation of men and those whom God has sent to foreign lands to preach the gospel, and they do not.

Q. Well, that is means, ain’t it?

A. It involves means, but I say, it is not means only. It is not simply the belief in the means, but the action along with it.

Q. Does not your belief involve means and human agencies?

A. It does if God so wills it, yes.

Q. And how do you know God wills it?

A. By his putting it in the heart of the people to conform to his will in that case.

Q. You don’t get it then from the Bible but from the hearts of the people?

A. I get it from the Bible which says that God will work in the hearts of his people. He uses men to do the things that he intends shall be done.

Q. Do you find anywhere in the Bible that God directs you to pray for foreign missionaries?

A. He tells me to pray for all men everywhere.

Q. That is a little broad, isn’t it?

A. Well, what do you say about it?

Q. There is no more reason for praying for the missionaries than praying for anybody else, there is no special direction in the Bible for you to pray for foreign missionaries.

By Mr. Leedy:

Q. Did I understand you to say, Mr. Burman, that faith was necessary to regeneration?

A. It is inseparable from regeneration, Mr. Leedy. We do not say that a man must believe in order to be regenerated. We don’t say that a man must be regenerated in order to believe, but being regenerated he believes, and believing he is regenerated. They are simultaneous and inseparable.

Q. You believe that faith is necessary to salvation then?

A. Oh, yes, certainly, just as much as regeneration is.

Q. Do you believe that infants are ever elect?

A. All infants are elected.

Q. Well, faith is not necessary to their salvation, is it?

A. There is one recorded instance of a man who was unborn, who rejoiced in God, the Saviour.

Q. You have reference to John leaping in his mother’s womb?

A. Yes, sir; for joy. Don’t say simply leaping, but leaping for joy.

Q. You think he had faith. Is that what gave him joy?

A. How can a man rejoice without faith, Mr. Leedy?

Q. I don’t know. I am asking you for information.

A. I say, no. I say it is impossible.

Q. You think then that an infant may rejoice from belief?

A. I see no reason to believe that the Almighty Spirit of God cannot impart all the blessings of regeneration to any infant that leaves this world, in the twinkling of an eye.

Q. Do you believe that prayer would do any good in the direction of regeneration of anybody?

A. When God imparts the spirit of prayer, Mr. Leedy, it is always for the purpose---his word will never return to him void. He always intends to execute his purpose, and whether a man knows---whether he is prayed for or not, there is no reason to believe that a single human being ever went to the world of glory without prayer, because if the children of God themselves did not pray for him, which they are assured to do, you may say, we know that Christ does. He prays for them.

Q. But he never went to glory unless he was one of the elect, did he?
 
A. Of course not.

Q. If he was elected what would prayer have to do with it?

A. It has to do for it just what God designs it shall have. Prayer is the course through which the Lord is pleased and manifests his will. You get the idea?

Q. I must confess that I do not. Well, then, what about the salvation of idiots? Now that comes right close to me perhaps.

A. Well, you may be very glad---you ought to rejoice then, if that is the case, Brother Leedy, that God is the Saviour of idiots, just as he is of infants.

Q. Well, an idiot might not be capable of belief, an imbecile, we will say.

A. The question is not whether he may be or not, it is a question of infinite power from God.

Q. Well, could you give an example of that?

A. I do not recall any case in holy writ where anyone non compus mentis has been spoken of. The Bible does not speak to me about that, but I have just as much reason to give my opinion of it, as you have to suggest any such thing.

Q. Certainly you have. How in the imbecile would the exercise of faith be made manifest?

A. That is not for me to say, Mr. Leedy. Secret things belong unto the Lord. It is things that are revealed that belong to us and to our children.

Q. I will ask you this: Do you remember when the first Sunday school was organized in the Mount Carmel Baptist Church?

A. I don’t know whether I can say the first one. I know when the present one was.

Q. How long ago was that?

A. That was in the year 1887.

Q. Do you know how long it has been since the Mount Carmel Baptist Church contributed to or in any way supported the missionaries in the field?

A. I believe that the first contributions that were made here in the Mount Carmel Church were to Mr. G. P. Bostick.

Q. In what year, sir?

A. I don’t know, but I presume it was about the year 1897.

Q. Do you not know that there was never, from 1849, or even previous to that time, a contribution or support of any kind to the missionary cause in the Mount Carmel Baptist Church, until 1887?

A. I do not know it.

Q. Do you know when the Mount Carmel Baptist Church first began to praise God by instrumental music?

A. No, I don’t know just when that was, some years ago though.

Q. It was since the division; was it not?

A. Yes.

Q. In reference, Mr. Burman, to the letter of invitation from the Bethel Church---that letter of invitation was received, I understand, after there had been a rupture in the Mount Carmel Church; is that true?

A. It was received, yes, after the action of this Alma Church refusing the letter of this church which was sent up there with its messengers and the appointment of one of those who had been appointed as a messenger, the clerk of that association.

Q. Now then, you had a meeting, I believe, placing that letter before your church, taking a vote upon it, as to the response you would make, whether accepting the invitation or not?

A.   Yes.

Q. And I understood that that vote stood 36 to 4?

A. That is what I said according to the best of my recollection.

Q. I understand that there were 40 members present at that meeting?

A. I should suppose so.

Q. That 40, of course, were members of your wing of the Church, were they not?

A. Four were not.

Q. So that you did not have an expression at all of the whole church at that time?

A. We did not have an expression, Mr. Leedy, as it were of the whole party before the action of Alma.

Q. I believe you said there was one exception perhaps in the division --- that there had been division in all the churches of the Ketocton Association, except perhaps Salem?

A. Yes.

Q. That Salem, it seemed, was unanimous with you---with your wing?

A. Yes.

Q. Now is it not a fact that Salem was in a disorganized condition at that time, not even having a pastor?

A. It was not. That was not the case at all.

Q. You formed the re-organized Ketocton Association. What had constituted the Ketocton Association prior to that time---what churches, I mean?

A. Well, there were some churches began to in Maryland, and some in Virginia. I don’t know that I could give their names all of them. There was Salem Church and Goose Creek Church and perhaps one or two others.

Q. But the Mount Carmel Church was never a part of that association, was it?

A. No.

Q. Then when you reorganized you re-organized an association composed of more and different elements than the original Ketocton Association?

A. Yes. They were churches of the two associations.

Q. Churches that withdrew?

A. Churches of the two associations, Ketocton and Ebenezer, that reorganized the Ketocton.

Q. The churches of the two associations you re-organized into one association and called that Ketocton?

A. When I say the churches of the two associations, I mean Ebenezer and what had been called Ketocton before that.

Q. Well, Ketocton, as called before that and as called now, was still an actual living organization, and is today ; wasn’t it?

A. I have no knowledge of that fact. I suppose it was. I presume it was.

Q. In other words you resurrected a living body?

A. No sir; we resurrected a dead body. We re-organized the church under the original principles, principles which they refused in 1889.

Q. Why didn’t you resurrect Ebenezer, and reorganize that association, to which you belonged?

A. We had no use for but one association at that time.

By Mr. Downing:

Q. Mr. Burnam, what was the number of churches that belonged to the reorganized association?

A. To the best of my recollection, there were eight that assembled there.

Q. Do you know the membership of those churches---how many?

A. I do not, exactly, but they were not numerous, perhaps as many as 120 to 150. I don’t know what the number was.

Q. What is the number of the reorganized Ketocton Association today?

A. About four hundred.

Q. You have increased them since that time?

A. Yes sir.

Q. What new churches belong to your reorganized Ketocton Association?

A. Well, there is the church at Antioch, and the Rocky Branch Church and Hughes River and Mount Olivet. Those four that I remember.

By Col. Leedy:

Q. Then you added four churches to the Ketocton Association?

A. Those have joined since the reorganization.

Q. Does Big Spring belong to the Ketocton Association?

A. Yes.

Q. That would be the fifth would it not?

A. Yes; the Big Spring church of our association is an off-shoot from Mount Carmel.

Q. It is an offshoot from Mount Carmel?

A. Yes. The regular element of the Big Spring church united with other members from here organized there.

Q. Then your Ketocton Association is composed of half, or more than half, of new organizations altogether; isn’t that true?

A. May be so.

Re-Direct Examination.

By Mr. Barton:

Q. I omitted to ask you, Mr. Burnam, whether or not there had been some decision by the courts, that you are aware of, touching the right of property as affected by this division on the subject of means and anti-means, and if there has been, will you please say if this record, which I place in your hands, is the one? (Record,
marked Exhibit No.3)

A.  Y es sir; that is the record.

Mr. Downing: We object to this paper as being a decision of the lower court and not binding even upon the courts of that State?

By Mr. Barton:

Q. Mr. Burnam, you can answer the question?

A. This is the record of a suit that was instituted in the State of Ohio at which I was present. I recognize these names, Sylvanus S. Ward and others vs. John Kibblinger and others. I recognize that, sir.

Q. Who preceeded you, Br. Burnam, as pastor in charge of the Mount Carmel church?

A. Elder Charles L. Yates.

Q. Is that the pastor who was in charge at the time of the church being dropped from Ebenezer Association?

A. It is.

Q. You spoke of a Sunday school being established in 1887, was that by the undivided church?

A. Yes sir; that was by the undivided body. It was before the division at Alma.

Q. Was it generally concurred in and supported by the whole body of the church?

A. Entirely so. So far as I know, there was no objection at all.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Downing.

Q. Don’t you know that that was opposed by members of the church. Isn’t it within your knowledge that Mr. John W. Grove refused to act as clerk any longer.

A. I know that Mr. John W. Grove was the gentleman to whom our Sunday school books were ordered to be sent.

Q. Don’t you know that Mr. Grove resigned the clerkship on that account. That was my question.

A. I don’t know that, I don’t know. I know that he did. He was not the clerk at a certain date. When I came back here he was not clerk. I was not here after the organization of that Sunday school.

Q. Don’t you know that Mrs. Lucy Brumback, the daughter of William C. Lauck, asked for a letter of dismissal on account of these new practices in the church?

A. I have heard that she sent a letter asking for dismissal, but I do not know why. I never saw her letter, nor do I know from her own lips, why she asked for that letter. I know the fact that she was dismissed.

Q. Isn’t it a fact that there was dissention there upon this question?

A. After awhile there was. I suppose there was. I think Mr. Grove himself became a dissenter.

Q. And isn’t it the reason of their dissension because of certain practices that were established then that had not existed hitherto?

A. I don’t know that that was the case. It may have been so. I don’t know why they did it. I don’t know what their motives were.

Q. Was there a church record of this vote as to the introduction of an organ and Sunday school?

A. I cannot say. I don’t know. I was not here at the time.

Q. Then how can you speak positively as to the lack of dissension, if you were not here?

A. Actions, my dear sir, speak louder than words. We know from their conduct. We know that there were some that came to the Sunday schools and afterwards turned their back on it; that is all.
Q. Isn’t the information that you have upon that point, Mr. Burnam, from hearsay; didn’t somebody tell you there were no dissenters?

A. A man don’t have to hear anything when he sees some one going away from him.

Q. I asked you if you didn’t get your information that way?

A. I have answered that question.

Q. No; you have not answered it. You have stated another proposition. That question admits of yes or no?

A. I know, Mr. Downing, that certain persons who once were with us in the organization were not there afterwards; that is all I can tell you.

Q. Then you say nobody told you or gave you this information by word of mouth?

A. Of course it was talked about, of course; but that I got my information in that way, I do not know.

RE-RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Barton:

Q. Is Elder Charles L.Yates still living?

A. No sir; he is not.

Q. You have stated that it was under Charles L. Yates’ pastorate that this church was dropped from Ebenezer Association. Will you. state whether, when he was dropped and after the division of the church, and before you came here as pastor to succeed him, that Elder Yates continued to teach in the church the same doctrine that is contained in the deed?

A. He did.

Q. And that doctrine was accepted by the people to whom he preached?

A. It was.

Q. Did he also preach the Means’ doctrine during that time?

A. Continually.

Q. And did you, when you succeeded here to the church?
A. I did.

Q. And you preached the doctrine of the deed of 1849?

A. Of this deed; certainly.

Q. And that was accepted by the members of your church?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And, also the Means doctrine?

A. Yes sir. I never had any other faith on that subject except that written out in the deed.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Downing:

Q. Now coming back to the question I asked you awhile ago, and you did not give me a direct answer to: Isn’t it a fact that the doctrine preached by Mr. Yates caused Ebenezer Association to expel Mount Carmel Church?

A. It is not.

Q. What caused Ebenezer to expel Mount Carmel?

A. I think it was malice.

Q. All these churches had malice against Mount Carmel?

A. It was all maliciousness that did it.

Q. What did it consist of?

A. Well, men can become excited, you know, Mr. Downing, over very small matters. People who have peculiar views cannot bear to be tolerant. It was the spirit of intolerance and of viciousness that brought on this trouble. It was from the evil one and not from God.

Q. Didn’t you tell me awhile ago that the association had a right to expel a church that was not in full fellowship with it?

A. It has a right to drop the church from its list.

Q. Because they differ in faith. Now what other motive could there have been except the difference in faith that caused Ebenezer to drop Mount Carmel?

A. As I have already said, the love of God is often lost through our own prejudice and narrow-mindedness; that is all there was of it. I strove, Mr. Downing, with all the power that I had to prevent the division that took place when the next year it came on here. It was nothing but a bad spirit that ever led to this, because there was no trouble here in this church at that time. There was none.

Q. Were you not asking for new things and new practices, at the same time you were asking for peace?

A. I was asking for old practices, Mr. Downing.

Q. You deny that you were asking for new practices?

A. I do. We were striving for old practices. We were trying to reset old landmarks which had been removed.

Q. Weren’t you asking for Sunday schools?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you asking for missionaries?

A. Yes.

Q. And Bible societies?

A. Yes.

Q. And the use of church organs?

A. No sir; I never said a word about church organs.

Q. How do you believe on that subject, of church organs?

A. I am entirely quiescent about it. If a church wants to have it, they may have it; if opposed, all right.

Q. Now, Mr. Burnam, isn’t it a fact that Mr. Perry, who was the minister of Mount Carmel before Mr. Yates came here as pastor, adhered to the anti-Means side of this question?

A. I do not know it.

Q. Never heard him talk?

A. I know he was not when I first knew him. What he became after that I don’t know, but I know he was not when I first knew him.

Q. You never heard him express himself on that subject later?

A. I have heard him time and again and he and I were exactly together, exactly together.

Q. Mr. Perry and Mr. Yates then were together, and you all three stood together?

A. Yes sir. If we were not, I do not know it. I believe we were. I am sure we were. When I said awhile ago, if I am allowed to add a word, that we were endeavoring to reset old land marks which had been moved, the authorities are here for showing that before there were any divisions at all among the Baptists they not only believed in missions but in Sunday schools, and if I had read from these books here that would have appeared.

Q. Isn’t it true that all the people who afterwards formed the New School Baptists were part of the church when those authors spoke?

A. Certainly. It was before the division. Certainly. Before there was any contention at all among the Baptists.

Q. Then, if the new School Baptists were in the majority at that time, or the doctrine now held by the New School Baptists was in the minds and hearts of a majority, those books could be written as they were, notwithstanding a minority opposed them.

A. No doubt. At the time the division took place there was no dissension at all, respecting the method of missions and of Sunday schools; the use of catechisms as were ordered by the churches and their view of missions. It was exactly the same, and just like ours. After that there was a departure from the use of Sunday schools and the method of missions, I believe---I have no doubt---one going one way and the other the other.

Q. You don’t know the history of Ebenezer Association. From 1834 up to 1870, Ebenezer Association on four or five occasions voted against foreign missions; are you aware of that fact?

A. Very well. I was not aware of that. That does not affect the question at all though, as to what this church could do and had a right to do, because the association has no authority or power over the churches.

Q. You know nothing of what this church did from 1834 up to the time you came here?

A. No.

By Mr. Leedy:

Q. You are morally certain, are you not, that they had none of these innovations in 1849, when this deed was written?

A. I don’t know of any innovations. If you say renovations perhaps you will come nearer stating the facts. I cannot tell about that; I do not know. As I have said, I am not acquainted with the history of the Ebenezer Association except from the time I first came to this State; but I know what this church held when I was here and before.

Q. Did they have any Sunday schools here in 1867, when you first began to come here to this Mount Carmel Church?

A. I have been told that there had been meetings in the church for the study of the word of God. I have been told so.

Q. Did they support missionaries at that time?

A. I never heard of any public contribution being taken; but for aught I know that has been the case for a long term of years. Regular Baptists or Old School Baptists have been contributing to the propagation of the gospel through missionaries. I know that to be so.

Q. But most of that element went off with the New School in 1832 and 1834; did they not?

A. Perhaps the majority did, but there were missionaries years after the division.

Q. In full accord with the old church?

A. Yes. In the West there was money raised at our association by the churches and sent for the propagation of the truth.

Q. I cannot see the point of difference then between the Old School and the New School?

A. I have already said, Mr. Leedy, we hold to the whole truth and they only to a part of it.

Q. Now what part is it that they do not hold to?

A. Well, we are not afraid to say that we take the whole confession of faith of our fathers. Now, when men like the Reverend Mr.------, the last pastor of the church here---Kennard, when he and I were here, we were together, and there are men like that all over the land of the missionary Baptists.

Q. I do not know of any New School Baptist minister that you are not together with and that is what I am trying to find out?

A. There are many so-called Missionary Baptists that I am not with, Mr. Leedy, I can tell you that very plainly, because it is not very long ago that I had a contention with one in the West.

Q. You are in full accord with Mr. Kennard?

A. So far as I know his faith, he and I were together. He was in the wrong place.

Q. Did you agree with him on the missionary questions and the Sunday school question?

A. I never had any talks with him on those points.

Q. Those are the things you are divided upon with the other brethren, and it seems to me you ought to have talked with him about those things?

A. Well, perhaps so.

By Mr. Barton:

Q. Did you know Elders Dalton, Clark, Darnel Hess, Alderton, Goodson and Purifoy?

A. I knew everyone of them.

Q. They became members of the anti-Means side; did they not?

A. Yes.

Q. Had they not advocated Sunday schools and missionaries?

A. Every one of them had.

Q. That was under the old regime?

A. Yes sir. On the question of missions, so far as Mr. Dalton is concerned, I wish to modify my answer to that question. So far as the Sunday school is concerned I cannot say that about Mr. Dalton respecting Sunday schools, but I know on the question of missions, he was as strong a missionary as I was at the time he wrote his paper, the Herald of Truth, for it was one of those articles of his that I used in my own defense in 1891 in an assault that he made upon me when he started.

Q. All these others are dead?

A. Though dead, they are living. Their papers are living. Though dead, yet they speak.