COMPLAINANT’S TESTIMONY IN REBUTTAL.

ELDER E. H. BURNAM: In answer to interrogatories by R. T. Barton, Esq.:

Q. Mr. Burnam, Doctor Waters, in the testimony he had given in this case, states that at the association at Roberson River, in 1889, “The Ebenezer Association sustained the Old Baptist doctrine and refused to take Burnam’s substitute.” Tell us about this particular meeting and the part you took in it?

A. There was a circular presented there by Elder Ben. Lampton, which was inflammatory and calculated to produce division, and in order to prevent the division, as a minority committee, the minority part of the committee, I proposed to the association to adopt the articles of faith on which Ketocton Association was founded in 1766. I notice that there is something said about a circular letter of mine; or a circular letter, perhaps, of Mr. Fristoe. There was no circular letter of mine or pretended to be offered there instead of this paper. I saw as plainly as I could see anything that if the same spirit prevailed and continued, there would be a division of our people, and I never was more earnestly desirous, since I have been born, to keep our people in union than I was then. I was so much interested in it, that during a speech which I made there, I could hardly keep from bursting into tears. I called upon Mr. Lampton to withdraw his paper for twelve months, and allow us to have time to consider it, so that we could come together; and that entreaty of mine was joined in by the Moderator, Brother Charles L. Yates, and also by the Clerk of the association, A. N. Finks, who asked them the same question, “Will you not withdraw this? Do withdraw this paper, Brother Lampton.” Brother Lampton seemed to be so much affected by what was said that he went to the other members of the committee, and came back and reported they were not willing to accede to my wishes. I wish to say that when I went there, when we came to the business part, the part of the business bearing on the circular letter, there was a committee of four persons appointed, as well as I now remember, besides the clerk. There was Mr. T. N. Alderton, of West Virginia, and a Mr. Archie Brown, of Indiana, and I was the fourth one added to it. There were three on the one side, and I was on the other---three against one. I went to those gentlemen, to Mr. Brown among the rest, and I said to him, “Mr. Brown, if you gentlemen will meet me at some point in the morning, we will talk over this circular letter.” They didn’t do it. They failed to do it; and the next day when we got to the place of meeting, I asked Mr. Alderton, who was chairman of this committee,  whether they had agreed upon anything, and he said, yes they had agreed to report that circular, and he in return asked me what I thought, l and I said I dissented from the report of that circular. He wished to know why, and what my objections to the circular were, and I said I would give them at the proper time; and when the time came I stated my objections, as I have already said, I pleaded with that body not to pass that paper, which I predicted would result in a division, and so deeply interested was I, as I have said, it was all I could do to retain my composure. As God is my witness, this is true.

Mr. Downing: Have you finished that branch of your answer.

A. (Continuing): I wish to go on and say in that particular, that as to the division, I deprecated it beyond expression. There was nothing I was so unwilling to see. I did all I could to prevent it. I know that for years I have been hounded all over this country as the cause of that division, but my God knows it is not true. I did all I could to prevent it. I told them that if I was the bone of contention, if I was the trouble, if I was the Jonah, all they had to do was to pitch me overboard, and I would never come back to this state without the consent of the Baptists here. That is a part of what passed there, gentlemen, as God is my witness, and those who are here---I see Mr. Coffman here, he knows whether that is true or not. If his memory serves him, he knows that all I say is true. But when the vote was taken---well, going back one moment. There were speeches made there on both sides, Brother Perry on the side of the paper I presented, the articles of faith of Ketocton Association in 1766; and on the other side there was Dr. Waters, who made one or more speeches. And during the time I was speaking, I was interrupted at least three times, and to each one of these interruptions I returned an answer that I believe God gave me. I know that He helped me there in my contest for the right. Then, as I say, a vote came on, and just by the failure of Brother Perry, Elder F. M. Perry failing to vote the vote of the church at Edinburg, Union Church, my proposition was lost. I wish to say here that when the chairman came in to make his report, he moved the adoption of this, and it was seconded; but before the vote was taken, I appealed to the Moderator that I had a right to propose a substitute in place of it, in the way of what they call---well, an amendment, I believe that is what these congressional men call it. I knew I had that right and that my vote would precede the other; and so the vote was taken on the amendment which was my own proposition to substitute the articles of 1766 instead of that inflammatory and defamatory paper which was read there by Brother Lampton. As I have just remarked, by the failure of Brother Perry to cast the vote of Edinburg, it was lost, and the other then came on and was adopted.

By Mr. Barton:

Q. Mr. Burnam you have been spoken of by several witnesses in this case, principally elders in the church, as if you had been a leader of sedition and organizer of dissension, as bringing about by acts and speeches of yours, division in the church in 1890. Will you please state what you did in the premises, and if you did preach or advocate any heretical doctrine, and what responsibility really rests upon you in this matter?

A. I have been a visitor to the State of Virginia now since 1867. I have never published anything else than the doctrine entertained by our people. It could not therefore have been any sentiments of that sort that led to this trouble. I never proposed that any sentiment that I might have, respecting the practice of the church, should be accepted by anyone else, unless he felt to do so. There never has been a time when I would have lifted my finger toward a division amongst my people in the days that have passed and gone. I would have been willing to have suffered death rather than do that. I came here in 1887, and I stated to these brethren what I had often done before, that I believed we were neglecting our children and the ignorant; and I thought they ought to be taught the word of God, and that I favored, as we had had in the State of Kentucky in our church there of the same order, a Sunday school; but I wouldn’t do it unless they were all agreed to do it. And I am here to say in the presence of all these people, that not one single movement was made in that direction until I had gone and conversed with all the members of the church in this town, as far as I knew them, and it was only in concurrence with these brethren and sisters in this church by a rising vote as to whether when we did meet they would join in this movement to come to the house of God and study the word of God on Sunday, only then did I propose it, and as I think one of these brethren who has given in his testimony said, I think it was Doctor Long, as I said up at the Hawks Bill, if there was any opposition to it, I wanted it to be dropped. If there was any dissension in Luray when this was proposed in 1887 in the month of June, I wanted them to speak it, and I declare here that there was no dissension, it was one unanimous rise, except on the part of one brother, and that Brother, Mr. Booton Compton, when sitting in his seat, said, “Brother Burnam, I have not risen up, but I am not opposed to this movement; and when this had been agreed upon, one of the brethren at that church, Mr. John W. Grove, asked me whether I would be here at the coming Saturday or Sunday, I don’t remember which, for the purpose of having this organized, and I told him that I could not; that Bro. Perry and I were under promise to go to Southwest Virginia, and when we came back. It wasn’t until I came back that I would be at liberty to do so; but I named a day when I could, and on that day, when the assembly gathered, a vote was taken again, and upon the issue there met we met together for the purpose of teaching the word of God. That was in 1887 in the month of June. It seems to have been regarded as a great crime that a man should teach the word of God, a great offense, a great sin, on the part of anybody, that he should teach his children on any day in the week, Sunday or any other day. It looks strange that any one should look at it in such a way. This is the truth. Does that answer your question?

Q. Yes, sir. Where are you living, Mr. Burnam?

A. I have never withdrawn my residence from the State of Virginia. I consider myself a resident still of Loudon County, Virginia, although for reasons, sickness and poor health of my brother, his failing health and his wish that I should be in Kentucky, I have been there for the last twelve months. It may be I shall be there longer.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Weaver:

Q. You came here before and testified, didn’t you?

A. I did last September.

Q. This association to which you have referred was held in 1889?

A. It was.

Q. What church were you a pastor of at that time in this state?

A. In 1889?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. I don’t think I was living here in 1889.

Q. You attended the Ebenezer Association, however, at that time, did you not?

A. I did.

Q. What churches composed that association, Mr. Burnam, at that time?

A. I really can’t tell you.

Q. Were they Virginia churches?

A. They were Virginia churches.

Q. Exclusively.

A. Certainly, sir.

Q. Were you a messenger from any of those churches?

A. I was not a messenger; but I was an invited guest.

Q. You were not the pastor of any church, however, that belonged to that association?

A. No; I was not.

Q. What church were you pastor of at that time, Mr. Burnam?

A. I was pastor of the Richmond, Kentucky, church.

Q. A Kentucky church. What church invited you to be present on that occasion?

A. I was invited by the Robertson River Church, and also by the gentleman who afterwards became the Moderator of the association.

Q. Now your objections to this Lampton letter---as I understand, you had objection to that letter?

A. I did.

Q. I understood you to say you would not tell the committee your objections, but reserved them for what you believed to be a proper time; isn’t that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now Mr. Burnam, if you were so interested in preventing this division, in preventing the publication of this letter, why would you not have gone and stated you objections to the members of the very committee that had charge of that letter---why would you not tell them?

A. I had no opportunity, Mr. Weaver. I have already told you that.

Q. Didn’t you state a moment ago that when you were asked by that committee your objections, you declined to tell them, and stated you would do so at the proper time?

A. I did.

Q. You must have had an opportunity then?

A. I had an opportunity to do it, but I didn’t do it.

Q. You did have an opportunity to do it then, did you not?

A. I had an opportunity and I used the opportunity.

Q. Now, Mr. Burnam, you understand my question. I think, sir. Didn’t you have an opportunity to tell the committee in charge of that letter your objections to it?

A. I couldn’t have done that where we were, Mr. Weaver, because it was just before the entrance into the church.

Q. What were your objections to it?

A. My objection to the letter read there by Mr. Lampton were both as to letter and spirit; there were statements made in it which I could not approve of---I don’t remember---I cannot remember now, but there were statements made that I could not approve, and the spirit that ran through it was not the spirit of Christ.

Q. That was according to your idea of it?

A. That was my objection.

Q. Now Mr. Burnam, this committee to which you have referred, was a committee appointed for the very purpose of considering and reporting and suggesting actions by the association on that letter; isn’t that a fact?

A. Certainly that committee was appointed to report on that subject.

Q. And, as I understand you to say, although you had these serious objections---so serious that you could hardly keep yourself composed---you did not urge your objections before that Committee?

A. As I have said, Mr. Weaver, there was no opportunity to do it. I proposed to Mr. Brown to meet me at a certain place, and I would talk with him about that very matter.

Q. I will ask the stenographer to read back and see if the witness did not state he had an opportunity?

(The stenographer read, as follows:
“Q. You must have had an opportunity then?”
“A. I had an opportunity to do it, but I didn’t do it.)”

A.  I mean after we had come together in the church.

Q. When was this committee first appointed, Mr. Burnam?

A. It was appointed on the first day or the second day, I am not sure.

Q. When was this action taken?

A. On the second day of the meeting---on Saturday.

Q. Do you mean to say that these associations appoint committees to do certain work and then do not give that committee time within which to do its work?

A. I don’t say that at all. It is for you to say that if anybody.

Q. Now you felt that you had---or as you expressed it---God helped you in that association?

A. He certainly did.

Q. But he did not help you sufficiently to carry your proposition through?

A. He did not. So far as that is concerned, if the Lord had anything to do with it at all. I do not think on the Lord had anything to do with that at all.

Q. That was human means that were being used and not divine?

A. It was certainly human means, and not divine, that beat my proposition. You are right, sir, on that.

Q. Mr. Burnam, how long had you been a pastor in Kentucky before you came to this association in 1889?

A. I had been pastor of that church for many years.

Q. Well, about how long?

A. From 1885 to 1889. I came there in the spring of 1885, in May 1885, from where I was living in the west.

Q. When were you ordained as a minister, Mr. Burnam?

A. I was ordained on the fourth day of April, 1857.

Q. What was your first charge?

A. That was the church at Bethel.

Q. What state?

A. In Kentucky.

Q. How long did you stay at Bethel?

A. I stayed there until my health became so poor I had to give it up.

Q. When did you leave Bethel?

A. Two years.

Q. That takes us up to 1859.Where did you go then?

A. I was still in Richmond, Kentucky.

Q. How long did you remain there?

A. I remained there until the December of the year 1868.

Q. Then where did you go?

A. I then went to Missouri.

Q. How long did you stay in Missouri?

A. I stayed in Missouri---as I have said, counting all the time it was until 1885. There was, however, between those dates a short period when, for the benefit of my health, I left that state and came back to Kentucky.

Q. And from 1885 up to 1889, you were still the pastor there in Richmond, Kentucky?

A. In Richmond, Kentucky.

Q. Now, Mr. Burnam, what ties of affection existed that so closely bound you to these churches of Virginia, that you felt like crying and bursting into tears at their associations, if you had never been a pastor in Virginia?

A. I suppose, sir, if you are a Christian, you would understand that.

Q. Well, sir, that is not for you to judge, thank God.

Mr. Walton: He has answered the question. Now you are commenting on it.

Mr. Weaver: He is commenting on me, too. I am going to conduct this side of the case, just as I please.

Mr. Walton: You are not going to comment on the answers without our objecting to it.

Mr. Weaver: You try to stop me then.

Mr. Walton: I am going to except to it. That is excepted to as being entirely wrong and reprehensible on the part of counsel, as he well knows,

Mr. Weaver: Counsel don’t know any such thing.

By MR. WEAVER:

Q. Just answer my question please?

A. Because I love them as the children of God and faithful to the cause of Christ as I took it, and I did not wish to see them divide. I had looked upon these churches as faithful witnesses to the truth, and I did not wish to see them divide.

Q. Was your church in Richmond, Kentucky, ever divided?

A. No; the church cannot be said to have divided.

Q. Was there any division in your church at Richmond, Kentucky?

A. There never was any division there.

Q. Such as existed in this church?

A. No, sir.

Q. All has been peace and harmony?

A. There were some kickers there that went out, and we excluded them.

Q. Some kickers?

A. But there was no division. There were some men who rose up against the church there to break it down.

Q. Have you served in any other church in which there were kickers?

A. I don’t know that I ever did.

Q. Then the only kicking that ever came under your observation has been out in your home state of Kentucky?

A. In Richmond, Kentucky. I suppose I shall have to admit that; but very regretfully, allow me to say.

Q. Now, Mr. Burnam, coming down to these Sunday schools, don’t you know as a matter of fact that there were objections by the different members of these churches to the inauguration of Sunday schools?

A. I have already stated my case in that matter, sir.

Q. Is it not a fact that Mrs. Brumback objected to Sunday schools as testified to here this morning?

A. Mrs. Brumback’s objection was never known to me.

Q. Did you not go to her house---

A. I never knew her objection at all.

Q. Did you ever discuss the matter at all with her.

A. I never did. I never had any discussion with her. I suppose from what has been said that she did not have my opinions, but to say I knew how she felt about it, I cannot say.

Q. Did you ever hear her express an opinion. Didn’t she talk with you about it, and didn’t you talk with her about it?

A. I have no recollection of having any talk with her.

Q. You heard Mr. Brumback’s testimony here this morning, did you not?

A. I did. I knew he said he thought that she had not the same view I had, and he wanted me to go and talk with her.

Q. Did you go and talk with her?

A. I did not. I have no recollection of talking with her there. It may have been I did. If I did I have forgotten it.

Q. Did you ever go there?

A. Certainly, I have been there.

Q. Now you stated something about Dr. Long, I believe. Didn’t you endeavor to establish a Sunday school there at the Hawks Bill?

A. I did not. Well, if you wish to consider it, as an endeavor to do it---I went up there with the consent of the pastor of that church, and what was done, was done with the consent of the pastor of the church.

Q. Go ahead, sir. I am asking about the Hawks Bill?

A. Very well. When we met there at Hawks Bill, Dr. Long no doubt very clearly recited the facts. We had that meeting there that morning, in which there was a recitation on some Bible topic, I don’t remember now what the subject was, but we had some questions and answers that were passed to those who were present. It is true, as Dr. Long says, there were persons who went from this town up there---that is all so---and Brother Lampton himself was with us.

Q. Now right there, Mr. Burnam, let me ask you a question: Isn’t it a fact that you invited those people from Luray to come up there on that following morning at 10 o’clock?

A. I did no more than to let them know.

Q. You let them know about it?

A. They knew this was to be.

Q. Who knew this was to be?

A. These people here.

Q. Here at Luray. Who had let them know that?

A. I suppose I could have told them, as any other person.

Q. I am not asking you what you could have done, Doctor, but what did you do---did you tell them?

A. I cannot tell you. They had the time, but you can put it down that I did ask them. I am not unwilling to say that, I believe in circulating the word of God, whether you do or not.

Q. Doctor, you are again throwing off on my---

A. I do not know whether you do or not; perhaps you do.

Q. Mr. Burnam, as a matter of fact, don’t you know that prior to your coming here along in 1887 and 1889, and prior to the attempted introduction of Sunday schools and like institutions, were not all these churches in peace and harmony and good fellowship with one another?

A. I cannot say it.

Q. You cannot, say it?

A. No, sir.

Q. They were in good fellowship when you came here, were they not?

A. They were in a quasi-fellowship.

Q. Weren’t they in peace and harmony when you first came here?

A. There was a difficulty between parties, and they were not in the best spirit when I came here in 1883, 1884, and possibly 1885, I think not though in 1885, and 1887.

Q. You left them in division, didn’t you?

A. I left them in division?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. No, sir; I did not.

Q. Wasn’t there a division here?

A. I didn’t leave them in division. They brought themselves into division. It was against my will and caution, as I have told you.

Q. Isn’t it a fact that that other dissension, to which you refer, was a personal matter between Booton and Perry?

A. I suppose it was a personal matter.

Q. Was there any division in the church then when you first came here in 1883?

A. I don’t suppose there was.

Q. When did you leave here, Mr. Burnam?

A. Well, let me see, I was here in 1889, and I was here in 1890; but I didn’t come here in 1890 until after this division had taken place. I was not present when the division took place. I told them that if they passed that circular, they would divide and warned them against it, and pleaded with them not to do it, and I was not here in 1890 when it actually took place.

Q. Were there some objections to the efforts to introduce a Sunday school at Big Spring Church?

A. I never heard of any effort being made to introduce a Sunday school at Big Spring.

Q. Didn’t you also make an effort to introduce a Sunday school over at Zion Church in Warren County, and wasn’t there a division there?

A. I don’t know anything about that.

Q. You never visited that church.

A. I don’t remember any occurrence such as you mention. If there was ever any effort made to have a Sunday school there, I don’t remember it. I know this: I know that there was a division in that church, but it was through no fault of mine; I had nothing to do with it.

Q. Hadn’t you sown the seed though that caused the division when you sowed the seed of Sunday schools and like institutions.

A. If the sowing of the seed of God’s word is going to cause men to object to the truth of God, be it so.

Q. I am not asking you about God’s word; I am asking you about Sunday schools?

A. Mr. Weaver, we never taught anything in the Sunday school except God’s word.

Q. Well, now, coming to these Sunday schools, as to what you taught. You all used a quarterly; didn’t you?

A. No, sir; we had no quarterlies in that day. They have now, I believe.

Q. Don’t your Regular Baptists use them now?

A. No, sir.

Q. Don’t you know they use them in this church here now?

A. I say they may now. I haven’t noticed what they have now. I know they have had.

Q. They have had these quarterlies?

A. Yes.

Q. Aren’t they published by the same people that publish the New School Baptist quarterlies?
 
A. I cannot say, Mr. Weaver, whether they are or not.

Q. You don’t mean to say there is a quarterly being taught in your Sunday schools, and you don’t know the author of it?

A. There are various places, if you will inform yourself from which papers on that subject could be obtained.

Q. Don’t you recognize that as one of your quarterlies as used by your church here in Luray?

A. I do not.

Q. Have the Regular Baptists a publishing house?

A. They have not now.

Q. When did they have one?

A. Well, they had the name of one in the State of Missouri. We hope to have, sir, after awhile.

Q. You are a new organization then?

A. Yes; when we get our stakes all ready to set and our cords ready to extend and our curtains to spread, we hope to have our publishing house.

Q. How long have you been attempting to set those stakes, Doctor?

A. Well, I don’t remember when---what the year was, that publishing house commenced in the State of Missouri, but it was before I left there, perhaps, about the year 1883 or 1884, when we commenced it; but after I left there it fell into other hands.

Q. Now Mr. Burnam, you testified on your direct examination that you could not see why there should be any objection to a man teaching his own children. Don’t you know, as a matter of fact, that the Old School Baptist Church has never objected to parents’ teaching their own children; isn’t that true?

A. I can’t say it.

Q. You mean to tell me that as a student of theology and theological history you cannot say that?

A. When I speak of it, I speak of the whole body. You speak of the Baptists---

Q. I am speaking of the Old School Baptists now?

A. As a body.

Q. There never was any objection to any member of the Old School Baptist Church at Mount Carmel, or Mount Carmel Church, or whatever you choose to call it, to a parent teaching his own children?

A. I don’t know whether there was in this church.

Q. Was not the only objection to somebody else’s parents, or somebody else teaching their own children?

A. I don’t know what their objections were; they would not do it.

Q. Teach other people’s children?

A. They never would accept any. Before the division there was nothing of the sort. Three years before, in 1887, that was three years before the division, but as a body, what we have seen here, shows it was not as a body, because all these brethren here testified that amongst the church as they knew it there were no such things as Sunday schools. That has been the constant testimony brought before this body here.

Q. Then the introduction of such institutions was an innovation, was it not---something new?

A. It was not.

Q. It had not existed before, had it, in the Old School Baptist Church?

A. Why, sir, in 1689, when our brethren put forth their Confession of Faith, immediately thereafter one of the signers of that declaration of our faith, wrote out a catechism which was used amongst the Baptists, and which was continued to be used by their successors in the Philadelphia Association for years.

Mr. Walton: State in that connection, what was in that catechism?

The Witness: It was just the same principles that the articles of faith contained.

By Mr. Weaver:

Q. Now Mr. Burnam, did you ever hear of a Sunday school in an Old School Baptist Church here in Virginia, since the split of 1832 and 1835, along in there---I mean the time when the New Schools went off?

A. I had not such information when I was here in September last, as afterwards it seems has been brought out, some brought out the fact that there was a Bible class.

Q. I am not asking about a Bible class. I am asking you about a Sunday school where they teach these little children?

A. It makes no difference whatever, whether you call it a Bible class, or a Bible school, or Sunday school. It is teaching the Bible, that is the thing.

Q. Now will you please answer my question?

A. I have answered it, sir.

Q. Will you please tell me what church, within your observation in Virginia, what Old School Baptist Church ever held a Sunday school from 1835 up to 1887 or 1890?

A. Amongst the Old Baptists.

Q. Amongst the Old School Baptists, the Old Hard-Shells, if you please?

A. We had one in Kentucky.

Q. I am talking about Virginia?

A. I don’t know here.

Q. Then if there were no Sunday schools here held by Old School Baptist Churches in Virginia, prior to 1887 and 1890, when you started them, they were innovations, were they not?

A. They were not.

Q. Assuming there had been none prior to that time?

A. No more than the introduction of the Passover in the days of King Josiah was an innovation, although it had not been acted on for hundreds of years---it was the will of the Master that that should be, and it was the will of Christ that His word should be taught, and because they had not observed it was no proof that when it was observed it became an innovation. It was simply setting up a landmark that had been taken away, or the resetting of an ancient landmark.

Q. That had been out of existence since 1832, when the split occurred, had it not?

A. Perhaps it had; but if it had been twice as long it would not have affected the question as to whether they ought to have had Sunday schools.

Q. Mr. Burnam, were you ever pastor here in Luray?

A. I was.

Q. What year?

A. That was in the year 1891, 1892, 1893, and I believe 1894 and 1895.

Q. Of what church were you the pastor?

A. I was the pastor of this church.

Q. What church ---what is the name of it?

A. The Mount Carmel Baptist Church, the Old School, the real Old School, or the Regular Baptist Church.

Q. Did you ever return any marriage licenses?

A. Yes; I suppose I have.

Q. Why didn’t you sign yourself then as an Old School Baptist preacher, if you were pastor of an Old School Baptist Church?

A. If there is no difference between the use of terms, what difference does it make?

Q. Why do you swell upon the name Old School, if you don’t use it?

A. If the Old School are really the Regular Churches, as we claim they are, what’s the odds?

Q. As I understand, Mr. Burnam, you were the pastor of Mount Carmel Regular Baptist Church. Now isn’t that true?

A. I was Pastor of the real Mount Carmel Church. Call it by what name you will.

Q. Didn’t you style yourself as pastor of the Mount Carmel Regular Baptist Church?

A. I suppose in those licenses which Mr. Weaver brought here, it so appears. It so appears, but that don’t affect the question.

Q. You are not ashamed of your name, are you, as Regular Baptist?

A. As to whether it is the Old School Baptist Church or not, the question is not affected.

Q. You can be frank with me if you will, and you can answer my question, and I know you can answer it. I want to know whether or not when the pastor of this church here, you did not style yourself as the pastor of Mount Carmel Regular Baptist Church?

A. It is very probable I did.

Q. You did not use the term pastor of the Old School Baptist Church at Mount Carmel, did you?

A. If I had, it would have meant the very same thing that was done.

Q. I am not asking you anything about the effect. I am asking what you did do, Mr. Burnam. Did you ever sign your name or subscribe yourself as pastor of the Old School Baptist Church of Mount Carmel?

A.  I don’t know Mr. Weaver that I ever signed my name as the pastor of this church at all except as has been reported here.

Q. You don’t deny that; do you?

A. Not at all---not at all. I tell you that the Old School Baptist Church is the Regular Baptist Church.

Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Burnam, don’t you know what the trustees of that church style themselves Trustees of Mount Carmel Regular Baptist Church?

A. I don’t know. If they do, they can speak for themselves on that.

Q. Don’t you know that in all records the trustees of that church nowhere style or subscribe themselves as trustees of the Old School Baptist Church. Don’t you know that to be fact?

A. I cannot say that I do. It may be that those here sign themselves just as you say, and it may be the case everywhere else. I cannot speak of all other churches.

Q. Do I understand that you still cling to the name of Old School Baptists?

A. We certainly are the Old School Baptists.

Q. Why don’t you call yourselves that?

A. I am willing to be called that.

Q. But you have not been calling yourselves that, have you?

A. I regard, Mr. Weaver, if you will allow me to say it, the name, Regular, is a far more grander word than Old School. Old School started in 1832, and the Regulars they started---from the testimony of Mister, as I have been told, of Mr. Samuel Trott, that he was so enamored of the name of Old School, because of his relations to the Old School Presbyterians, that he wanted the same name given to the Baptists, the Old Baptists.

Q. Mr. Burnam, you think then the name, Regular, is “more grander” than the word Old School---you have just stated that?

A. I say this, I say it is grander because it reaches back further, Mr. Weaver. That is why.

Q. Then there is a difference between the term Regular and Old School Baptist then, isn’t there?

A. There is no difference between it.

Q. If there is no difference, then it is no grander, is it?

A. There is no difference any more than this that the one is of a more far-reaching effect than the other. It reaches back further.

Q. It reaches pretty far back sometimes, don’t it? It reaches back as far as 1849, don’t it?

A. It reaches back to the day of Christ.

Q. It reaches back to the days of that deed, don’t it?

A. They reach back to the time of Jesus Christ himself; that is the rule, as the word means, in a right line we come down, and that is why I take that name. I believe that we are the Old School Baptist Church; but we are also the Regular Baptist Church, which name appears in history, Mr. Semples’ history gives that name.

Q. Now Mr. Burnam, you are either for me or against me. You are either an Old School or a Regular, are you?

A. I am both. Does that please you.

Q. It pleases me very much. You are a straddler then, in other words?

A. No, sir; I take it all in.

Q. You want it all?

A. Not at all. No straddler at all.

Q. But you think there is a difference between the term, Regular, and Old School, Baptists, don’t you?

A. No; not essentially.

Q. Well, essentially, or otherwise, there is a difference?

A. There is not essentially.

Q. Non-essentially is there a difference?

A.  I have explained that to you, if you have comprehension enough to understand it.

Q. Well, that is my misfortune?

A. The record shows that we descended from Christ in a right line all the way through down to this day, and the other is a name of recent origin.

Q. How recent?

A. I don’t know when it commenced, unless it commenced in 1832.

Q. Well, have you been called Regular from Christ on?

A. Well, I suppose it could not be said that all those who are Baptist Churches were called Regular Baptist Churches, but it does not affect the fact, sir. It does not affect the fact.

Q. Now Mr. Burnam, as I understand you then, you are both an Old School and a Regular; is that true?

A. They are the same. Names for the same thing.

Q. If the Old School Baptist Church is opposed to Sunday schools, are you opposed to them?

A. We have no such thing, Mr. Weaver, as what is called a church, the Old School Baptist Church. That thing does not apply to our churches.

Q. Have you any such thing then as a Regular Baptist Church?

A. No.

Q. Then what have you got?

A. We have Regular Baptist Churches, Mr. Weaver.

Q. Then I will ask you this question, Mr. Burnam, I think you know what I mean, however: If Old School Baptist Churches, to use your words, are opposed to the use of Sunday schools, are you in sympathy and in fellowship with Old School Baptist
Churches?

A. I am in sympathy with the words of God and Christ; and I am not going to create trouble amongst our people. I tell them what I believe ought to be, but I never have
been in favor of establishing a Sunday school anywhere without the consent of those brethren. I never have.

Q. Mr. Burnam, why did you insist, and why do you insist, in holding out for Sunday schools if the churches here are divided upon them, or were divided upon them?

A. They were not divided, Mr. Weaver, at the time I started that church here.

Q. They were not divided---

A. At the time that I suggested that Sunday school.

Q. You did suggest a Sunday school then; did you?

A. I proposed it. I did it with their consent. I have already said to you, Mr. Weaver, not without their consent.

Q. But you first suggested it to them?

A. No. I won’t say it.

Q. You did not suggest it to them?

A. No; I don’t say it.

Q. Did they suggest it to you?

A. I suppose they knew about Sunday school just as well as I did. If you will take the volume of the Advocate of 1877, you will find that Mr. Daniel Hess, of the State of Ohio, wrote to Elder John Clark respecting the propriety of a Sunday school and asking whether that could not be. I don’t remember just what the words are, Mr. Weaver, but you will find in that letter of Mr. Hess that he had been over to England---I saw in the Gospel Standard the same thing in substance --- that he wrote to Brother Clark on the subject of Sunday schools. He saw that our people in England were all advocates of Sunday schools, and that all of the churches there had Sunday schools, and that is the rule today in our churches in England; and when Mr. Hess came back and wrote that letter, it brought back Brother Clark’s answer, which you can find. “It is not the day to be objected to, nor the name, but what was taught in it.” I think that’s the meaning of it.

Q. Mr. Burnam, don’t you know, as a matter of fact that Sunday schools and missionaries and missionism caused the split in the Mount Carmel Church here in 1887 to 1890?

A. I do not.

Q. You do not know that?

A. No, sir; I don’t know that.

Q. Do you know what did cause that split?

A. I don’t know what it was. The evil one is very wily in his movements; I couldn’t tell.

Q. Now Mr. Burnam, do you believe that the elect were chosen in Christ before the world was?

A. I do.

Q. Is that the doctrine of the Regular Baptist Church?

A. It is.

Q. Do you believe that infants are chosen among the elect before they are born?

A. I do.

Q. Do you believe they are elected?

A. I do.

Q. Is there any such thing, according to your doctrine, as elect infants dying in infancy?

A. There is that statement in the Philadelphia Baptist. Confession of Faith, but which we, our people, have rejected. We don’t use that word. That implies that there are non-elect infants.

Q. Now following up further the expression of elect infants dying in infancy. Isn’t it a fact that you and your Regular Baptist Church reject the word elect in that connection?

A. Elect?

Q. Yes?

A. We don’t object to the expression elect infants dying in infancy. We take the whole of that. Certainly we believe in the election of infants; and we believe that there are infants that die in infancy, but we don’t use that expression for the reason--

Q. What expression do you use?

A. We don’t use that expression, elect infants dying in infancy, because it implies the idea of infants, non-elect, dying in infancy. Elect dying in infancy carries the idea of non-elect. We explain that in our articles of faith. That word is not a Bible word; it is not a scriptural expression, and we do not take it; but we believe in the salvation of all the infants, the little children; and believe only those are saved that are chosen unto salvation.

Q. Mr. Burnam, as I understood you to say a moment ago, you do not know what caused the division here in Mount Carmel Church?

A. Mr. Weaver, I think it was bad spirit that caused it.

Q. Didn’t you state a moment ago, you did not know what caused it?

A. That is what I say, a bad spirit is a very indefinite expression, and I mean by that I do not know what caused it. It must have been for some reason of that sort that it took place. It was a lack of forbearance one with the other.

Q. You testified in this case once before, didn’t you?

A. I testified here last September; yes, sir.

Q. Didn’t you state in your former testimony that one of the causes of this division was the change of the words “perseverance” and “preservation”?

A. Very well. That is not inconsistent with what I say here.

Q. I am asking you if you did not make that former statement?

A. Yes, I did. I did state that the Anti-Means Baptists have departed from the faith in changing the word perseverance, as it appears in that deed, into preservation.

Q. And was not your former answer confined to the division in Mount Carmel Church here at Luray?

A. Well, so far as this case is concerned, it is. But it is not the only church---

Q. I am only referring now to your former testimony. And didn’t you say that one of the causes of the split was the change of the word, perseverance, to preservation, or however, it was. Didn’t you state that before?

A.  You can read there and see what I said.

Q. I am asking you if you did not testify to that?

A. I don’t remember whether I did or not; but I will say this, it was a departure from the faith.

Q. Was that one of the causes of the division, the changing of that word?

A. The changing of that word?

Q. Yes.

A. To the extent it was a departure from the faith, it might be so considered.

Q. It was one of the causes of the division then; isn’t that true?

A. Well, to a certain extent. Let me read what I said.

Q. Never mind. I am asking you a question on cross-examination. Didn’t you state in your former testimony---

Mr. Walton: Let him see it---

Mr. Weaver: I will ask you this question---

Mr. Walton: I object to any general and indefinite question. The witness wants the person propounding the question when the question is asked to make it definite.

By Mr. Weaver:

Q. I ask you, Mr. Burnam, again, whether or not you testified in your former  deposition that the change of those words was one of the causes of the division in Mount Carmel Church. Didn’t you state that in your former deposition?

A. I really don’t remember all I said in my deposition.

Q. Well, can you remember that part of it?

A. I do not.

Q. Well, was that of such little importance that you cannot remember whether you made the statement or not?

A. No, sir; it is not of any little importance. I have already told you it is a very important departure from the truth in the change of that word.

Q. Was the change of that word one of the causes of the division in this Mount Carmel Church then. Answer me that yes or no, if you please?

A. I don’t remember what I said on that occasion.

Q. I am not. asking you what you said. I am asking you a direct question, whether or not the change in those two words was one of the causes which caused the split in Mount Carmel Church. I am not asking you anything about your former testimony. I am asking you whether or not that is true?

A. The change, that would rather be considered the effect of something that had been going on than the cause of it, and yet it becomes the cause, a second cause; the prime cause was, as I have said, the lack of spirit, the spirit of Christ, in the people.

Q. Mr. Burnam, I am going to ask you for the twenty-second time to state whether or not the change in the words perseverance and preservation was one of the causes of the division in Mount Carmel Church at Luray. You can answer me that question yes or no, Mr. Burnam?

A. I have said all I know about it, that as a second cause, it could be so considered; but the prime cause was the spirit of evil that was existing here that led to a breaking up of that forbearance which brethren ought to have for one another.

Q. Well, that was a secondary cause then according to your testimony now; is that true?

A. Very well, take it so.

Q. Then if you testify now that that was the secondary cause of that division, you do know something about what caused the division in Mount Carmel Church, don’t you. You would not state anything you didn’t know?

A. The division took place in Mount Carmel Church here, Mr. Weaver, without my knowing, or having, anything to do with It. I was not here when it took place.

Q. Then you can’t say whether the change of that word was one of the causes or not, can you?

A. In speaking of that, I speak of the trouble that had arisen among the Baptists generally.

Q. Now Mr. Burnam, you know I am not talking about the Baptists generally. I am talking about Mount Carmel Church here at Luray. I asked you a moment ago whether or not the change in those two words was one of the causes which caused that split. You said yes, so considered. Am I quoting you correct so far?

A.  Well, have it as you please.

Q. I don’t want it as I please; I want what you stated?

A. Have it as you will. I have explained to you my position. It will always, except on a spirit of Christian forbearance, lead to trouble when the articles of faith are changed.

Q. Then, Mr. Burnam, you don’t know anything about the cause of this division in Mount Carmel Church; do you?

A. Yes, sir; I know about the division.

Q. Do you know anything about the causes of it, is what I asked you?

A. Yes; the causes of it were, as I have told you, opposition to the truth of God---an unwillingness for the word of God to be spread here among the people.

Q. What part of the truth of God, and in what sense the truth of God. Be a little more particular?

A. They were not in favor of teaching their young.

Q. They were not in favor of Sunday schools?

A. They were not in favor of teaching their young and ignorant. They would not give a nickel to the spread of the word of God abroad. That is why as you have all said here.

Q. You are referring to Sunday schools and missions--be frank with me, Mr. Burnam?

A. Yes, indeed.

Q. You are referring to Sunday schools and missions?

A. Yes.

Q. And that is what causes the separation; isn’t that true?

A. No.

Q. Now Mr. Burnam, I am going to have an answer to that question if I can get it.

Mr. Walton: What question are you talking about?

Mr. Weaver: Mr. Burnam knows the question.

Q. Mr. Burnam, I asked you about one minute ago what caused the division in Mount Carmel Church at Luray. You stated it was caused by a failure to observe the truth of God, or words to that effect?

A. The spirit—

Q. One minute. I asked you then in what sense they failed to realize or observe the truth of God, and you replied in the sense that they failed to teach their young or contribute to the spread of the gospel. I further asked you if, by the use of those expressions, you were not referring to Sunday schools and missions, and you said you were. Now I ask you, if you are correct in your testimony along that line, isn’t it the truth that Sunday schools and missions caused that division?

Mr. Walton: Counsel for complainants except to this question, on the ground that the witness has already answered, and the very question propounded by Mr. Weaver shows his answer, and yet he is persisting in having an answer to a question that has already been answered.

Mr. Weaver: The court’s attention is called to the fact that whilst the witness answered the question in one breath, as Mr. Weaver understood it, he denied it in the other, and he is just seeking the truth, and I know the witness will not be averse to giving it to me.

Mr. Walton: Further replying on behalf of complainants counsel states that the deposition will bear out the exception which is taken by the complainants; and the further exception is interposed that on this particular question, no examination was conducted in chief in rebuttal, and the introduction of this matter being new, and not having been gone into in chief, is irrelevant and improper.

A. I have already answered that question time and again. Unwillingness to take the word of God and do what the Lord commands is an outgrowth of the wrong spirit.

Q. They were also unwilling to teach their young, were they not, as you have just stated?

A. They were not willing to do it publicly, if they did it anywhere.

Q. They were not willing to contribute to the spread of the gospel were they?

A. They were not.

Q. Now Mr. Burnam, by the use of such expression as teaching the young and contributing to the spread of the gospel, are you not referring to Sunday schools and missions. Answer me frankly, if you please?

A. Not necessarily: in part.

Q. Didn’t you just state a moment ago you were referring to Sunday schools and missions?

A. To a certain extent; yes.

Q. Then to a certain extent the failure on the part of a certain portion of Mount Carmel Church to recognize Sunday schools, or teaching the young as you call it, or contribution to the spread of the gospel, or missions, caused this division; isn’t that true?

A. The departure from the ancient practice of bringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, instructing their children as their predecessors did, that has brought on the present condition. And this thing of opposition to Sunday schools simply because of the name of Sunday schools is wholly wrong, because it is not the name that we care so much about, but the thing that is done there. People object to Sunday schools because they have in mind somebody else’s Sunday school, instead of what we have always proposed to do, and that was, to teach the pure and simple word of God; and I say the failure to come up to that point betrays a spirit that is not right in the sight of God.

Q. Now Mr. Burnam, you testified a moment ago that if the introduction of Sunday schools and missions would have caused a split in the church, or caused any dissension, you would not have held it?

A. I would not have done it. That is true.

Q. If you so firmly believed they were right would not you still contend for them---if you thought they were right?

A. I do contend for it, within proper limits.

Q. Would you have contended for them in Mount Carmel Church, if there had been any dissension?

A. I would not.

Q. Then, Mr. Burnam, if you were willing to abandon your views on Sunday schools and missions, in order to avoid a division, why didn’t you in 1891, when you were chosen pastor, do away with those practices, and come back, so you would all be a united church---if these were non-essentials?

A. The church had already been dropped out of the association, Mr. Weaver. I had nothing to do with that. I was not here when that was done and I had to accept the facts just as they were. They had already been dropped out of the association.

Q. Assuming that the introduction of Sunday schools and missionism caused the split in Mount Carmel Church, and assuming further that the use of those institutions were so non-essential that even you would not have contended for them, if they would cause any division, don’t you think it was incumbent upon those who demanded the use of those institutions, to have done away with them in order to remain in peace and harmony?

Mr. Walton: Excepted to on the ground that the question is argumentative; and in the second place it calls for the expression of an opinion and not the statement of a fact, and is irrelevant.

A. I do not consider, Mr. Weaver, that one part of a body has to do all the bearing and enduring. According to your idea, those who were doing the will of God, as I understand it, in the circulation of God’s word and truth, and the teaching of it, must cease to do that thing just because the others wont endure it.

________________

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION

By Mr. Walton:

Q. As I understand, you were not living in Luray, and had not been here for sometime before the separation?

A. No.

Q. Which occurred in September, 1890; and all that you know as to the actual causes---that is, all you know personally, I mean to say, as to the actual reasons---is from hearsay testimony?

A. I have given a clear and lucid statement, as it seems to me, of this matter. In 1887 this Sunday school was organized here; as I understood it, with the full consent of all the members. What took place between that and 1889 and 1890, I could only know from conversations of others, by hearsay; that is true.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. You were here when the Sunday school or bible class---whatever the gentlemen may want to call it---was organized in 1887. State whether or not, Elder Burnam, the doctrines in the deed of 1849 were taught in that Sunday schools?

A. The very principles of our people were taught in that Sunday school.

Q. And those principles as laid down in the deed of 1849?

A. We never had any other principles than those, such as are in brief found in that deed.

Q. Now state whether or not the principles that were taught in that Sunday school, as laid down in the deed are the same principles as enunciated in the Philadelphia Confessions of Faith? 

A. The very same.

Q. And in the Centenary Confession of Faith?

A. The very same. The very same taught in the catechism of Mr. Benj. Keech. Immediately after the adoption of that Centenary Confession, Mr. Benj. Keech, who signed that Confession, wrote off his catechism, and it embodies all the articles of that body.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION

By Mr. Weaver:

Q. Did you help to teach the same doctrines .in that deed in the Sunday school in 1887, as you have testified here?

A. Certainly, we taught nothing but what was in the Bible, and in those articles of faith, and in connection with the Bible.

Q. You taught those same principles in this Sunday school here in 1887?

A. Yes.

Q. Now I want to ask why you; as a foreign pastor, a pastor in the State of Kentucky, should have taken it upon yourself to come all the way down here in Virginia and teach in one little Sunday school. Why did you do that?

A. I was elected pastor of this church here---

Q. Not in 1887?

A. In 1887 I was not; but I was a visitor.

Q. But you testified in response to Mr. Keyser’s question as to the Sunday school held in 1887?

A. Yes. Very well, that was right.

Q. Now why did you as a pastor of Kentucky come here to Virginia in 1887 and teach in this Sunday school here?

A. In 1887 I was here; and as I have told you, Mr. Weaver, I took no part in it at all until the members of the church had said they wanted that done---that was why I did it.

Q. But you did do it; and you left your home in Kentucky to do it?

A. No; I did not foresee that this Sunday school would be organized when I left my home.

Q. You were teaching in this Sunday school in 1887, as just testified?

A. I was living in Kentucky Mr. Weaver.

Q. Answer one question at a time, please sir. Were you teaching in this Sunday school in 1887, as you have just testified?
A. As long as that Sunday school ---while it was being organized I was.

Q. In 1887?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You were then a resident, and a pastor, of Kentucky, weren’t you?

A. Yes.

Q. Why did you, as a pastor and resident of Kentucky, come all the way from that state to teach a Sunday school here in Virginia?

A. I did not come here to teach this Sunday school in this state.

Q. But after you came here, you did teach it?

A. I have been telling you that time and again.

Q. Then, as a matter of fact, you did teach in this Sunday school in 1887?

A. I was there at the organization of that Sunday school.

Q. You were present at its organization?

A. Certainly. Yes; indeed.

By Colonel Leedy:

Q. I understood you to say you believe the Lord helped you over at Robertson church?

A. I believe He did.

Q. And took your part?

A. I believe He did.

Q. But He didn’t win for you there?

A. Sometimes the Lord wins in a very odd way, Mr. Weaver. sometimes he disappoints us---a man is very apt to be disappointed. He may get a friend of his to promise to do something and he won’t do it. And sometimes we find the Lord takes a different course with us.

Q. As I understand then, you failed there. Your Lord must be an impotent Lord, if he tried to help you and couldn’t?

A. So far as my help, that I spoke of, Mr. Leedy, that was in my answers to the onslaughts made upon me there by different parties. If I hadn’t had help from God, I couldn’t have answered them.

Q. You are a sincere missionary, are you not?

A. I am.

Q. Have you ever served in a foreign field?

A. Yes.

Q. Where?

A. Mexico.

Q. Are you preaching now, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. You have a charge?

A. I have.

Q. How long did you serve in Mexico?

A. I stayed there all winter, and I expected to stay longer. I went there with the view of spending my years there.

Q. Do you know how many missionaries your people have put in the field to help to save these countless millions of people?

A. I don’t understand that we put anybody into the field to save countless millions, or even one.

Q. Have you any missionaries?

A. Yes.

Q. Where?

A. Mr. Bostick is our missionary.

Q. He has come here and married a girl, sir?

A. Very well; he will have an assistant missionary then.

Q. Has he gone back?

A. He will. He has not yet.

Q. He has been here two years; hasn’t he?

A. Yes.

Q. What are the poor heathen doing in his absence?

A. He has substitutes out there taking his place.

Q. How many people have you in the missionary field?

A. We haven’t but that one.

Q. And he is in this country?

A. He is here at this time. You are very much mistaken in supposing a missionary goes abroad to save souls. Your faith is that, but that is not ours.

Mr. Weaver: You mean the New School Baptist faith?

The Witness: (Continuing) : That is your faith, Mr. Leedy, but that is not mine. I believe that the Almighty saves souls, the Holy Spirit of the Living God, and as I have said here before, everyone of his chosen will be saved.

Q. He does that direct?

A. They are chosen unto salvation through sanctification of His spirit and belief of the truth.

Q. Chosen before the world was?

A. Chosen before the world was.

Q. Then they will be saved missionary or no missionary?

A. There were, Mr. Leedy, some men that preached the gospel on the day of  Pentecost and there were three thousand saved; that was God’s way by which those three thousand were to be saved, the Holy Spirit of God there preparing the hearts of those people efficacy to his own word.

Q. Do you believe that preaching accomplished anything in that salvation?

A. Nothing whatever except under the power of God, nothing whatever, no more than a valley would for the turning of a mill below. It is the water that runs through it that turns the mill.

Q. Then I don’t quite understand your position as a missionary?

A. I suppose not.

Q. I know, sir, I am not clear of comprehension just as my friend, Mr. Weaver, but I want to know a little about it. What is accomplished by the missionary?

A. Well, sir, if you want to know, the command of Christ is accomplished.

Q. Let me ask you this for information. How many people have you in your church---the Regular Baptist church?

A. I cannot tell you. I don’t know how many.

Mr. Keyser: What church do you refer to?

Colonel Leedy: The church he represents.
A. (Continuing) : I don’t know how many there are among our people.

Mr. Keyser: Excepted to as irrelevant.

A. I don’t know how many there are, but a great many more than people imagine, and there are lots of people that entertain the views we do.

Q. You have at least three or four thousand, have you not?

A. Yes, indeed.

Q. Ten thousand?

A. Yes; I can’t tell you how many more, Mr. Leedy.

Q. Ten thousand of you impelled by God’s command to go and preach the gospel have sent these missionaries, to the extent of yourself in Mexico and Mr. Bostick in China?

A. You are only injecting New School ideas in your questions to me. The Lord never said all of his church should go abroad to preach the gospel. He never did. He does not.

Q. Out of ten thousand then, God has selected two?

A. So far as I know amongst us.

Q. He has done about that well, in the Old School Baptist Church, hasn’t he?

A. I don’t think He has done anything there. If He has I never heard of it.

Colonel Leedy: They claim He is the only one that does do anything there. Very well, sir.

Mr. Keyser: In Colonel Leedy’s question, in referring to Old School Baptists, did you take it to mean that he meant the Anti-Means or not?

The Witness: He was speaking of the Old School. I suppose that is what he meant.

Mr. Keyser: You took him to mean the Anti-Means party.

The Witness: Yes.

W. F. KEYSER.

In answer to interrogatories in chief by R. T. Barton, Esq.:

Q. Please state your name, age, residence and occupation?

A. William F. Keyser; age 42; residence, Luray, Virginia; occupation, attorney-at-law.

Q. Are you a member of the Baptist Church known as the Mount Carmel Church at Luray. and of that body of the same styled the Mount Carmel Regular Baptist Church, or the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist Church, and if so, how long have you been a member?

A.  I am a member of that church and have been since the summer of 1892.

Q. Do you hold any official relation to that church and if so, what?

A. I am at present clerk of the church and have been for about six years.

Q. Have you the official book containing the record of the proceedings of that body, and if you have please produce it?

A. I have the official records of the church from April 1876 down to the present time.

Q. Is there any other record in existence of the proceeding of that church, and if so, over what time does it extend, and who has it, and how did the present custodian get possession of it?

A. I can answer the question only by the church record and by the papers filed with the record and the papers in this cause. From them I gather that there is a church record extending from somewhere, I think, in the ‘40s down to April, 1876; that record seems to be in the possession of John W. Grove. John W. Grove was clerk of the church for several years---I can refer to notes that I have taken from the minutes?

Q. Yes.

A. Up until April 20, 1889, when he resigned as clerk and kept the church book in his possession. I have never seen that church hook. If there are any other church records, I know nothing of them of my own knowledge.

Q. Please say if the body of Christians of which you are a member approve of the use of Sunday schools, missionaries, preaching the gospel, etc.?

A. They do; yes sir.

Q. Will you please produce so much of the record of the church proceedings as relates to any action taken or attempted to be taken with regard to the use of means, as one of
the instrumentalities for the spreading of the gospel, and read the portions giving the page and date; and also give the number of persons voting on either side, and the extent to which they are divided between those who subsequently belonged to the means party and those to the anti-means party?

Mr. Downing: This question is objected to because it makes no difference which side was in the majority; the real question is whom did the party making the conveyance intend should have the property.

A. March 16, 1889, on page 140, I notice:

“Grievances: Sister Lucy Brumback sent in a letter wherein she requests a letter of dismission from Mount Carmel Church, because of a Sunday School which is carried on within her walls. The matter of granting the letter was taken up, but without any action farther than to defer it until April meetings.”

April 20, 1889, page 141 :

“References: The letter for which Sister Lucy Brumback asked at our regular March meeting was then considered, and on motion of Brother David E. Almond was granted with J. W. Grove dissenting. The clerk was then ordered to write the letter dismissing Sister Brumback from Mount Carmel in full fellowship. J. W. Grove then tendered his resignation as clerk of Mount Carmel to take effect at once.”

“Copy of J. W. Grove resolution read before the church at December meeting, 1889, he, Grove, made a motion that it be entered upon the minutes of the church book. The motion was seconded by A. J. Huffman and vote taken on it resulted by twelve (12) voting for it and twenty-one (21) against it.

“The resolution read as follows :

“Whereas, the peace and fellowship of our church has been seriously disturbed in consequence of the advocacy of the means question, and the introduction of Sunday schools by some of our people in our church, and whereas it is a departure from the
faith of the Old School Baptists and contrary to the doctrine we have learned, therefore we denounce these things as unscriptural and earnestly implore our brethren to renounce them all, so that we may live together in love and peace.”

March 17, 1888, page 131 :

Grievances inquired for: Whereupon Brother T. J. Beach stated that the church was not in a condition to commune in consequence of the Sunday school which was carried on by some of her members thereby destroying the peace and fellowship of the church. J. W. Grove also stated his opposition to Sunday school in Old School Baptist churches, but that he would not withdraw church fellowship from any brother or sister on account of Sunday schools.”

May 18,1890, pages 156 and 157:

“ After which a resolution in writing was read to the church by Brother D. E. Almond, and a motion made by himself and seconded by Brother T. J. Beach that a vote be taken on it. After some discussion by Brother J. W. Grove and Dr. Brumback a vote of the church was taken which resulted as follows: twenty (20) of the members voting for the resolution, and six (6) voting against it. The resolution read as follows:

“ ‘Whereas, this (Mount Carmel) church has been much agitated upon the question respecting Bible classes missions and means used by the Holy Spirit in his work and in consequence her peace and prosperity are put in peril. Therefore, resolved that for a
final settlement of these troubles it is hereby agreed and ordered that those members of this church who believe in the study of the bible either at home or in classes at the house of God and in missions for the spread of the Word and Truth of God at home or abroad and of the Holy Spirit’s use of the Word of Truth as a means of either quickening or comforting sinners shall be allowed the free exercise and use of their opinions and privileges without further hindrance and molestation on the part of any member of this church and without such exercise and use being considered in any sense a bar to fellowship; the intention of this resolution being not the division; but the union, peace and prosperity of this body by guaranteeing to every member his or her rights and privileges.”

Q. Please state whether or not these proceedings were prior to the separation of Mount Carmel Church between the “Means” and “Anti-Means bodies?

A. They were.

Q. Was this action taken by the whole body of the church, irrespective of their views  upon the subject of “Means” or “anti-Means”---I mean did all the people unite in this action?

A. The church did, composed of both “Means” and “anti-Means” members at that time, because it was before the division, the division occurring in the fall of 1890, I think.

Q. Do you know how long they had had a Sunday school and other means of that sort in use in connection with the church prior to the last entry?

A. The minutes show in 1888, further than that I only know from hearsay.

Q. Are there any entries on the subject of means after the separation in the church?

A. After the division?

Q. The division; yes. A. These were after the church was excluded from the Ebenezer Association in August, 1890— after it was excluded.

Q. That is before the division though?

A. Yes; do you want that or not?

Q. Yes; but I asked you for any entries after the division. Is that on the subject of Means?

A. Yes. September 20, 1890.

“Whereas this Mount Carmel Church was dropped from the roll of the Ebenezer Association at the meeting with the Alma Church on Friday, August 22nd, 1890, for the alleged reasons that our Beloved pastor, Charles L. Yates, is a heretic and ministers to a band of excluded persons, meaning it is supposed the brethren at Bethel and Thumb Run churches separated from the fellowship of their churches without order or an attempt to prove their unworthiness of membership any longer, and whereas, another reason for our being dropped was the existence of a school maintained under our permission for the inculcation and spread of divine truth. Therefore resolved that we hereby renew the expression of our confidence in our pastor’s spotless character and in his soundness and faithfulness as a teacher of the truth as in Jesus, and our continued belief in the prosperity of the spread and teaching of the word of God for young and old in the pulpit, the pew and everywhere by all our people, according as God has imparted to them gifts to this end.”

I would like to make a note that following what I have read, in this minute, is a letter sent by Bethel Church in Fairfax County, asking this church to join with her and other
churches of like faith and order in the reorganization of Ketocton Association.

Mr. Downing: Have you that letter?

The Witness: This is a copy of it, but I am only speaking from the minutes. It may be I can find the letter, I don’t know. The church by a large majority of the membership present accepted the invitation and appointed messengers who met at Salem Church
in Clarke County in October, 1890.

By Mr. Barton:

Q. Does that record from which you have just read show who were present at the time this action was taken?

A. It shows the male membership.

Q. And how they stood with reference to the question of Means and anti-Means?

A. I have read what it says here with reference to this resolution “by a large majority of the membership.” It doesn’t say who voted one way or the other.

Q. Just give the names---of those present?

A. But I couldn’t tell you how they voted. “Brethren present, T. J. Beach, D. L. Beam, Pierce Perry, D. E. Almond, J. W. Stover, Dr. Benton Brumback, Milton Moyer, Lee Moyer, eight besides the clerk, W. A. Beach.  All were with the “Means Baptists” except Messrs. Milton Moyer and Lee Moyer.

Mr. Downing: Do you know that from your own knowledge?

The Witness: From my own knowledge so far as I understand it, of course.

Mr. Downing: Well, we will cross examine on that and see.

Then the minutes of January 11, 1891, page 171:

“Whereas, the Ebenezer Association of Regular Baptists of which the Mount Carmel church was a member was taken possession of by an unwarranted assumption of authority upon the part of certain seceders at the last session of said body held at Alma, in Page County, Virginia, and in a manner unknown in Baptist usages, assumed to exclude the Mount Carmel church from said associations ; and whereas, certain members of Mount Carmel church have by word and deed given encouragement thereunto,  uniting themselves and identifying their interests therewith in opposition to the faith and practice of the Mount Carmel church as also contrary to the doctrine of the regular Baptist churches as promulgated by our religious fathers, resolved therefore, that we do dismiss all such from the fellowship of this church for reasons above stated. Dr. Benton Brumback then read to the church the terms which were most likely to effect a permanent settlement between the two parties as to our rights in the church property, etc. The church unanimously agreed to abide by the action of said committees. The agreement respecting the settlement read as follows, viz. :

We, the committee of the two orders of Mount Carmel Church appointed for the purpose of conferring with each other with the view to an amicable adjustment of differences existing relative to ownership of church building, lot, and property in building, beg leave to report that in order to secure such settlement we agree that each order of the church shall have and own an equal interest in said property. In case the building is sold or moved, each order to have and own an equal interest in new building, lot and proper should a majority of each order prefer it, the proceeds of sale to be divided equally.

It is further agreed that the known as “Anti-Means Baptists” to have the third Sunday and Saturday before and copy of church book or records; the “Means Baptists” to keep church books or records and to have the first Sunday and Saturday before. It is further agreed that all other or intervening time be divided equally between the two orders.

A motion then made and seconded that we have first and fourth Sundays and Saturdays before in each month, subject to Brother Yates’ wishes, but in event of above settlement is not fully and permanently entered into then we go back to our regular of worship.”

I do not see anything further now on that.

Q. Is there anything else in the record in your possession relating to the separation or exclusion of Mount Carmel Church from the Ebenezer Association, and if so, please give it? This occurred in August, 1890, didn’t it?

A. Yes sir. Well, I read here on September 20, 1890, what they had to say with reference to that and then following that is this resolution based on the letter of Bethel Church. Do you want that read?

Q. I want whatever relates to that separation from Ebenezer Association. I don’t remember what that is now?

A. At the foot of page 165, dated Sunday, September 21, 1890:

“The letter was called for and produced and read by the writer Brother D. E. Almond. It was in the following words, viz.:

Mount Carmel Church of Old School Baptists in Session September 3, 1890, Saturday. To the Elders and Messengers of sister churches assembling at Salem Meeting House in Clarke County, Virginia, October, 1890. Dear Brethren: Responding to the invitation of our brethren of Bethel Church we send you this, our fraternal greeting by the hands of our brethren, Elder T. J. Beach, Dr. Benton Brumback, J. W. Stover and D. E. Almond whom we have chosen to represent us in the solemn conference to which we have been invited. We have fallen on unhappy times. Until about three years ago we were in peace and brotherly union with a revived and increased membership, but, since that time, and contrary to our prayer and constant effort towards peace and fraternal union, little by little we have seen our efforts thwarted and our hope blasted and at length in common with our brethren we have seen ourselves violently, without warning, without an attempt to convict us of denying the faith or of walking contrary to all Baptist usages, separated from the Association of which we were members. No charge has been preferred against us, nor could any be proved.”

Then follows “The head and front of our offending” etc., which I read.

Mr. Downing: Read all of that?

The Witness: ( Continuing answer:) The head and front of our offending is our wish to have the holy word of God published and their truths impressed upon the minds and hearts of the young and old and in accordance with the word of God and the teaching of our predecessors in the faith, the belief that the spirit of God of grace is unlimited in his method of imparting it to poor helpless sinners. In thus thinking and acting we have never undertaken in the least degree to infringe upon the rights of conscience of our brethren who might differ from us but have left them the free exercise of their belief always retaining them in our fellowship; but now that hope of peace with them is at an end and after being cast out from their presence we feel that the demand of the hour is that those of us of like precious faith and practice be bound more closely together for our mutual sympathy and protection and for the faithful discharge of our obligations to him whose servants we profess to be, to Him we make our appeal in the consciousness of the purity of our intentions and of entertaining  malice towards none, but love towards all. We trust the God of grace may bind us all in the important work of our future closer association as followers of Christ.

*     *     *     *     *

“The above letter was read to the church and on motion it was adopted, no one dissenting. After which adjourned.”

By Mr. Barton:

Q. Who was the pastor of Mount Carmel church at the time of the division in 1890, Mr. Keyser?

A. Elder C. L. Yates.

Q. How long had his pastorate yet to run?

A. Until the end of the year 1890.

Q. With which side did he remain?

A. With our side; that is, with the church itself.

Mr. Downing. We note an exception as immaterial.

Q. Who kept the possession of the papers and books, etc., of the church?

A. I cannot answer that by my personal knowledge, ---

Q. Who preceded you as the clerk of the Mount Carmel Church?

A. Pierce Perry.

Q. Did you get the church records from him when you became clerk?

A. No sir. Brother Perry died and I got the records from the pastor of the church.

Q. Give his name?

A. Elder John Huff.

Q. Now please state so far as the record shows, and give extracts from every part of it that does bear upon it, what was done about the possession of the church property after the division?

A. November 16, 1890, pages 168- 169:
“After which Brother T. J. Beach got up and occupied the floor for a short time, talking to the church about our present difficulties. Brother Benton Brumback then occupied the floor for sometime making some very pointed remarks, showing by the circular letter read at the Ebenezer Association at Alma in August, 1890, that we, .the Means party, so called, are woefully misrepresented, which circular letter was adopted by the Association. Brother Brumback then made a motion for the two parties to meet on Wednesday the 26th instant, at ten o’clock a. m., at the church to try to settle our difficulties which motion was seconded and a vote taken, thirty-one (31) voting for it and none (0) against it.”

Then November 27, 1890, page 169:
“The above meeting in the minutes which was to have taken place did not come off, the anti-Means party utterly refusing to meet with us.”

Colonel Leedy: What year was that?

The Witness: 1890, November.
(Continuing answer:)
December 21, 1890, page 3, 70:
“Booten Compton being present, asked leave to say a few words which was cheerfully granted him. He then spoke a short time respecting our present difficulties. Whereupon on motion and second Brethren Dr. Benton Brumback and John W. Stover was selected as a committee to meet with the opposite party this evening to try to settle up our present difficulties respecting the church, day of preaching, the church books, etc., the church mutually agreeing to abide by the action of said committee.”

January 31, 1891, on page 173:
“We then had our meeting appointed on the third Sunday and Saturday before, but finally gave way to the “anti-Means” party to give them an opportunity to settle up our difficulties, which they have failed to do.”

Then on March 7, 1891, page 174:
“Brother Benton Brumback then arose and made some remarks in regard to the anti-Means party for not closing up the settlement of our difficulties, after making the proposals themselves as stated in the January minutes. We then by request of our
pastor, Dr. Yates, agreed to let him change the day of our worship to the first Sunday and Saturday before in each month as Brother Yates said he could not come on any other day. The church also agrees to divide the time with the Anti-Means party, we, the Means party, so called, taking first Sundays and fourth Sundays and Saturday before in each month and the week after the first Sunday and the week before the fourth Sunday; the Anti-Means taking the second and third Saturdays and the weeks following.”

As far as I have ascertained this is all that the record discloses with reference to that.

Q. Were any of these propositions that you have read mutually and definitely adopted by the two parties.

A. Not so far as the minutes disclose.

Q. Since the last entry, March 7, 1891, what has been the condition of the property as to possession between the two parties---possession and use?
 
A. I became a member of the church in 1892, in the summer, I think. I can only speak of my own personal knowledge since that time. Since 1892, the Regular or Means Baptists have been occupying the church every Thursday night and Sunday and Saturday preceding in each month, sometimes the first and sometimes the second Sunday and Saturday preceding, and in addition to that they .have been occupying the church every Sunday morning, except the third Sunday in each month, and at other times as occasion required. The other side, or the Anti-Means, so called, have been using the church since 1892 on the third Sunday and Saturday preceding and frequently at intervals. So far as I know none of the appointments have conflicted since I have been a member of the church.

Q. You are still the clerk of the church, are you?

A. Yes sir.

Q. The deed dated March 8, 1849, from Samuel A. Buracker conveys the property “To be for the 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 state whether or not the individuals composing the church and who are represented as complainants in this cause held to this expression of faith as the true doctrine of their church?

A. Yes sir; they do.

Q. Do you know to what extent those persons called the “Anti-Means Baptists” have departed from this declaration of faith?

A. I don’t know that I am competent to answer your question. As a matter of fact, I am not a theologian, but I do believe that they have departed from one of the doctrines laid down in the deed, if they endorse the articles of faith incorporated in or on the back of a paper known as “Zion’s Advocate and Herald of Truth”---I think that is the name of the paper---I have a copy of it, where they seem to have changed the doctrine of final perseverance to final preservation of the saints. In my humble judgment this would be a departure from the doctrine laid down in the deed.

Q. Please state, if you know, the difference between the meaning of the words  “perseverance” and “preservation” of the saints?”

A. Only in a general way. My definition of the two words may not be the meaning  ascribed to them by theologians, but it seems to me that the word perseverance implies faith and action and that the word preservation does not necessarily imply either.

Q. You made some reference to the action of the Ketocton Association. Have you the minutes of that Association to which you referred just now, if so, please produce them?

A. These (producing paper) are the minutes of the Ket.octon Association held in Salem Church, Clarke County, Virginia.

Note: The pamphlet above referred to was here introduce ed in evidence by counsel for complainants and marked “Complainants Exhibit A.”

A. (Continuing:) There is one little thing I wanted to add. The records of the church show that after the church was excluded by the Ebenezer Association she held her next meeting on September 20, 1890.

Mr. Armstrong: That was the regular time?

The Witness: The minutes say that the church met at the usual hour. It will be shown that that was the Saturday before the third Sunday in September and the minutes for October states: “Our pastor, Brother C. L. Yates being absent and no other preacher being present, consequently there was no meeting,” I will state that the Ketocton Association was in session in Salem church in Clarke County at the time. She held her
next regular meeting on November 16, 1890, and her next regular meeting on December 21, 1890.

Q. Let us ask you, did you produce the record showing the re-election of Pastor Yates, December, 1890?

A. I don’t think I did. I want to state that the minutes show that at the time of the division that Elder C. L. Yates was pastor of this church, having been chosen in 1889, December meeting, and William A. Beach was the clerk having been chosen at the same time. The minutes also show that at the December meeting 1890, Elder C. L. Yates was re-elected or chosen as pastor for the year 1891, and William A. Beach was retained as clerk.

Q. Who succeeded Elder Yates as pastor of the church?

A. Elder E. H. Burnam, I think.

Q. And who succeeded Elder Burnam?

A. I am not sure whether Elder Yates succeeded him for a year or so after that or not; if not, then he was succeeded by the present pastor, Elder John Huff.

Mr. Downing: We would like that record filed as an exhibit in this case.

Mr. Barton: We can file a copy of it. We cannot file the original.

Mr. Downing: Then we ask for a copy of that record.

The Witness: The witness, Mr. Keyser, has no objection whatever to counsel for the defendants taking the record and examining it all they want, provided it is not allowed
of their possession.

Mr. Downing: The understanding then is that counsel for defendants can take the book and examine it.

The Witness: Yes; but I want to make an explanation of one or two of these names.

Mr. Downing: Is your explanation outside of the record?

The Witness: .No sir; not exactly.

Mr. Downing: Then the record will be your explanation?

A. I think I will give him the names, Mr. Downing.

Mr. Barton: You can go on and give it and Mr. Downing can object to whatever he chooses. We don’t settle objections here though.

The Witness: The list is as follows:

A. A. Beach, D. L. Beam, D. E. Almond, Mrs. Bella C. Borst, Mrs. Fannie Forer, Mrs. Amanda Almond, Miss Elizabeth Borst, Charles M. Borst, Mrs. Laura Perry, Pierce Perry, Miss Bessie Perry, Miss Annie Perry, Dr. J. B. Brumback, Miss Annie Stover, Miss Annie Grove, Mrs. L. R. Grove, Mrs. Mattie Almond, John W. Stover, Mrs. Mattie Stover, Miss Fanny Stover, Miss May Stover, Miss Blanche Stover, Miss Lena Stover, Mrs. Mary J. Barbee, Mrs. Angeline Beach, Miss Annie E. Beach, Mrs. Mattie Price, Mrs. Catherine Grove, Mrs. Fannie Stover, Mrs. Elizabeth Judd, Thomas J. Beach, Miss Adelia Griffith, Mrs. Virginia Hudson, Mrs. Katherine Beam.

I will also just state that Miss Ella M. Grove who afterwards married a Mr. Brubaker, was a member at the time, although her name is not on this list. The minutes show when she got a letter of dismission, and the minutes will also show when she joined.

Mr. Downing: Call attention to the pages that show that?

The Witness: I don’t know that I can turn to the page immediately, but I will do that. (Continuing previous answer:) Also the name of Miss May Stover who afterwards married Mr. Thompson appears to be marked from this list, but evidently it was on account of a letter of dismission.

Mr. Downing: I hardly think that is proper. You are simply drawing on your inferences?

The Witness: No sir, I am going by the records. It shows when she got a letter of  dismission. It shows when she joined and when she got a letter of dismission.

Mr. Downing: You find her name marked out and you are inferring why it was marked out?

The Witness: It says here letter of dismission right before her name. If that is an inference, I don’t know it.

Mr. Downing: Let that be copied so the judge can draw his own inferences.

Mr. Barton: That is right; but if he knows anything of his own knowledge, I think he has a right to state that.

Mr. Downing: But he does not know it, because it was before his time.

Mr. Walton: She was here this morning and we know she was a member.

Mr. Downing: Then let her state that.

Mr. Walton: But you have a right to refer to her dismissal there?

The Witness: There is another, Sister Julia Bremer. I have not ascertained when she joined, nor when there was a letter of dismission, if ever, but I find that she was a member of the church at the time of the division and the church made her allowances, she being a poor member, after the division. I will give you the page if you want that.

Mr. Downing: You had better do that, give the page.

The Witness: All right.  “Mount Carmel, April 4, 1891, (page 179) Gave Sister Bremer $2.00.” That is all of that. There may be other places, too. Yes; there are other places “January 11, 1891, gave Sister Bremer $1.43.” page 173. Then on page 173, Ella G. Brubaker desiring her name to be stricken off the church as she intended to go with her husband to his church, which the clerk has done.”

Colonel Leedy: What is the date of that?

The Witness: The date of her letter was January 19th, 1891, and it was done at March 7th meeting, 1891.

CROSS EXAMINATION

By Mr. Downing:

Q. Mr. Keyser, is it not a fact that in 1890 the original Mount Carmel Church divided on the grounds of “Means” and anti-Means?”

A. I can answer that only from the records.

Q. Does not the record disclose that?

A. Only what I have copied from it, so far as I have been able to ascertain from the record.

Q. From what you have said here, are you not aware that the church did divide upon the question of “Means” and “ Anti-Means” in 1890?

A. I don’t know that I am prepared to add to or take from the language employed in these minutes. Some may infer from the reading of these minutes that the church divided on the question of “Means” and “anti-Means.” As to what the real division was, gathered from the minutes, I should think that that was one of the reasons, at least.

Q. Don’t you know that there was another organization in that church after the division?

A. Do you mean in the church building?

Q. Don’t you know there was another set of religious people who claimed to be the people of Mount Carmel Church of Old School Baptists?

A. I can answer that only from the records and from hearsay. At the time of the division you are speaking of or about that time?

Q. About that time and since?

A. There is an organization worshipping in the Mount Carmel Church building now, and it is the same organization that has been worshipping there since 1892 that I know by the name of “Anti-Means Baptists.”

Q. Is it not a part of the same organization that has been worshiping there for many  years?

A. That organization is composed of a part of the same individuals who have been worshipping in that church building for many years.

Q. And isn’t it true that your organization and this other organization divides the time of the use of that church and the care of it?

A. I can answer that question this way, Mr. Downing, by saying that since 1892, when I became a member of that church, both sides, the “Means Baptists” and the Anti-Means Baptists” have to some extent contributed toward the cost of repair of this property, as occasion required. I can further say that both sides paid equally for the installation of electric lights in that building as those lights exist today. I can say that there was a fund known as the Hershey fund amounting to about $200.00 that was left to the poor of this church, back some thirty years ago, and that the two branches divided---after coming into possession of that fund, divided the same equally between them.

Q. Then the record which you have produced here, so far as it is a record of the church since the separation, is on a record of that branch of it to which you belong?

A. I regard it as a record of the church---of the Mount Carmel Baptist Church.

Q. Don’t you know that there is another party and that the other party are keeping a record like you?

A. I know there is another side or party worshipping in that church building who call themselves the Mount Carmel Baptist. church sometimes, and sometimes the Old School Baptist church at Mount Carmel, and sometimes the Primitive Baptist Church, but I do not regard that as the Old School Baptist church, or the same organization as existed prior to the year 1890.

Q. I don’t suppose they regard you as the same?

A. I don’t suppose they do either.

Q. I did not ask you for your regards; I asked you if that was not the truth, or the fact?

A. I have answered it. I do not regard it as the truth, that that is the church.

Q. But there is another organization there?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Composed of members who were in the original church?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Who are holding worship there and who are contributing to the care of that property, as well as yourselves?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Were you in this County and did you have knowledge of the Association to which this Old School Baptist church belonged?

A. I merely knew, before the division, in a general way that there was a church here called Mount Carmel Baptist Church, and I also had a general knowledge of the fact that it belonged to some association. Before I joined the Regular Baptist Church I took very little interest in religions or religious affairs.

Q. You know very little then about the history of this church up until 1892?

A. Only what I have read about it.

Q. You say you have the records of the church since 1876?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Who has the records of the church from 1840 to 1876?

A. I don’t know; except in the answer filed, it is alleged that Mr. J. W. Grove has that record.

Q. Has any demand been made upon you or upon the party to which you belong, for the records from 1876 up to the time of the division?

A. Not since I have been a member, since 1892. I do not know of my own personal knowledge that any demand has ever been made, although I have heard so.

Q. Do you know, or can you give to the stenographer, the real reason why there was a split in Old Mount Carmel Church?

A. No, only so far as disclosed by the minutes that I have of the church in my possession.

Q. I understand you to say that that party of the church to which you belong believes in Sunday schools and in missions and missionary societies?

A. The side to which I belong believes in Sunday schools and the side to which I belong believe in missions, home and foreign, but not missionary societies.

Q. Please tell the stenographer what your side believes with reference to instrumental music in church?

A. We have an organ in our church which we have had there for the past five years, I will say, and I have never heard of any objection to it in our church. Personally, I can
see no harm in that organ there.

Q. Did you have instrumental music in the church prior to the time you joined it, or do you know?

A. I don’t know.

Q. In your deposition in chief you stated that certain men, giving their names, were  adherents of your side of this controversy, and you stated that that was from your own knowledge, please tell the stenographer whether that was in fact from your own knowledge or only from a knowledge of the side that they have adhered to since you became a member of the church?

A. Only from a knowledge of the side to which they have adhered since I became a member of the church.

Q. Then, as a matter of fact, you cannot say what their religious convictions were at the time of the division of this church?

A. Certainly not. I am only judging from their actions and the church that they attended.

Q. You have said that your party in this church occupies the church every Sunday morning except the third Sunday morning. Please tell whether there is preaching there or what sort of religious exercises you indulge in?

A. We occupy it every Sunday morning and have been since 1892 to my certain knowledge for our Sunday school, Sunday morning Sunday school.

Q. Is. that Sunday school a similar institution to that which you find in the New School Baptist and other churches?

A. I have not been to a New School Baptist Sunday school or any other Sunday school outside of that of my own church for the past 18 years. I do not know and cannot say now how their Sunday schools are conducted.

Q. Well, do you teach the children, in class, there the Bible and Bible lessons?

A. We do.

Q. What other exercises do you go through there?

A. We have singing and prayer and then we have our classes that we teach from the texts of the Bible and then we adjourn and go home.

Q. Do you use what is known as current quarterlies in your teachings?

A. We are using at the present time, and have been for about two years, the Baptist Quarterly---I think that is the name of it, I am not sure about that---it is a publication by the American Baptist Publication Society, I think.

Colonel Leedy: The National Publication?

The Witness: Or whatever it is, but in the use of that book we confine ourselves only to the text, the Bible text there, and such other portions of the book as conform to our own church belief. In other words, we do not try to teach or endeavor to teach our children that any other baptism is right but immersion and the like.

By Mr. Downing:
Q. Now I understood you to say that you believe that the Old. School Baptists of this neighborhood have departed from the doctrine as set out in that deed, because they believe in the final preservation of the saints, instead of the final perseverance of the saints; is that right?

A. No: I really think that we are the Old School Baptists, but I do think that those whom I term “ Anti-Means Baptists” have departed from the faith in that respect, if they embrace the doctrine of final preservation of the saints and make it a substitute for final perseverance of the saints.

Q. You do not know that any of the members of this congregation or any who were members at the time of the separation substituted the word preservation for perseverance; you gather that simply from a magazine article, don’t you, edited by Mr.
Clark?

A. The copy that I have is edited by Elder Dalton, who was at the time, I think, the pastor of the “Anti-Means Baptists” worshipping in the Mount Carmel Church property.

Q. Now I understood you to say that you think perseverance means activity, some action, was that right?

A. That is my conception, in a general way. As I stated, I do not know that I could give the theological meaning of the two terms. I can only answer you as to my conception of the meaning of the two words.

Q. Well, do you believe any action, upon the part of one who has been decreed to be saved, is necessary?

A. I believe that whatever God requires is necessary. The manner in which you ask the question would tend to draw an improper conclusion. I believe that whatever God requires is necessary, and I believe that we should go according to the commands of Christ, I mean of the Bible, preaching or teaching or doing whatever is required by Him in His plan, not our plan, for the salvation of sinners.

Q. Do you believe that “the elect were chosen in Christ to salvation before the world was”?

A. I do.

Q. Then what is the necessity for the elect making any exertion?

A. Because God says so.

Q. Do I understand you to say that you believe the preaching of the gospel is necessary to regeneration?

A. I say this, that God has ordained, or that God has chosen, a means himself, or the means by which sinners are brought to a knowledge of Christ, the gospel is one of those means.

Q. Now I would like you to confine your answer to the word regeneration in the technical sense of that word?

A. I do not know what you mean by the technical sense of the word regeneration.

Q. Well, in its accepted, commonly accepted, sense---I mean “being quickened into life or born from above.”

A. Now I must know what you mean by preaching the gospel before I can answer that Mr. Downing.

Q. I think I will have to open a Sunday school, if you don’t know what preaching the gospel is. I think that is as plain as I can make it?

A. I believe this, that it is necessary for any person who is saved to have a knowledge of Christ, a knowledge of the gospel of Christ; I believe that God provides the means by which the knowledge of this gospel shall be brought to that individual sinner; I believe that without a knowledge of Christ, and without the gospel, in its broad sense, no mortal under Heaven can be saved; I believe in addition to that that God has provided means by which all his elect chosen in Christ before the world was shall be saved; I believe that God has provided a means, a means chosen in eternity, that he has chosen, ordained, the means by which this is brought about. It is not a question for us to say what God can do or what God cannot do; the question that concerns us most is what God requires of us to do. He tells his ministers to “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel and lo, I am with you even unto the end of the world” and I believe it is their duty to obey. I imagine the purpose of that command of Christ is for the salvation of his own people; if not, it seems to me it would be a useless command.

Q. Well, is it a fact that you do believe that there are saints chosen from the foundation of the world?

A. Yes; I believe that God’s people that are saved are chosen from the foundation of the world, and I do not believe anybody else will be saved but those people.

Q. Don’t you believe that those saints will finally be preserved?

A. Yes; I believe in the preservation of the saints just as strongly as any man could believe in anything.

Q. Then there is no difference between you and these brethren that you are quarrelling with; they believe in that?

A. Yes; there is this difference, that they use the word preservation in the sense that God’s people are saved without faith and that there is no life, no spiritual life in them that implies action. I believe in the final perseverance of the saints; I believe that when Christ saves a person it is by grace through faith, and I believe then that that person can grow in grace. The “Anti-Means” however, believe that---if I understand it correctly---men are saved faith or no faith.

Q. Where did you get that idea from, that that is their belief?

A. I get that from the writing of, principally from Dr. Waters who is a member, or was a member, I think he is living yet, of a church of like faith and order whom they endorse, whom Elder Daily, the pastor of this very church here endorsed.

Mr. Walton: “Anti-Means” or “Means”?

The Witness: The “Anti-Means” preacher, and I will get that book and quote the language of Dr. Waters where Elder Daily, the pastor of the “Anti-Means” brethren of this church did endorse. I am going to read from Zion’s Advocate for August, 1898, page 224. This is not Zion’s Advocate, but we have got the original. It is already filed  with Brother Burnam’s deposition.

“Every saved child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith; infants and idiots must be so saved for they cannot believe, though they must be regenerated, faith (belief) therefore is not necessary to eternal salvation.”

Then Zion’s Advocate for August 1898, page 225:

“Spiritual and eternal life may then exist apart from a belief in Jesus, repentance toward 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.”

Elder Daily was pastor of the “Anti-Means” people who were worshipping at Mount Carmel Baptist Church and endorsed these writings of Dr. Waters at the time he was
pastor of the church.

By Mr. Downing:

Q. And your side opposed that view?

A. Yes sir.

Q. I am trying to draw the distinction between you?

A. Yes sir; we opposed that. We deny that any person on earth can be saved without faith.

Q. Even a lunatic?

A. Yes sir. He must be saved by faith.

Q. He cannot have faith; then all lunatics may be lost?

A. That may be your idea of it, but it is not God’s, I don’t think.

Q. Well, we will let the judge determine that?

A.Yes.

Q. You say he cannot be saved unless he has faith?

A. Yes.

Q. He is incapable of faith?

A. Well, you say that, I don’t say that. I say that with God all things are possible. I say thlat God can impart faith to a lunatic, an idiot or a child even in its mother’s womb before it is born.

By Colonel Leedy:

Q. He does that directly, does he?

A. I don’t know how he does it, but anyway, I think it  was John, the Baptist, who leaped in his mother’s womb for joy.

Q. Yes; Mr. Burnam told us about that?

A. Well, you can read that in the Bible too.

Q. Yes; I have read it once or twice.

A. He must have had some knowledge or something, if he had joy.

Q. I don’t know about that. I would not undertake to split hairs that way. But if a man is saved, can he be unsaved?

A. No; a man could not be saved and unsaved at the same time, I don’t think.

Q. Well, if a man is saved could he ever be unsaved?

A. If a man is once saved, I think that he will always be saved.

Q. If he was saved---if he was of the elect then before the foundation of the world, he will be saved?

A. He will be saved.

Q. Regardless of consequences; that is your idea of it?

A. Regardless of what consequences.

Q. Regardless of anything for which he may be responsible?

A. Now you give me your question and I will try tp answer it. If God has chosen to salvation an individual before the world was, that individual will be saved; he will be saved in God’s way; God will say how he is to be saved, and God will provide the means by which he shall be saved. It is not a question of circumstances; it is a question of God’s manner or method of saving sinners.

Q. Do I understand you then that men are saved according to conditions performed by them or absolutely without regard to conditions?

A. No; men are not saved by conditions performed by them; Christ has performed all that for them.

Q. Well, I thought I understood you to say that it was necessary that the gospel be preached to enlighten men that they be saved?

A. I said that no man be saved, unless it is through a knowledge of Christ, the gospel of Christ. How that knowledge brought to him is God’s way of dealing with that sinner.

Q. Who preached the gospel---

A. (Interrupting) And God has chosen the way by which that man may become enlightened; and he will become enlightened.

Q. Well, who preached the gospel to John the Baptist?

A. Christ; God.

Q. When? When he was in his mother’s womb?

A. I suppose so. I don’t know. I could not answer that.

Mr. Barton: He wasn’t there.

Colonel Leedy: Since Major Barton was, I will let him answer it.

The Witness: I do know this, that John the Baptist had a knowledge and that he was saved through a knowledge of Christ.

Q. And that was before even the gospel dispensation; is that not true?

A. That was before---yes, if I understand what you mean by the gospel dispensation.

Q. Then that was by direct act of God; wasn’t it?

A. I don’t know that it was.

Q. What is the name of your denomination, its church name?

A. I can only answer that from the record. The record shows that the names were used interchangeably even since the division; some of our minutes show that we call ourselves Old School Baptists, some of them Regular Baptists, and some of them Regular Old School Baptists, and the same can be said of the other side, for instance, Hawk’s Bill Church, a church of like faith and order with that church worshipping here at Luray known as “ Anti-Means Baptists” denominate themselves “Regular Old School Baptists.” The “Anti-Means Baptists” here call themselves “Primitive Baptists,” Old School Baptists, etc.,---maybe other things, I don’t know.

Q. Your denomination here, however, calls itself the Regular Baptists, does it not?

A. We have pretty generally of late years adopted the name “Regular Baptists.”

Q. What is the distinction, the doctrinal distinction, between your denomination and the New School Baptists?

A. I think I know what our church believes, but you being a New School Baptist, may be you could tell what they believe; I don’t know exactly, they have changed so much, it seems to me, that I cannot keep up with them.

Q. Yes; they changed just about forty years before you did, didn’t they?

A. I cannot answer that question; I was too young to have any knowledge of that.

Q. Well you believe in missions just as the New School believe?

A. We believe in missions---but we do not believe in the methods of carrying on the missions as the New School Baptists believe.

Q. You carry on your mission work by a committee, do you not?

A. We do not. On the question of missions, we believe that God sends his ministry to preach the gospel of Christ to all people everywhere throughout the broad world; that He does not limit them as to territory; and this without the intervention of societies, boards, committees, or what not.

Q. Well, does he do that by direct act?

A. Does God or the minister, which do you mean?

Q. God. How does he send them; you say he sends them; how is it done?

A. Well, I should think God puts it into their hearts to go and preach His gospel, and he directs them where to go.

Q. And some other fellow pays the car fare?

A. Yes; “He who---I cannot quote it, but anyway, I think the Bible teaches that God’s ministry ought to be supported.

Q. Then if God’s ministry were not sent and the car fare not furnished, God’s purpose would fail wouldn’t it?

A. I cannot conceive of God’s purpose failing.

Q. If it depends upon man, it would?

A. It doesn’t depend upon man; man depends upon God.

Q. That is my idea too?

A. Yes.

Q. I am more of an Old School Baptist than you are right now. Have you a  representative in China---your church?

A. We have not just at the present time, so far as I know. We have been contributing to the support of Elder G. P. Bostick, who has been located in China.

Q. Is that the only representative of your church in China?

A. It is the only representative to whose support we have been contributing; there may be others that I know not of.

Q. By what means do you contribute to that support---what method---what is your method of getting contributions to your minister?

A. We take up collections and send the money direct to him on the field.

Q. Then after all the distinction between you and the New School is that the New School has some business system by which it sends its contributions, while you do it direct?

Mr. Walton: We except to that question as irrelevant, all of it.

Mr. Barton: The whole of this cross-examination and joint debate between Brothers Leedy and Keyser is excepted to as not in any way relative to the only question involved or issue made in this case which is, as to whether or not the complainants and those represented by them adhere to the doctrine as set forth in the words of the deed of March 8, 1849.

Colonel Leedy: The religious discussion between Brothers Leedy and Keyser being of course on a religious subject would naturally be distasteful to our friend Brother Barton.

A. No; according to my understanding that is not the real distinction. The way I look at it is this, the New School Baptists operate through a board, the board directs through what channels, to what places and for what purposes money collected by them shall be spent. We have no board to direct us, but the churches do their own directing, looking to Christ as the head of the church and the churches themselves send the money direct to the preachers or ministers or missionaries, as you may choose to call them, wheresoever they may be.

By Colonel Leedy:

Q. Now what was the mission of Mr. Bostick?

A. Just wait, Colonel, one minute. And the distinction being further that the New School Baptists have the board that control the churches and the mission fund collected by the various churches.

Q. What is Mr. Bostick, or what was his mission there in China; what
was the object of his mission?

A. To preach Christ and Him crucified.

Q. To believers or unbelievers?

A. To everybody.

Q. To the elect or those who were not elect?

A. To everybody; in as much as he did not know who was the elect.

Q. To what church did Mr. Bostick belong, the Old School Baptist, the Regular Baptists or the New School Baptist?

A. So far as I know, and I speak only from hearsay, he belonged to what was known as the Gospel Mission Baptists; but he is now a member of a church of like faith and order with our own.

Q. He never was then with what is known as the Old School branch of the church?

A. I think he is with that branch now.

Q. Oh!! he came in?

A. But he was never with what is called the “Anti-Means Baptists” so far as I know.

Q. Mr. Keyser, don’t you know that at the time of the writing of this deed that no fellowship was held by this church with any other mission church?

A. I do not know.

Q. And do you not know that at the time of the writing of this deed there was no such thing practiced by this church as Sunday schools?

A. I do not know. We can only gather from history and writings.

________

Elder J. B. McInturff

In answer to interrogatories chief by R. T. Barton, Esq.:

Q. Please give your name, age, residence and occupation?

A. J. B. McInturff; 63 years; Strasburg, Virginia; I suppose I will have to give two occupations, I preach some, but my principal time is given to the work of division superintendent of schools of my county.

Q. Were you at Luray shortly after the division in Mount Carmel church here, and if so, did you have any knowledge of any action taken by either or both of the parties with reference to the possession of the church building; and if so, please state what it was?

A. I was here at the regular meeting in November, 1890, just one month after the reorganization of Ketocton Association at Salem, in Clarke County, as a visitor, invited by the pastor. Now what do you wish me to tell?

Q. All you know with regard to the possession of the church and whether they---

A. (Interrupting) You want me to tell simply what I know of my own personal knowledge?

Q. Yes; about locking out and locking in, and so on?

A. I came here on Friday evening, and the next morning, the pastor---

Q. This previous date, you mean?

A. At the date of the November meeting, 1890, one month after the reorganization, the regular third Sunday meeting. On Saturday morning the pastor and two or three the members, I don’t remember positively all of them, but Dr. Brumback was one, and Pierce Perry was another, came to Pierce Perry’s, where I had stayed all night and conferred in my presence over the situation, the house having been locked, as they said, at the former meeting time. After some conversation amongst them, I think one of them proposed that as the house was locked they would see whether they could get possession of some---or get the use of some, other place for the meeting, and then for the first time I spok