JOHN W. GROVE.

In answer to interrogatories in chief by H. H. Downing, Esq. :

Q. Mr. Grove, please state your age, residence and occupation?

A. My age is 64; my occupation is that of merchant; my place of residence is Luray, Virginia.

Q. Are you a member of any religious organization, if so, what; and how long have you been a member?

A. Yes sir; I am a member of Mount Carmel Old School Baptist Church in Luray, and have been for 41 years.

Q. Do you know anything of a division that occurred in that church, and if you do, what caused that division?

A. Yes sir; I know something of the division there. It occurred in 1890, and the cause, as I understand it, was the introduction in Mount Carmel church of a Sunday School, and some difference---in regard to regeneration, means and instrumentalities, gospel regeneration, or regeneration through the preached word. That was the cause of the disturbance that originated there in 1887 or 1888 and culminated in 1890 in an open rupture.

Q. What church did you first belong to?

A. I belong to the Old School Baptist church, called Mount Carmel at Luray.

Q. When did you become a member of that church---give the year, if you can?

A. In September, 1867.

Q. State whether there were any practices such as Sunday schools or if any missionary-ism, or any instrumental music in that church from the time you became a member until 1887 or 1888?

A. No sir; none prior to that time, after I connected myself with the church, was received in the church. And I was also somewhat acquainted with the church and the church customs and usages before I became a member.

Q. How far back can you remember as to what the customs and usages of this church were?

A. Well, even further back than ‘60. I am 64 years old last December, and I was in the habit of attending a Baptist church from boyhood. My father and mother attended the Old School Baptist church.

Q. Now tell us in your own way what were the first signs of a division in that church, and what was done by each of the two parties?

A. Well, I guess it was sometime in 1887, that the Sunday school question was first introduced in the church there, and it was urged very strongly by Elders Burnam and Perry, visiting the members at their homes, around their firesides, and talking the matter up to them individually, and urging them to start this Sunday school, or agree to it. Elder Perry and Elder Burnam visited me at my home and used all the eloquence and persuasion they could, and I, after considerable hesitation, finally agreed to try the thing myself with them. They wanted me to---said that I was a very suitable and appropriate man to take a start in the matter and help it along. After their urgent solicitation for sometime, we finally did, some of us, agree to have a Sunday school there---that is, a bible class. It wasn’t called a Sunday school at all in those days. Simply spoke of it as a bible class at first; and some of us agreed to try it and we did so. But we soon saw that it was not the thing. It was contrary to the doctrine that we had learned, and the practice of the Baptists, and we were not satisfied; we were restless, and felt condemned in varying from a custom and practice of the Baptist religion, and we opposed it from that time on; and we waged war against it at different times until the final separation in October, 1890. There was a grievance, one sister asked for a letter of dismission early in 1889, and stated her grievance against that church, her membership being there, on account of the introduction of Sunday schools, Sunday schools being held within the walls of Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church, she asked for a letter of dismission.

Q. Who was that?

A. (Continuing:) The matter was deferred until the next meeting. The church took no action on it at the first meeting, when the letter was first asked for through the clerk. At the next meeting then the matter was brought up as a matter of reference and on motion of a member, Brother David E. Almond, the church granted the sister a letter of dismission in full fellowship, notwithstanding the fact that she was grieved because of the practice of the church; and I being clerk of the church at that time opposed the action of the church, and in taking the vote, I manifested my opposition and am so on record as against the granting of the letter.

Q. Who was that?

A. Lucy G. Brumback, the daughter of Elder William C. Lauck.

Q. Was there ever a time when the church was a unit on the question of missionary-ism and Sunday schools?

A. There never was a time in my knowledge that it was a unit. There was always more or less opposition and contention. Two of the members, of the church who afterwards joined in with the movement and endorsed it heartily, opposed it; as we can show by the church records, opposed it bitterly, and afterwards changed over to it; just as I went against it after trying it and seeing the disturbance that was occasioned by it. And rather than have a continuous fight in the church, we finally drew the line.

Q. What do you mean by “drawing the line?”

A. In the final division which occurred in October, 1890, the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church withdrew fellowship from members who were advocating and practicing the innovations, in the Old Baptist church.

Q. Have you the records of the church?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Please find the record relating to that incident and read it?

A. I have the records reaching back as far as 1828.

Colonel Leedy: I understood you to say you had the records from January 26, 1828?

The Witness: I have; yes sir.

Colonel Leedy: From 1876 back to 1828?

The Witness: Yes sir. I have the record reaching back to 1828.

Mr. Weaver: Mr. Grove, as I understand, you have the church records from 1828 up to 1876?

The Witness: Yes, and I also have copies and extracts from 1876 to 1890.

Mr. Weaver: Have you the complete record from 1890 up to the present time?

The Witness: Yes sir.

Colonel Leedy: From the records as you have them, Mr. Grove, from 1828 up to 1876 will you state whether or not there is recorded any grievance or dissension among you at all?

The Witness: No sir.

Mr. Barton: That is excepted to because the records must speak for themselves having already been introduced as evidence in the case.

Col. Leedy: Have you examined the records, Mr. Grove?

The Witness: Yes sir.

Colonel Leedy: And you know that to be a fact?

The Witness: Yes sir. I examined the records from 1828 to the present.

Mr. Barton: The same objection is repeated, because it makes no difference whether the witness knows it to be a fact or not, the record itself being in evidence is the only proper evidence.

Colonel Leedy: Well, we will let you have them to your heart’s content.

Mr. Barton: My remarks were not addressed to you, Mr. Leedy, but to the stenographer.

Colonel Leedy: I beg your pardon. Mine were addressed to both.

Mr. Barton: I think you have no right to address remarks to counsel. What takes place here must go in the record.

Colonel Leedy: How about when you address remarks concerning the military?

Mr. Barton: I did not address them at all except to the record, and there they are.

Colonel Leedy: Then I will address the records too, and dress the record with them.

Mr. Downing: Please take the records, go through them carefully, if you have not already done so, and state from those records when the first grievance occurred in Mount Carmel Old School Baptist Church?

The Witness: Here is a minute of the Mount Carmel Church meeting, March 17th, 1888---

Mr. Barton: One minute, please. Please state what you are reading from now?

The Witness: I am reading from minutes copied from the Church book from 1876 to 1890.

“Mount Carmel, March 17th, 1888. The church met according to appointment with praise, prayer and preaching by our Pastor, Elder C. L. Yates. Visiting Brethren were invited to seats in council. Invitation for membership extended. Grievances called for. Whereupon Brother T. J. Beach stated that the church was not in condition to commune in consequence of a 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 schools in Old School Baptist churches, but that he would not withdraw church fellowship from any brother or sister on account of Sunday schools. Elder. C. L. Yates then suggested that the catechism and question book be discarded, and that nothing but the Bible be used. The suggestion received favor and Elder T. J. Beach made a motion that a vote of the church be taken on the question of reading and studying the bible on Sunday in the church house, the motion being seconded by a brother. The motion was then put, as follows: “All who are in favor of meeting in the church to read and study the bible, discarding catechisms, question books etc., stand up,” whereupon about 20 or more members arose. Then ‘All who are opposed to the motion stand up,’ one member then arose.”

By Mr. Downing:

Q. Now what is the next minute in the records of the church relating to a dissension?

A. The next is March 16, 1889. I do not know that it is necessary to read the whole minute, but just simply the reference of a grievance.

(Reading:) “Mount Carmel, March 16, 1889. “Grievances: Sister Lucy Brumback sent in a letter wherein she requested a letter of dismission from Mount Carmel church because of the Sunday school which is carried on within her walls. The matter of granting the letter was taken up, but without any action further than to defer it until the April meeting. Elder C. L. Yates, Moderator; J. W. Grove, Clerk.”

By Mr. Downing:

Q. Now when is the next?

A. The next is April 20, 1889.

(Reading:) “The church met at the appointed hour with praise, prayer and preaching by her pastor, Elder C. L. Yates. Brethren from sister churches were invited to seats with us. The usual invitation given to any who desired to unite with us upon gospel terms. 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.”

Q. Now the next minute that has reference to a division?

A. December 14, 1889. (Reading:)

“December 14, 1889, Mount Carmel---

“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 a vote taken on it resulted by 12 voting for it, and 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 therefore, we denounce these things contrary to the doctrine we have learned, as unscriptural, and earnestly implore our brethren to renounce them all so that we may live together in love and peace.”

Q. By Col. Leedy: Now refer to May 18, 1890.

A. May 18, 1890, in speaking in reference to a resolution on the death of Elder Perry, and then after that it says,

“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 between Brother J. W. Grove and Dr. Brumback a vote of the church was taken which resulted as follows: 20 of the members voting for the resolution and six 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 of 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. W. A. Beach, Clerk; C. L. Yates, Moderator.”

I have another minute here of September 20, 1890. (Reading:)

“Here was a letter read by Brother D. E. Almond and was adopted, no one dissenting, namely: Whereas, this Mount Carmel church was dropped from the roll of the Ebenezer Association at the meeting with the Alma Church on Friday, August 22, 1890 for the alleged reasons that our beloved pastor, Charles L. Yates is a heretic and ministers to a band of excluded persons, and meaning, it is supposed, the brethren at Bethel and Thumb Run churches, separated from the fellowship of their church, without order, or 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.”

Mr. Barton: When was that record?

The Witness: The last I read was September 21, 1890.

The Witness: (Continuing) : This, begins with October, 1890, at the time the new party met at Salem, in Clarke County, to reorganize, as they said, Ketocton Association. This was our regular meeting day at Luray, Mount Carmel. Our pastor had gone---he who was pastor at that time---had gone to this association.

Mr. Barton: What association?

The Witness: To meet down there in pursuance of an invitation from Bethel Church to meet them at Salem, in Clarke County, in October, 1890.

Mr. Keyser: Who was the pastor?

The Witness: Elder Yates was the pastor at that time, in September, 1890.

Colonel Leedy: Was that the regular day of your church?

The Witness: Yes sir; our regular meeting day.

Colonel Leedy: Was the record previously read there of a regular meeting day of your church or was it another day?

The Witness: I think it was a regular day. I was not present at that meeting in September. Shall I read, gentlemen?

Mr. Downing: Yes sir.

The Witness: (Reading) Mount Carmel, October 18, 1890. The church met at the regular hour with praise by the congregation, prayer and preaching by brother John H. Menifee, Text, St. John 1st. Chapter and 17th verse, after which she organized for business by electing brother J. B. Compton, Moderator, and brother J. W. Grove, Clerk. Visiting brethren were then invited to seats with us. Grievances were next called for in order. Whereupon our moderator tendered the chair to Eld. J. H. Menifee, which was accepted for the time, the chosen moderator desiring to take a part in the business of the church. The clerk then read the following resolution and moved its adoption.

Whereas the Scriptures plainly teach that God is the only Creator, the only Lawgiver in nature or in Grace, and that natural men are dead to spiritual things, that the gospel is to natural men foolishness and the savor of death unto death, that to living saints only is it the power of God, therefore it resolved, that we, the members of Mount Carmel Church assembled, do hold that the doctrine as held by some who style themselves Primitive Baptists, namely, that the Gospel is the means or instrument by which sinners are quickened into life is a heresy and that the means introduced therewith, such as Sunday schools and missionary societies are unscriptural and detrimental to the Saints in that it subverts the great purpose for which the gospel was given, namely to bear glad tidings of Salvation to such as are made alive by the Spirit and that the righteousness of God be revealed from faith to faith. We do beseech such of our brethren as have been entangled in this Arminian net to prayerfully consider and boldly retract such heresies that we may walk together in fellowship giving all praise to God.

We hereby declare non-fellowship for all who hold these heresies and close our doors against them. We do this only in the fear of God, our natural feelings certainly do not prompt us to this act, for many of them are very near and dear to us in social bonds.

The motion that the resolution be adopted being seconded, it was put to a vote by the moderator and resulted in its adoption by a vote of twenty-one for and eight against it.

The following is a list of the names of members who voted for the resolution:

A. J. Huffman, S. N. Judd, Milton Moyer, Lee Moyer, J. W. Grove, J. B. Compton, Joseph Moyer, Mary Modesitt, Delia Jobe, Amelia Hart, Emily J. Huffman, Mattie Fagan, Annie Huffman, Mary E. Kibler, Polly Grove, Eliza Musselman, Luella Lauck, Mary Freeze, Mary E. Moyer, Susan Moyer,  Emma Ogden. The church then proceeded to elect a pastor by nominating Elder T. S. Dalton, the nomination receiving a second, the moderator took the voice of the church by a rising vote, which stood twenty-one for Brother Dalton. An opportunity was then given for all who might oppose his election but no one did so.”

By Mr. Downing:

Q. Now turn to the next minute that relates to this dispute?

A. (Reading:) “February 14th, 1891. The church met at the usual hour with praise, prayer and preaching by her, pastor, Elder T. S. Dalton, who has accepted the care of Mount Carmel Old School Baptist Church in consequence of her call to him at her regular meeting in October last. The church was then organized for business, Brother Dalton being moderator by virtue of his pastoral care of the church. 1st. Visiting brethren from sister Churches of our faith and order were invited to seats with us. 2nd. The door of the Church was opened by her pastor in giving an invitation for the reception of members. 3rd. A contribution amounting to Four Dollars ($4.00), was received for the necessities of the church and left in the hands of the Clerk. 4th. The minute of the January meeting was then called for and read showing that the report of her committee to confer with a committee from the means Baptists relative to ownership and occupancy of this church house had not been submitted to the church at that time, but was deferred until this meeting.

Whereupon, Brother J. B. Compton explained his position by saying that there was no question in his mind as to who were the rightful owners of the church property, but that he was willing that our brethren of the new departure should have the privilege of meeting in this house provided their meetings did not conflict with ours. The report or agreement of the committee was then read by the clerk and submitted to the church for her adoption or rejection. After some deliberation and explanation and no motion to adopt the report, a motion was made by Brother J. B. Compton that the report be tabled indefinitely. The motion was then seconded and the vote was taken on it by Brother J. W. Grove, the moderator, having vacated the chair in his favor pending the settlement of the question, the motion carried resulting in tabling the report of the committee indefinitely.

Brother J. B. Compton then offered the following resolution. Resolved that we the regular Old School Baptist Church at Luray, Va., called Mount Carmel do through courtesy accord to our so-called Means Baptist brethren, for whom we have declared non-fellowship on account of certain departures from the faith and practice of this church, the privilege of meeting in this house a regular day in each month so that it shall not conflict with our regular meeting days which are the third Lord’s Day and Saturday preceding in each month. Also be it further resolved, that we as original Mount Carmel Church demand of said Means Baptists the church record up to the time of our declaration of non-fellowship for them, which record they now have in possession say from 1876 to 1890; The vote was then taken on the resolution as a whole and the resolution was carried.”

Here is a minute of April 18th, 1891:

“On motion by Brother J. B. Compton, J. W. Grove and Milton Moyer were appointed to see William A. Beach and demand the records of the church from 1876 to October, 1890, as they are now in his immediate possession.”

Here is a minute of May 16th, 1891, the same year:

“The committee appointed to see Wm. A. Beach at last meeting to demand the church records from 1876 to 1890, which are now in his hands and used by an excluded party from this church, reported that they had seen W. A. Beach and demanded the records in the name of Mount Carmel Church and that the said Wm. A. Beach refused to give up the church records? The report being received, the committee was discharged. 4th. J. W. Grove then stated that as this church had been dropped from the roll of the association at her last session, if we desired to be restored, it would be necessary to apply by letter and messengers. Further action in the matter was deferred to June meeting.”

Then, July 18,1891:

“The minute of June meeting was then called for by the moderator the same being read by the clerk, was adopted. On motion the following named brethren were appointed as messengers to the association to convene with Hawksbill Church in August. A. .J.  Huffman, Milton Moyer, Lee Moyer and J. W. Grove. Alternates: J. B. Compton and S. N. Judd.”

Q. I will ask you what association was that?

A. Ebenezer Association with Hawksbill Church.

Mr. Downing: Have you any other book that has any bearing on it?
 
The Witness: Yes sir. I have two other books reaching back to 1828, one of them up to 1846 and the other from 1846 up to 1876.

Colonel Leedy: Haven’t you a book there that records the ordination of Elder Booton, which shows the doctrine of the church at that time?

The Witness: Yes sir; I have, which I want to bring in evidence. Here is a minute of date, May 4, 1870 :

(Reading:)

“Mount Carmel, May 4, 1870. At a special meeting held by the Mount Carmel Regular Baptist Church at Luray, Page County; Virginia, called for the ordination of Brother Jno. K. Booton---

Mr. Walton: What is the name of it, did you say?

The Witness: It is headed, “At a special meeting held the Mount Carmel Regular Baptist Church at Luray, Page County, Virginia, called for the ordination of Brother Jno. K.  Booton, a member of that church. The following ministers were present who constituted the Presbytery, viz. : Elders John Clark, William C. Lauck, John H. Menifee and F. M. Perry. 

The services were conducted in the following manner:

Ordination discussed by Elder John Clark, from Acts 22, 26, 27, 28. After preaching Brother Clark was appointed moderator, and called the church and Presbytery to order preparatory to the business before them. The deacons were then called upon by the moderator to state to the Presbytery for what purpose they had been called before the church. The reply was: For the ordination of Brother Jno. K. Booton to the Gospel ministry. The moderator further interrogated the deacons to know if it was the full and cheerful consent of the whole church, which was answered affirmatively. The moderator then called upon the candidate to relate his experience, which he proceeded to do fully and which was satisfactory to the Presbytery the candidate then interrogated by the moderator and by the brethren, Lauck and Menifee fully as to his experiences of a call to the ministry, and his views of the following prominent points of doctrine, viz. :

The Sonship of Christ as the Son of God and son of man; The divinity of Christ---the atonement of Christ, the resurrection of Christ, the second coming of Christ the resurrection of the just and unjust, and the judgment; the doctrine of regeneration by the Spirit of God without and independent of all agencies and instrumentalities whatsoever, of election, and of faith :---

To all these inquiries, and upon all these points of doctrine, full and satisfactory answers were given by the candidate, whereupon the Presbytery proceeded by the imposition of hands, and prayers by Brother Clark to solemnly ordain and set him apart to the work of the Gospel Ministry.” * * *

By Mr. Downing:

Q. Have you the records from the time of the separation of your church up to the present time?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Of your branch of the church?

A. Yes sir; I have been the clerk for the entire period except about a year or two, possibly.

Q. And those records are in the name of what church?

A. Mount Carmel.

Q. How do you style yourselves?

A. Usually Mount Carmel Old School Baptist; sometimes Mount Carmel Primitive Baptist church, possibly a few times that way, usually Mount Carmel Old School, and sometimes just Mount Carmel.

Q. You and your people have claimed that you were Mount Carmel church during all these years?

A. Yes sir.

By Mr. Downing:

Q. Mr. Grove, give us briefly what caused the division in Mount Carmel Church, if you know?

A. Well, sir, it was the persistency of some members of the church---their persistency in the Sunday school and means question, instrumental regeneration, regeneration through the preached word, or through the instrumentality of preaching. That question was agitated considerable.

Q. Your people, if I understand it, held the view that Sunday schools, missionary societies, and all such human institutions were contrary to the taught doctrine of the bible?

A. Yes sir. That is our understanding of it; and also contrary to the practice, religious practice of the Baptists, as far as my recollection extends which is fully fifty years, longer than that. Contrary to the doctrine, and contrary to the practice of the church; and that we could not reconcile ourselves to those innovations in an Old Baptist Church.

Q. I want you to confine your answer to the practice of Mount Carmel church?

A. Mount Carmel church I am especially acquainted with, having been born and raised in Luray and attended it ever since I was a boy, and that is the particular and especial church to which I allude in my answer. Of course, I attended other churches in the county at different points; but it never has been the practice of the Old Baptists in Luray to have a Sunday school or any kind of a mission system. I never heard them preach instrumental regeneration through the preaching of the Scripture, the gospel, until 1887 or 1888, along there, and then it began to wax pretty warm.

Q. And that caused the separation?

A. That caused the hard feeling, the strain and contention and confusion, and finally, division.

Q. Have you or your faction ever surrendered the ownership of that church?

A. No sir.

Q. Have you persistently adhered in your ownership?

A. Yes sir; we have never conceded anything as to ownership or legal rights to that property to anybody.

Q. Are your people occupying that church the regular day that you occupied it prior to the separation?

A. Yes sir; we are.

Q. Do you know anything of a contract with the Town of Luray for the sale or exchange of this church?

A. Yes sir; I know something of that contract.

I do not think there is anything else I want to ask him.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Mr. Grove, when did you resign as clerk of Mount Carmel Baptist Church?

A. It was either in March or April, 1889, I think, sir.

Q. How long was that before the division?

A. Well, the final division did not occur until October, 1890.

Q. Who was your successor as Clerk of Mount Carmel Baptist Church?

A. I believe David E. Almond was.

Q. Isn’t it a fact that W. A. Beach was your successor?

A. Why, I wouldn’t be positive about that. I believe he was for a short time, and then David E. Almond. I think the minutes show that he was my successor.

Q. What minute is that?

A. This is May, 1889. “On motion, Brother David E. Almond was elected clerk. After which, adjourned.”

Q. He resigned afterwards and W. A. Beach was elected clerk. Whom did you turn over the church book to when you resigned?

A. I could not state positively as to that. I possibly left it right on the table.

Q. Who would have been the proper one for you to have turned the book of Mount Carmel church over to at the time of your resignation as clerk?

A. I do not know, unless it would have been the Moderator.

Q. Who was the Moderator at the time?

A. C. L. Yates.

Q. I believe you have stated you had certain other church books in your possession at the time you were clerk?

A. Yes

Q. Did you turn them over at the same time that you turned over the other church book?

A. No; I didn’t turn them over at any time, or since even.

Q. I believe you stated that bible classes or Sunday schools were introduced into Mount Carmel church sometime in 1887; am I correct?

A. I think that is about the time. I don’t remember exactly.

Q. And that was about three years before the division?

A. Yes.

Q. You remained a member of Mount Carmel church from the time of the adoption of Sunday schools up until the time of the division?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did you regard Sunday schools as a ground for non-fellowship at that time?

A. At the time Sunday schools were introduced, as has been stated, there were not very many objections to it, in the way the matter was presented. There was some opposition, however, even from the start, and we bore with it for the sake of peace, trying to reconcile ourselves to that kind of thing; but the matter grew worse and worse and the opposition increased, and it became almost intolerable to try to have service at all.

Q. Did you regard it as a ground for non-fellowship at the time Sunday schools were introduced in 1887?

A. Well, no sir, as far as the Bible class was concerned. We did not so consider it, but inasmuch as it did disturb the peace and fellowship of the church, why, we saw that we could not live in peace that way. Those were things that we had never practiced in the church, and were certainly one of the causes of the disturbance. We just concluded that it was high time to declare non-fellowship for practices that were not common and not known in the Old School Baptist Church at Luray.

Q. Is it not a fact that you did not declare it a ground of non-fellowship until shortly before the time of the division?

A. Well, yes; we did not take any action on it to that extent, to declare non-fellowship for any member, but long before the division, it may have been six or twelve months that we were not in fellowship really, while we were meeting together---we were not in fellowship and peace.

Q. At the time of the introduction of Sunday schools in 1887, if I understand you, correctly, you took part in the introduction of that Sunday school in Mount Carmel Church; is that right?

A. I took part in that Sunday school possibly on one or two occasions.

Q. Did you not order some of the books or supplies for that Sunday school?

A. No sir.

Q. But you did attend that Sunday school to some extent?

A. To a very limited extent. As I said before, possibly twice.

Q. Were the Sunday school supplies sent to you?

A. I think they were sent in my care. I did not order them, but being clerk of the church it would be natural to suppose I would be the proper person to ship them to.

Q. And you delivered them over to the church?

A. I delivered them over to the church, yes sir.

Q. Do you believe in prayer meetings held in churches and does your church believe in them?

A. What do you mean by “believing in them?”

Q. Do you approve of them?

A. No objection in the world to them.

Q. Do you practice them in your church?

A. No sir; not at this time. We have done it to some extent.

Q. Since the division?

A. I don’t think we have.

Q. Do a majority of the members of your church approve of prayer meetings?

A. I don’t think any of them would object. I could not answer positively, but I do not think they would object.

Q. You know there was a bible class in Mount Carmel church long before the division; do you not?

A. I have a very indistinct recollection of that bible class.

Q. Was it not conducted by Elder William C. Lauck and Elder Perry?

A. I could not speak from my own knowledge anything concerning that bible class. I don’t think I was a member of the church at that time.

Q. Did you ever attend it?

A. I don’t remember that I did. I have a very poor idea about that bible class at all, and very little recollection of it, very little. I am satisfied though there was a bible class held there for a short time at night about the middle of the week.

Q. Do you believe in teaching children the scriptures?

A. Yes sir; I believe it is a good book to teach children.

Q. Anybody’s children?

A. I believe it is my duty to try to teach my own children the bible.

Q. Well, would you be so selfish as not to endeavor to teach anybody else’s children?

A. I never have tried that. Never have endeavored to do it.

Q. Would you hesitate to do it, if an opportunity presented?

A. In a Sunday school in a Baptist church; yes.

Q. Do you believe it would be wrong or unscriptural to read and explain the bible to any other person’s child outside of your own anywhere?

A. I don’t know that it would unless I would be intruding myself upon other parents and other children.

Q. Then if you do not believe that it would be improper or unscriptural to read and explain the bible to any person’s children outside of your own, do you think it would make any difference when and where you read and explained the bible?

A. I believe it would make a considerable difference if I were to go to an Old School Baptist church and engage in a Sunday school contrary to the practice---faith and practice---of the Old School Baptists, when they did not have any of that kind of thing
when I joined them; that was not their practice and custom when I joined them, I believe it would be wrong for me to do something that would mar the peace and fellowship of that church.

Q. Regardless of what your belief might be?

A. Yes sir; I believe that would be wrong regardless of what my belief might be.

Q. Now I am asking you what is your belief individually in the matter?

A. I believe it would be wrong for me to go and organize a Sunday school in an Old Baptist church, or any other church, with my understanding of scripture.

Q. You believe it would be wrong to organize a bible class in which nothing but the bible itself was used?

A. Yes sir, I do; if it would mar the peace and fellowship of the body to which I belong.

Q. Suppose it did mar the peace and fellowship of the body to which you belong; then would you consider it wrong?

A. I would consider it wrong, insofar as I do not consider it obligatory upon me to engage in anything of that kind, when I cannot see a “Thus saith the Lord” for it---cannot see a requirement in the scripture. I would consider it wrong, because, as I understand, all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction; that the man of God may be throughly furnished unto every good work. I believe all of our religious duty is laid down in the scripture, and if you attempt to introduce something else, it would be wrong.

Q. When Elder William C. Lauck and Elder Perry conducted the bible class in Mount Carmel church, as you say you have some faint recollection of it---do you think they were acting wrong at that time, if such a bible class were conducted?

A. No sir; I couldn’t say that they were, if it did not disturb the peace and fellowship of the church.

Q. Is it not a fact that during the time that this Sunday school or bible class was conducted in the Mount Carmel Church building, prior to the division, that both means and anti-means Baptists engaged in that Sunday school or took part in it?

A. Oh, yes; yes sir.

Q. Did you regard your acts then as incompatible with the deed, or the doctrine laid down in the deed of 1849?

A. I so regard our actions then as incompatible with the doctrine laid down in the deed of 1849.

Q. You believed in the doctrine of the deed at that time; did you not?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And yet you felt that your actions were incompatible with those doctrines?

A. No sir; I hadn’t studied the question to any great depth, and the matter was so persistently urged upon us, and Elder Burnam was a man we had all loved dearly, and had visited our county the first time just before I joined the church, and we had had a considerable revival there, when he preached acceptably to our people, and he is a man well calculated to persuade and to lead, naturally an educated, smart and gentlemanly man, and he just actually led us against our own convictions to some extent; and we tried to follow him, and did follow him as long as we could, until we saw our peace was too seriously disturbed to follow anybody, notwithstanding we might love them.

Mr. Keyser: The answer is excepted to in so far as it is not responsive.

Q. You have studied the matter since that time with reference to the doctrine in the deed of 1849; is that true?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And you have arrived at the conclusion that the practice of Sunday schools is incompatible with the doctrines as laid down in that deed; is that true?

A. I studied it then to some extent during that trouble, and I was going against my own conscience and honest convictions to a great extent at that time, I admit with shame; but we tried to bear it, and live together without any open rupture.

Q. That is not the question I asked. The stenographer will please read the question again?

The stenographer read the question:

“Q. And you have arrived at the conclusion that the practice of Sunday schools is incompatible with the doctrines as laid down in that deed; is that true?”

A. My understanding is that it is incompatible and inconsistent with the doctrine as laid down in the deed.

Q. In what respect is it inconsistent and incompatible?

A. Well, in respect as to a religious or christian duty, a church duty.

Q. Is the practice of Sunday schools or bible classes incompatible with the doctrine of unconditional and eternal election?

A. Well, according to the common acceptance of the term, the object of Sunday schools, I would say it is incompatible with that doctrine.

Q. In what respect?

A. Because the object of Sunday schools, the main and prime object of Sunday schools, as I understand it, is to feed the church, a nursery to the church, to build up the church, and to retain our children, to keep them from going off to other denominations, which is not trusting the Lord fully as to their salvation.

Q. Was that your understanding of Sunday schools at the time you took part in them at Mount Carmel Church?

A. Yes; that was somewhat my understanding.

Q. To that extent you departed from the doctrine as laid down in the deed?

A. Yes sir; against my own conscience.

Q. And then the doctrine of predestination of God and the final perseverance of the saints to glory; is it incompatible with that?

A. Well, it is incompatible so far as the atonement is concerned, the election; that is the teachings of it and the object of it---incompatible with unconditional election.

Q. Don’t you know, Mr. Grove that Regular Baptists do not believe that Sunday schools, of themselves, will save anybody?

A. No sir; I do not know but what some people believe through the instrumentality of Sunday schools some people may be saved.

Q. Do you know what Regular Baptists believe with reference to Sunday schools---or Means Baptists?

A. I suppose they believe, to a greater or less extent, what other churches do with regard to Sunday schools.

Q. Don’t you know that Regular or Means Baptists hold that only God’s elect will be saved; don’t you know that?

A. I don’t know that I can say positively that I know exactly what they believe.

Q. You do not know, as a matter of fact, whether Regular Baptists believe in the doctrine as laid down in the deed or not?

A. They claim to believe it.

Q. You do not know that they do not believe it; do you?

A. No sir; I could not say they do not believe it.

Q. For if they tell you they do believe it, isn’t that sufficient for you?

A. That is not knowledge. That is not my knowledge, of course; but I have their word for it, and I cannot say they do not believe it. I could not say that they did believe. I also know that the New School Baptists claim and have preached much the same articles of faith that we have.

Q. Have you been in the Mount Carmel Baptist Sunday school since the division?

A. No sir.

Q. Do you know how those Sunday schools are conducted, of your own knowledge?

A. No.

Q. Don’t you know that they only teach from the texts of the bible?

A. I do not know. I understood from their own testimony that they had these International Quarterlies, the same as other Sunday schools.

Q. Yes; exactly. But don’t you know from other testimony that they only teach those things pertaining to the bible itself---I mean the texts of the bible?

A. I don’t know anything about that International quarterly. I never owned one and never studied them.

Q. Mr. Grove, I will ask you the same question that was asked Elder Dalton. You believe in teaching your own children the bible; do you not?

A. I try to teach my children to read the bible. I tell them that frequently.

Q. What is your purpose in trying to teach your children to read the Bible?

A. It is a good rule of life. It is a good, moral code. It teaches them their duty to parents, and their duty to everybody else; and their duties in this life as moral men and women.

Q. And it is also a fact that you teach them that in order to bring them up in the nature and admonition of the Lord.

A. Yes sir; I try to do that. Even outside of the bible, I try to do that.

Q. Now we have plenty fatherless and motherless children in this world, do you believe it is wrong for anybody else to teach them what you teach your children?

A. I cannot see, Mr. Keyser, what relevancy there is to this point in that question at all. We are talking about a Sunday school in an Old Baptist church.

Q. I understand that, Mr. Grove, but I want to get your views on teaching children the scriptures at all anywhere; and I want to then differentiate between that teaching that you believe in and the teaching that we believe in, and see, after all, if there is much difference. Now then the point is this: if here is a fatherless and motherless child, the scripture cannot apply to that child, when it says “Parents, bring your children up in the nature and admonition of the Lord.” Now the point I want to ask you is this: Take that fatherless and motherless child, would it be wrong or improper for any other person to teach that child and to endeavor to bring it up in the nature and admonition of the Lord?

A. As far as I am concerned, I do not feel called upon to bring up that child.

Q. You do not believe that any person ought to extend the same privilege or the same duty to that child that you conceive to be the duty to your own children?

A. I do not believe it to be my duty to bring up another man’s child, in that sense. I see no scripture for it.

Q. Now Mr. Grove, what difference would it make to teaching your child at your home the. scriptures, and teaching your child in the church building the same scriptures. What difference would it make?

A. Well, so far as teaching my own child is concerned, it would not make any difference.  I am simply required to teach my own children, bring up my own children, and no one else.

Q. Then if I understand you, after all, the only objection you have to teaching children at any time or at any place, is this: That the bible requires only parents to teach their own children, and you do not think it is right for anybody else to teach those children but the parents?

A. I do not think that I have any bible authority to teach anybody else’s children, or bring up anybody else’s children even, in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and I am sure it has not been the practice of the Old School Baptists. It was not when I joined the church in 1867, and has not been since, except the short interval of two or three years.

Q. Do you believe in bible classes in the church?

A. Well, sir, we have never had a bible class in our church to any extent, except that little class you refer to here, which was about 1868.

Q. You would not object to members of your church meeting at your house and reading and discussing the Bible, could you, in the presence of your children, or anyone else’s children?

A. No, sir.

Q. You would not consider that wrong, would you?

A. I would not object to it, or make any fuss about it.

Q. Well, would you consider it wrong?

A. Well, if I didn’t invite them there, I would consider it a little breach of etiquette.

Q. Then if they were to go to the church for the same purpose, would you consider that wrong, necessarily so?

A. I would consider it wrong to have a Sunday school in an Old Baptist church.

Q. Would you consider that a Sunday school, such as I have named?

A. Well, yes, if you would have it on Sunday.

Q. Well, suppose it was on a week night or a week day?

A. Then I would hardly call it a Sunday school.

Q. Then would you object to it, during any week day in the church?

A. No sir; I would not object to meeting at the church---the membership to meet at the church on Wednesday night or Thursday night and study the bible.

Q. In the presence of children who may come there?

A. Wouldn’t keep anybody out that wanted to come in.

Q. Then, after all, it is the day you object to?

A. It is a Sunday school in Old School Baptist churches, we never had them, and it disturbed our peace and union.

Q. Now, Elder John Clark, you believed in his writings, did you not; and do yet?

A. A great many of his writings.

Q. He says, it does not make any difference in the day at all. Your views do not coincide with his?

A. I don’t know what Elder Clark said about that; and even if I did, I don’t know that that makes much difference.

Q. You don’t think that makes much difference?

A. I say if I knew what he wrote or what he said.

Q. Mr. Grove, are your views that you have expressed here with reference to Sunday schools and teaching children and so on, the views of your church, or the members thereof, for the most part?

A. I could not answer positively, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that maybe the views of a good many of them. I could not answer about that. I know they are opposed to Sunday
schools. I know that.

Q. Mr. Grove, you heard the deposition of Elder Dalton today; did you not?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You heard what Elder Dalton had to say on the subject of missions and missionaries; did you not?

A. I think I heard him, yes. I cannot retain it all.

Q. Do your views on the question of missions coincide with those of Brother Dalton?

A. Now you just refer to his testimony and ask me direct concerning certain things.

Q. Very well; I will take it up seriatim with you. Do you believe in any sort of missions or missionaries?

A. I do not exactly approve of the word mission, in any way, or missionism.

Q. You are prejudiced as to the word “missions;” is that right?
 
A. Well, yes, to some extent. On the common acceptation of the term, I may be somewhat prejudiced. But I do not like the mission term, or mission system.

Q. Just as you are prejudiced to the term “Sunday school”?

A. I believe that the Holy Spirit sends out his own missionaries, and that the Lord calls preachers to go to certain places to preach the gospel.

Q. And they are missionaries?

A. When sent by Him, they are.

Q. Now then you believe that those missionaries are called by God to go; do you not?

A. I believe certain of them are called. They are impressed by His Spirit, and they so understand it and so interpret it, and they do go.

Q. And you believe that the Lord or that God also selects the field for those  missionaries to go to; do you not?

A. Well, it seems he sent Paul to certain places.

Q. Now you believe that if the Holy Spirit were to send, or to put it in the heart of Brother Dalton to go to China and preach the gospel, you believe that it would be the duty of Brother Dalton to go; do you not?

A. Yes; I believe if he was fully impressed and convinced in his own mind to go anywhere to preach the gospel, he ought to go.

Q. And wouldn’t you encourage Brother Dalton in that?

A. Well, Brother Dalton would have to settle that matter between himself and his God.

Q. Would you render Brother Dalton any assistance along that line to send him?

A. No; I don’t know that I would.

Q. Would you render him any assistance on the field when he got there?

A. I wouldn’t be there.

Q. If he were there and you were here, would you render him any assistance?

A. No sir.

Q. If you were there after he got there, would you render him any assistance?

A. If I appreciated what preached, no doubt I would.

Q. Then to that extent you believe in God-sent missionaries?

A. I believe he sends men.

Q. To foreign lands?

A. I don’t know whether or not.

Q. You just said---

A. I didn’t say to foreign lands.

Q. Well, I asked you a moment ago that if Brother Dalton believed in his heart that God had directed him to go to the Chinese or the Japanese or any foreign land, to preach the gospel, if you believed that Brother Dalton ought to obey that command or that call?

A. Well, Brother Dalton would have to decide that matter himself as his own cause; and he would have to depend upon the Lord to get there.

Q. Well, but suppose Brother Dalton were to tell you he felt impressed that way, wouldn’t you believe he ought to go then?

A. Why, certainly, if I thought he was an honest man. That isn’t saying I ought to help to get him there.

Q. You spoke of Paul going somewhere to preach. Where was that?

A. Well, he went to different places. I don’t remember now.

Q. Wasn’t he helped on the way?

A. Yes; as he went he was helped. I don’t know that he was helped before he started.

Q. But if Brother Dalton were to start to China for that purpose, and you were to meet him on the way, then you would help him, wouldn’t you. You would help him on his way, wouldn’t you?

A. If he were to ask me to help him, I might. If he asked me, I might, and tell me he needed it, and couldn’t depend on the Lord.

Q. Now, Mr. Grove, I hand you a copy of Zion’s Advocate, dated April 15th, 1882, and I ask you to read the last paragraph on page 307, being an editorial headed, “The Relation of Churches and Associations” of which John Clark appears to have been the
editor at that time?

A. (Reading:) “But, say some, this is missionary operations. Very well. Are not God’s  ministers missionaries? We contend that they are the only true Gospel missionaries on earth. The root of the Word is one sent; and they are sent of God, for, how can they preach except they be sent? and the Church is to pray to Christ to send forth laborers into his harvest. They are not sent of men, neither called nor qualified of men, but of God. Ought not the Churches then to hold up the hands of such, help them on their journey, and contribute to their necessities to enable them to preach to the destitute? Can any among us forbid this? We protest against conceding the copyright to the New School and Arminian societies, to the word missionary. In a Gospel sense, our people have the exclusive right to it. Our doctrine is that God’s ministers are called and qualified of God, and put into the work. That they received it not of men, neither were they taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. And they go depending upon God, to support them through his people; without looking to Mission Boards for their support. The difference is, one class is sent of God, the other of men; and so let each one to his own master stand or fall.”

Q. Now, Mr. Grove, don’t you subscribe to that?

A. I said awhile ago, that I believed the Lord, or the Holy Ghost, did send out men to preach, and He would provide for their support. I say that now, that he would provide for their support.

Q. Then, after all, you believe like Brother Clark that nobody had a better right to the word “Missionary” than the Old School Baptists at that time; that you are Missionary Baptists too, on the gospel plan; isn’t that true---or on the bible plan?

A. Yes sir; we have always believed-that is, we have always practiced home missions to a great extent. On home missions our preachers have been missionaries to a great extent. We had not a greater missionary in our denomination than Elder T. N. Alderton. He traveled throughout the country, in distant places, even where there were no churches, and he was always cared for.

Q. Now, Mr. Grove, the article that you just read in Zion’s Advocate; do you not know that Regular Baptists subscribe to that, and that that is the kind of missions they also believe in?

A. Well, we have never had a foreign missionary, and as I understand, you do. You have them and contribute to their support, foreign missionaries---what we term foreign missionaries in heathen countries. We have never had them that I have ever heard
of, and never contributed toward their support. We have our preachers, our home missionaries that travel through this country, where necessary.

Q. Now, Mr. Grove, you have not answered my question at all. The stenographer will please read the question.

Mr. Downing: I submit he has answered the question as definitely as it can be answered.

Mr. Keyser:  Answer the question.

A. No sir; I couldn’t say positively as to exactly what you believe. As I understand it---you have foreign missionaries---and you contribute regularly and monthly to their support, and we do not.

Q. As a matter of fact then you do not know how we conduct our missionaries?

A. I am satisfied from what I have learned from your papers that you contribute, and have been contributing, monthly to a missionary in China. I learn that from your periodicals, your religious papers.

Q. Now, I hand you Zion’s Advocate, dated August 1, 1877, the time that Elder John Clark was editor, a part of an editorial on the first page. It is really on page 65, and  ask you to read the article marked there with reference to Sunday schools?

A. (Reading:) As to a “Sunday school,” there can be no reasonable objection to it on account of the day. One man esteemeth one day above another, and another esteemeth every day alike, and the difference was a matter of no vital importance. With us, the objection is not to the day, or to the school for children, but to what is taught in the Sunday schools of this day and generation.”

Q. Now then do you subscribe to the doctrine there laid down by Brother John Clarke?

A. No sir; not that.

Q. Now, Mr. Grove, do you believe in God’s ministers preaching the gospel to  everybody?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You believe then in preaching to the unconverted; do you not?

A. The command was given to preach the gospel to every creature, not making any distinction, Jew or Gentile, bondman or free, male or female.

Q. Then you believe in preaching the gospel to the dead in trespass and sin; do you not?

A. Yes sir; I believe in preaching indiscriminately to a mixed crowd or congregation.

Q. Then you believe, as I say, in preaching the gospel to the dead in trespasses and sins; isn’t that true?

A. Yes sir; I believe in rightly dividing the word of truth, the law for the ungodly; the promises of the gospel to believers.

Q. Suppose there is a crowd in which there are no believers, no professed followers, who are all dead in trespasses and sins, do you believe they are proper subjects of gospel address?

A. A minister is not supposed to know in his congregation, a mixed congregation who are dead in trespasses and sins and who have been quickened by the Spirit of God.

Q. What is the object in preaching the gospel to the dead in trespasses and sins?

A. Life and immortality are brought to light through the gospel. The preaching of the gospel does not give life; but life and immortality are simply brought to light through the preaching of the gospel. It is manifested when he hears the gospel and receives it.

Q. Isn’t it a fact that that life you refer to is spiritual life?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Then they receive spiritual life through the gospel?

A. No sir; I said it makes manifest the life that already is there, or may be there. The preaching of the gospel manifests that life that is there.

Q. Can a man have life and yet be dead in trespass and sins?

A. Not spiritual life; no sir.

Q. Then do you believe in preaching the gospel to one who has not spiritual life?

A. I said while ago that I believed in preaching it to all, a mixed crowd rightly divided.

Q. Mr. Grove; if you will really confine your answers to my questions, I believe we would get along a heap quicker?

A. I thought I was doing that.

Mr. Downing: This question is excepted to because the witness has answered it More than once.

The Witness: I thought I had answered it directly.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. What should the preachers methods be to the unconverted or the dead in trespasses and sins?

A. Well, he should preach whatsoever he is commanded, and Jesus says, “Lo, I am with you always; even unto the end of the world.”

Q. Are they not commanded to preach repentance?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Then you believe in preaching repentance to the dead in trespasses and sins; is that right?

A. I believe in preaching repentance to a mixed crowd.

Q. Well, if the crowd is not mixed, would it make any difference?

A. Well, he should preach both law and gospel.

Q. Mr. Grove, it seems to me that you could answer my question without any evasion whatever, when I ask you if you believe in preaching the gospel to the unconverted. Can’t you answer that question yes or no?

A. Yes; I believe he should preach repentance.

Q. Now does it make any difference where the unconverted are?

A. No; wherever the preacher is, he is commanded to preach to all.

Q. Don’t you believe then that the gospel should be preached to the unconverted Chinese or Japanese?

A. I believe it should be preached to every one that will come under the sound of the preacher’s voice, Chinese, Japanese or anybody.

Q. Can you answer my question, yes or no?

A. I believe it should be preached to everybody indiscriminately, certainly. Don’t that take in the Chinese. I understand also that in the scriptures, you will find in Galatians, where in Paul’s day the gospel had been preached to every creature which is under heaven.

Q. Why do you regard it as the duty of God’s ministry to preach the gospel to the unconverted Chinamen and so on, if you believe that nothing will be accomplished by it?

A. I did not say that nothing would be accomplished by it.

Q. Well, what would be accomplished by it?

A. That life and immortality may be brought to light through the preaching of the  gospel, made manifest---

Q. Then if I understand, you believe the life is there in the dead sinner before the gospel is preached to him?

A. I believe that he is regenerated before he believes the gospel---born again---born of the spirit.

Q. And that the life is in him although he is dead in trespasses and sins; isn’t that true?

A. No; I didn’t say that. He may sit in darkness and the minister may open his eyes. It don’t give him eyes, or sight or life.

Q. In the 26th chapter of Acts, Paul speaking, says:

“And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

“But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee:

“Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,

“To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.”

Now, Mr. Grove, what was the object of Paul’s being sent to the Gentiles?

A. Why, it states the object there plainly---plainer than I can state it---to open their eyes.

Q. What eyes-spiritual eyes or natural eyes?

A. Open their spiritual eyes.

Q. And to lead them from darkness to light?

A. “From the power of Satan unto God.”

Q. And was it also that they may receive forgiveness of sins?

A. Yes sir; knowledge of forgiveness of sins?

Q. Does this say that?

A. That is the understanding of that. Yes sir; knowledge of forgiveness of sins. I will call your attention to another passage somewhat similar, “The Saviour came to His own, and His own received Him not; but to as many as did receive Him, to them gave He the power to become sons of God, which were born not of blood, or of flesh or of man, but which were born of God.” They were the sons of God, and power to manifest that fact.

Q. Do you think these people had forgiveness of sins before God sent Paul to them?

A. Yes sir; I believe that their sins were forgiven, but they were not cognizant of the fact.

Q. Doesn’t he say here that he sends him to them that they may receive forgiveness of sins?

A. A man may be incarcerated in prison and may be condemned to death, and there may be a reprieve signed by the Governor, and that man doesn’t know anything about it---it may be a day or two getting to him. Now then it is taken to him that he may see this reprieve.

Q. Do you believe exactly what this scripture says?

A. Yes sir; I believe exactly what I believe that scripture to say.
 
Q. Then I want to ask you this plain, simple question: Do you not believe that one of the reasons that Paul was sent to the Gentiles was that they may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them which are sanctified?

A. Yes sir; receive a knowledge of forgiveness of sins.

Q. Well, this doesn’t say knowledge. Would you prefer to add knowledge to it---the word “knowledge” to it?

A. I believe him and that’s what he says. What do you mean by “becoming the sons of God?”

Q. That is not my question at all?

Mr. Downing: He has a right to say what he believes. If it don’t suit you; you cannot make him say the contrary.

Mr. Keyser: No; but I want to ask if he prefers to add the word “knowledge” to this text or leave it as it is.

Mr. Weaver: He is simply giving his construction of it, and you have your construction of it.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. How is your answer to that. Do you prefer to add the word “knowledge” to that text or leave it off?

A. Well, that is my understanding of it, that they may receive the knowledge or understanding of the forgiveness of sins. I prefer to explain it that way.

Q. Do you believe that whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Do you believe they can call on him of whom they have never heard?

A. Well, now, if you have reference to Jesus Christ incarnate, I would say, yes. However, I might make myself plain there. What I mean is this: The Savior said to His disciples: “Ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my father’s house are many mansions,” etc. He says there they believe in God, and I may state that many people believe in God who have never heard the preached gospel, never heard of Jesus Christ---they believe in God.

Q. Well, I will read you Romans, 10th chapter, l3th and l4th verses:

“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

“How then shall they call upon him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”

Now do you believe that they can call on one of whom they have never heard?

A. Hadn’t you better read a little more?

Q. Well, I will read the whole of it:

“ And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!”

Do you want me to read any further?

A. Yes.

Q. (Reading:) “But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

“So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

“But I say, Have they not heard? Yes, verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

“But I say, Did not Israel know? First, Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.

“But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

“But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.”

Now my question is this, Mr. Grove, how can they call on him of whom they have never heard?

A. Well, that goes on to explain itself, doesn’t it?

Q. Well, can you give any explanation of that text?

Mr. Downing: It is self-explanatory, isn’t it?

The Witness: I think it is.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Then they cannot call on him of whom they have never heard?

A. That is some people’s understanding, and that is why it is written---”I was found of them that sought me not.”

Q. He asks, how shall they hear without a preacher. Do you believe they can hear without a preacher?

A. Yes; I do.

Q. You answer that in the negative, when the apostle says, “how can they believe without a preacher?”

A. He was taking the other side of the case. He was taking the Arminian view of the case there. He was arguing both sides so as to show his conclusion, “whosoever calleth upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

Q. Do you believe they can preach without being sent?

A. I think the Spirit sends out the preachers.

Q. But still you believe they can hear without a preacher?

A. Yes; I believe they can hear; I believe they can hear the voice of the Son of God. He says “The hour is coming---

Q. Then Paul switches around there in the same sentence almost?

A. He says, “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming in which they that are in their graves shall hear His voice and come forth.” That is the voice they can hear without a preacher.

Q. You believe then that the dead can hear?

A. The dead cannot hear the voice of a preacher.

Q. The voice of God?

A. When God speaks to them, life is communicated to them.

Q. They hear the voice of God; isn’t that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, let us take this illustration: When Ezekiel was sent to preach to the dry bones, did the dry bones hear?

A. They heard the voice of the Son of God, I suppose.

Q. Through Ezekiel, didn’t they?

A. They lived very soon---

Q. Didn’t they hear the voice of God --through Ezekiel?

A. They heard the voice of---

Q. Wasn’t he a prophet?

A. He was a prophet and prophesied.

Q. And didn’t God direct him to go and prophecy to the dry bones?

A. Yes.

Q. And as a result of that, didn’t the dry bones live?

A. The dry bones lived immediately.

Q. Wasn’t that a result of Ezekiel answering God’s command there?

A. That was a result of the voice of the Son of God.

Mr. Weaver: This whole line of cross-examination is objected to as wholly immaterial and irrelevant. It is not within the province of a court to decide whether or not the doctrine of the Old School Baptist Mount Carmel Church is based upon scripture or not; the sole question being whether or not the said church adheres to the faith and principles as set forth in the deed. The court’s attention is further directed to the fact that the learned counsel did not attempt or seek to cross-examine the ministers who have today testified in this case, but are seeking, and have sought to get their information from a layman.

Mr. Keyser: The laymen constitute the church and if we can arrive at what the laymen in Mount Carmel church believe, then we arrive at what the Mount Carmel church believe as a whole.

Mr. Downing: And while the laymen is being interrogated, the learned attorney is being prompted in his questions by two learned ministers of the Regular Baptist church.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. I will ask Mr. Grove this question. You believe, Mr. Grove, that anyone is called by the gospel?

A. Yes sir; I believe living saints are called by the gospel.

Q. Do you believe that the dead in trespasses and sins are called by the gospel?

A. No sir; not effectually.

Q. Do you believe they are called in any sense?

A. I believe they are called literally through the sound of the voice but not effectually.

Q. Paul, in his second letter to the Thessalonians, in the second chapter and 13th and 14th verses, said:

“But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the spirit and belief of the truth :

“Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Do you believe that those Thessalonians were called by the gospel?

A.  I do not believe they were called to the obtaining of eternal life; no sir, not by the gospel.

Q. You heard Elder Waters’ deposition, Mr. Grove, did you not?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You subscribe to the views expressed by Elder Waters?

A. What particular view.

Q. Generally speaking?

A. Yes; generally speaking.

Q. Does your church subscribe to his doctrine, generally speaking?

A. Yes; generally speaking.

Q. Do you believe in salvation without faith?

A. I believe in salvation without faith as learned through the preaching of the gospel.

Q. Without faith as learned through the preaching of the gospel?

A. As coming through the preaching of the gospel, but not without the faith that is the gift of God.

Q. Now I will quote you the article from Zion’s Advocate for August, 1898, page 224:

“Every regenerate 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.”

Now then in the first sentence here Elder Waters says, “Every regenerate child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith.” Do you believe that?

A. As far as a gospel faith, or a faith through the preaching of the gospel, I agree with him.

Q. There is not more than one faith?

A. There is a faith that is the gift of God, and a faith that comes through a hearing of the gospel to the regenerated soul that he does not have prior to that revelation which is brought to light through the gospel. There is a belief that he does not have in many cases because they do not all hear it preached. I believe that many are saved who have not heard the preached gospel, consequently they have not gospel belief; but they have the saving faith which is the gift of God.

Q. It is a fact that there is one Lord, on faith and one baptism; isn’t that true?

A. Yes; one saving faith.

Q. Do you believe that any person can be saved without this saving faith that you speak of?

A. No sir; not without the faith that the Spirit gives in regeneration.

Q. Do you believe that spiritual and eternal life may exist then apart from a belief in Jesus and repentance toward God, or knowledge of spiritual things?

A. I believe that faith and eternal life may exist without any knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Q. How do they acquire that knowledge then?

A. Through the operation of the spirit in regeneration.

Q. How are they brought to a manifestation of that faith?

A. That faith may not be manifested in many cases.

Q. They may die without manifesting that faith?

A. Without manifesting that faith, if they have that life.

Q. And it may please the Lord to remove the subject of his grace from this time state before he has developed this spiritual growth and rear him up beyond the river. You believe in that, don’t you?

A. As far as his fitness for heaven is concerned. I believe at the moment of regeneration he is as near fit for heaven as he will ever be, if he lives here a hundred years.

Q. You believe they are perfected in the other world?

A. I believe they are perfected in regeneration.

Q. But do you believe that they are reared up beyond the river?

A. I don’t know anything about that.

Q. You don’t know whether Brother Waters is correct in that or not?

A. No sir; I do not.

Q. Does your church believe that?

A. Well, our church never discussed that question. It never has been a matter before the church.

Q. Don’t you think that your people would have refuted that heresy, that doctrine?

Mr. Downing: I object to the question.

Mr. Keyser: Leave out “heresy” and make it doctrine.

A. I don’t know whether they would have objected to his saying that, as his individual understanding or belief, but if he wanted to force that on the church and make them adopt that same belief, then they would have opposed it, probably or perhaps; but different men have different pet theories of their own, different preachers sometimes, you will find that, that they don’t force on other people.

Q. Now, Mr. Grove, with your ideas of missionaries, as you have expressed, and your ideas with reference to the teaching and training of children in the bible, you do not regard them as incompatible with the doctrine of the deed of 1849, do you?

A. Yes sir; I do.

Q. Your own views, they are incompatible---your own views?

A. I think that Sunday schools are incompatible with the doctrine. May be I don’t understand your question.

Q. I am asking you, do you regard your own views with reference to missions, as you have expressed them and your own views with reference to teaching of children, incompatible with the doctrine laid down in the deed of 1849?

A. No sir; my views as expressed are simply moral and pertain to this life and the good of my children and the good of mankind and the community in this life.

Q. I believe you were Clerk of the Ebenezer Association at the time your old church was kicked out; is that true?

A. At the time they dropped us from fellowship.

Q. Of what church were you a member at the time you were clerk of the Ebenezer Association at Alma in 1891 or 1890?

A. I was a member of the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist Church at the time of that association.

Q. That church was dismissed and yet you still remained as clerk?

A. Well, I wasn’t clerk of the association prior to that time.

Q. I mean at that very time?

A. I was clerk at that meeting.

Q. And after your church was dropped from the association, you were still retained as clerk through the remainder of that association?

A. The minutes will show as to whether I was the clerk during that year or not. I may have been clerk at the following association, at the end of the session.

Q. You remained in full fellowship with Mount Carmel church up until the time it was dropped from the association?

A. Yes.

Q. You were in fellowship with Mount Carmel church after that Alma Association, weren’t you, up until the time of the division?

A. I was in the church, so recognized, but we were never in a very peaceable condition or state.

Q. But you were in fellowship---

A. Fellowship had not been withdrawn from me at all, nor I hadn’t withdrawn fellowship from anybody else, church fellowship, Christian fellowship, but we were at war.

Q. My question was this: You were in fellowship with the association and the dropped church at the same time; weren’t you?

A. Well, in a measure, yes, as our minute applying for membership in 1891 to be restored as a member of the Ebenezer Association will imply, as we believed we were still in the
love and fellowship of the brethren composing the association. I think that minute sets forth that fact.

Mr. Keyser. I think that is all I want to ask, Mr. Grove.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION.

BY MR. DOWNING :

Q. Mr. Grove, you have been questioned by Mr. Keyser as to your belief in the Sunday school which teaches only the orphan children in the community. Do you know whether the Regular Baptists at Luray, claiming to be Mount Carmel church, teach only orphan children, or all children?

A. I suppose they teach every child that comes in there, that will join in with them. I suppose so, most all Sunday Schools do.

Q. If they teach all children in class on Sunday morning regarding the Bible and the scriptures, do you believe or disbelieve in that practice?

A. No, sir; I don’t believe in it.

Q. Is that practice of teaching children in class the Bible on Sunday in the Old School Baptist Church against the practice of an the Old School Baptist churches of which you are acquainted?

A. I have no knowledge of any Sunday School ever being conducted in an Old School Baptist church. According to the minutes from 1828 up to 1887, and I am confident of my own knowledge from 1860, I would say that there never was such a thing of my own personal knowledge in the Old School Baptist Church prior to 1887, in our county.

Q. Again, Mr. Keyser, has interrogated you about missionaries in this manner: whether if the missionary had been called of God to preach the gospel and you met him on the way and he applied for help, would you help him. Isn’t that question a different proposition from the practice of the Regular Baptists in Luray who have sent one missionary and who contribute to that missionary’s support in a foreign country?

A. Entirely different, according to my understanding of it.

Q. What is the difference between their practice of sending a missionary abroad and contributing to the support of that missionary and the views of the New School Baptists upon that same question?

A. Well, I am not prepared to say positively of my own knowledge, but I learn it through them, and through the New School Baptists, that there is this difference only that the New School Baptist, so-called, have a kind of a board system, and they do not claim to have that, but they contribute as churches to the support of these foreign missionaries.

Q. And send the money directly to the missionaries.

A. And send the money directly to them.

Q. Then the difference is one of an intermediate board for the distribution of this money?

A. That is the only difference I know.

Q. Is there any other difference between the Regular Baptists and the New School Baptists except this intermediate board for distributing the money for missionaries?

A. I do not know of any other difference.

Q. They are really then in your judgment a part of the New School Baptists?

A. Yes, sir; they are very nearly akin.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION.

BY MR. KEYSER :

Q. I will ask one question right there, Mr. Grove, is it not a fact that the New School Baptist plan is that the missionary board---directs and Sends the missionary, and in the
Means Baptist or Regular Baptist churches, we believe that the Holy Spirit sends the missionary; isn’t that a difference in the two?

A. Well, I don’t know that I understand fully the system of either one of you.

Q. Then you don’t know the system of operation of either church?

A. No, sir; I don’t profess to know positively the systems, but from what I have learned through members of your church and through your religious papers, that was the only difference that I could see.

Q. What you learned through our members is that the church contributes toward the support of those missionaries?

Mr. Keyser: We plead guilty to that; that the church contributes toward the support; but that the church does not send them.

Mr. Downing: Never has sent one?

Mr. Keyser: No, sir; that is the work of the Holy Spirit. The church only contributes toward the support.

Mr. Downing: I have no doubt the New School Baptists take the same view.

J. B. COMPTON.

In answer to interrogatories in chief by H. H. Downing, Esq. :

Q. Mr. Compton, state your age, residence and occupation?

A. 65 years old; at present I have not much of an occupation, somewhat of a farmer; my residence is this town.

Q. What has been your occupation formerly?

A. Well, I have been a merchant. My last occupation was Commissioner of Revenue here.

Q. Of Warren County?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many years were you Commissioner of the Revenue?

A. Seven years.

Q. Did you ever reside in Luray, or in Page County?

A. Yes, sir; I went to school there and lived there awhile after I stopped going to school. I was deputy clerk there for some time under J. W. Watson.

Q. Did you know anything about the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist Church of Luray?

A. Yes, sir; I was a regular attendant there and joined that church.

Q. When did you commence attending that church---give the year if you can?

A. Well, it was in the latter part of 1865 or 1866. I joined the church then in March, the 25th, I think, 1866.

Q. How long did you remain a member of the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist Church?

A. Well, I held my membership there until just a few years ago, when I moved it to this place here, the Happy Creek Church.

Q. Having been a member of that church from 1865 until a few years ago, do you know the faith and doctrine and practices of that church?

A. Yes, sir; I think I do.

Q. Please tell the commissioner what the faith and doctrine and practice of Mount Carmel Old School Baptist Church was from the time you joined it up to the present time, so far as you know.

A. Well, to be brief, their faith or belief was in the salvation of men without the intervention of works of any kind. In the expression of Paul “By grace through faith and that not of themselves”, as stated by him to be a gift of God. That was their belief there.

Q. Up to what time?

A. As long as I remained among them, and even before I was a member.

Q. Were there any dissenters in the church from that belief?

A. Not until it was brought about by and through the instrumentality of E. H. Burnam.

Q. When did that occur, Mr. Compton, and what did Mr. Burnam teach and practice?

A. Well, when he first came there he talked the doctrine, as well as I remember, that was practiced there and preached there, but little by little he introduced new things that were foreign to our people and finally---in fact, he told me on one occasion out west that he felt that the two branches of the church in the division, the New School and the Old School, had somewhat gone astray, that the New School so far as Arminianism was concerned and some of the Old School in antinomanism, believing the absolute predestination of all things, and that he would like to see it corrected and he stood on middle ground.  Well, in that I thought he was right and so told him at the time; and I do not know that I met him any more then until he came there to introduce his Sunday School, and he did it in somewhat of a deceptive way by calling it a Bible class, and, as well as I remember, there were but few if any objections to it at all, when he asked the question---asked all to stand up who favored this class, they stood up pretty generally. I did not myself; and having had this conversation with him, I wanted him to feel that I was consistent, and I arose then, after he asked if there were any dissenters, or he may not have asked that, but I got up of my own accord, and I told him I wanted to be consistent and wanted him to understand my position, that whilst I told him that I thought he was somewhat on middle ground, yet I thought he was going too far. I asked him what he proposed to call this class that he was introducing, “well”, he said “a Bible class.” He had, I noticed, some little Sunday School books that he distributed among them. “Well,” says I, “Brother Burnam, I think you better just give it the right name, call it a Sunday School,” and he remarked, and said, “Brother Compton, I have no objection to that.” “While you are naming it,” says I, “Call it an Old Baptist Sunday School.” “Well,” he says, “I have no objection to that” and then I told him I had, that that was something that had never been in an old Baptist church to my recollection and to my knowledge since I was a boy, and I had seen too that in the South there were several thousand Baptists who had entered a protest against anything of that kind being , introduced in the church. So then several members of the church right then and there, who did not seem to have seen his aim and object, came at once to me and said they did not think it meant anything of that kind. And I presume---now if I may say or use the word presume---but I remember of having been a member of the bible class there in the town in old Brother Lauck’s time, and we would meet on Wednesday night and take a chapter in the New Testament and read it and comment on it. We called it a bible class, and that was continued until old Professor Salyards, whom I was going to school to at the time, he introduced something---he was a member himself of this bible class---he introduced something that was objectionable to Brother Lauck and it broke up the bible class.

Mr. Barton: Can you give the date of that, the date when you had this bible class.

The Witness: I think that was either in winter of 1865 or 1866, I am not sure.
(Continuing). So this bible class was discontinued, and as well as I remember I asked. Brother Lauck something about it, “well,” he said, “his (Salyards) views were rather dangerous, that he was a little on the atheistic order and thought it was rather dangerous to continue; He was a very smart man and he didn’t care to have the young imbibe any wrong principles. So it was discontinued. I don’t remember of its having been continued any longer. “ Our people all enjoyed this bible class as they had it prior to any trouble, and when Elder Burnam introduced it, I suppose they thought it was to be something of that kind again; but he came with his Sunday school papers, as well as I remember pamphlets---which were published at Nashville, Tennessee, Baptist Union papers; I think, or something of the kind. They were regular Sunday school books.

By Mr. Downing:

Q. Well, was the Sunday school as introduced by Mr. Burnam different from the bible  class Mr. Lauck had?

A. Oh, yes; his was a Sunday school, and this bible class was---Brother Lauck then acted as Moderator there, and if any of them---they were mostly adults that read the bible and most of them members, but some few that were not, and if, after giving their views--- each one would read a verse and give an explanation, after doing that, if they were not correct, he would give an explanation.

Q. Now, go on and tell what occurred in the church after your objection to the Sunday schools?

A. Well, I did not attend regularly; I did not live there at the time of this division, I had moved. I had left there when the Sunday schools were introduced, I was living at my father’s, half way between here and Luray and only attended occasionally.

Q. Just tell what occurred when you did attend?

A. I didn’t get there at every meeting; but they kept talking this matter up among them, as was stated here to day by some one. The matter was talked around by him and Elder Perry, and the women especially became attached to the idea and advocated it and,  finally, it was sprung in the church there and decided to get a test, and as I stated, the majority of them favored it. Now it might be said, as Elder Huff is here and the question was asked in his presence once by Cousin Charlie Yates, if I didn’t consent to this. I made this remark at the time, if the church wants it, they can have it, but I object to it. Do you remember me telling him that, Elder Huff, at Joe Stovers?

Elder Huff: I don’t know that I can recall at this time.

The Witness: So I gave my reason for it. I said, as has been quoted here today, there was no scriptural authority for it; as I understood the scripture, we are commanded to raise up our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord; and they asked me why I should object to taking other children there. I said that I did not think there was any authority in the bible for me to look after other people’s children. Well, they pushed the matter to know what harm there was in it. I asked Cousin Charlie what he was for, as a preacher, if it was not to preach the gospel, and if he felt that his preaching could reach children, or reach the parents as to their duty towards their children, it was his duty to do that.

Q. Well, was the church divided upon this question of the introduction of Sunday schools and missions?

A. Well, yes sir; they were.

Q. And you think a majority was in favor of those things?

A. At the time they were in favor of this class, but they did not thoroughly understand it, as shown by the fact that immediately afterwards our people admitted that they were deceived in the matter.

Q. Did people who went off with Mr. Burnam, in his views of Sunday schools and missions, afterward desert him and go back to the Mount Carmel church proper as you call it?

A. There was some few, I think, that did; but I could not name them just now. I  remember one man there the day that I objected who came up to me and said I was right, he said, “stand by your convictions” and he went the other way in a short time
afterwards. That was Davy Almond.

Q. What was the real cause of the split there?

A. It was unquestionably the introduction of Sunday schools and the means question, as to the gospel being used as a means for the regeneration of sinners.

Q. Were these old customs or new ones?

A. They were new customs.

Q. They were innovations then?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And on account of those innovations, did the church separate into two distinct bodies?

A. Yes sir.

Q. What association did your church belong to prior to the introduction of these new things?

A. It belonged to the Ebenezer Association.

Q. What was the result of your connection with Ebenezer when that association found that you were indulging in Sunday schools and supporting missionaries?

A. Well, the church was excluded you know from the association because of the innovations in the church.

Q. What innovations do you refer to?

A. I mean the introduction of Sunday schools and the means question as advocated by the so-called “Burnam party.”

Q. Was this church, to your knowledge, reinstated in Ebenezer Association?

A. Yes sir; it was.

Q. How did it get reinstated, if you know?

A. Well, it was reinstated by the organization of the church proper, separate and apart from the members who dissented, from the means party, organized and sent in their messengers to the association, and were received and restored.

Q. Do you mean to say that that branch of your church which did not believe in means and in Sunday schools and missions was reinstated in Ebenezer Association?

A. Yes sir; that is what I mean.

Q. Mr. Compton, do you know who claimed that property after the division of the church?

A. I suppose both claimed it.

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge whether that branch of Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church to which you adhere claimed title to that property?

A. Oh, yes; we always claimed our title.

Q. Did you exercise acts of ownership over it?

A. Yes sir; we did.

Q. What day did you select as the day for your preaching day?

A. Ours was on the third Sunday, and it wasn’t changed. We retained our regular day.

Q. You retained the regular day that you occupied prior to the division?

A. Prior to the division; yes sir.

Q. Then, as I understand you, the preaching of that faction of the Old School Baptist Church to which you belong is on the same day as it was when you joined the Old School Baptist church?

A. Yes sir; it is.

Q. You have not yielded your day then in that church, although there has been a division in the church?

A. No sir; and as shown in the minutes there, as read today, you will see that my belief there was that the church was ours and there was a resolution of mine to allow them the use of it through courtesy as shown in the minutes. I never questioned in my mind about the title to it; could not see how they could have any title because they had deviated from the practices of the church.

Mr. Downing: I think that is all.

The Witness: I just wish to say this: At the Robertson River Association where Elder Lampton’s letter was introduced, and where Elder Burnam---

By Mr. Downing:

Q. You were present at that at that association?

A. Yes sir; I was present, and can verify Doctor Waters’ statement throughout.

Q. Did Mr. Burnam attempt to do away with the letter that the association sends out?

A. Yes sir; he wanted to introduce something that Elder Fristoe had written---I remember that very distinctly---wanted to introduce that in place of the letter; and I remember this, that he said there at the time in his plea, to go on and allow these things, that some of them believed; that some of the Baptists of the South believed certain things that our Baptists did not here, for instance, feet washing for one, and we recognized them as Baptists, and he saw no reason why those who believed in Sunday schools should not---those who disbelieved in it should not allow those who did believe---and continue on in fellowship. But our people did not want anything of the kind and so declared, and voted down his proposition to introduce this paper that he had prepared.

Q. And you state he left that association---

A. Yes sir.

Q. Before it adjourned?

A. He left it before it adjourned, but it wasn’t very long after he left before it did adjourn. And I remember going the same road that he did. I had a niece of my wife, who is now the wife of a missionary of the means people, had taken her over to the association, and she was very much worked up and grieved over the fact that we would never see Brother Burnam any more, and she would like very much to spend the night---wanted me to go by Cousin Charles Yates and stay all night. However---Charles Yates and Burnam were on ahead of me, and before they got to Sperryville, as well as I remember, they stopped and waited, I presume to ask us by, knowing we were behind them, and I told Cousin Charlie that Lena wanted to go over and spend the night with them, and if he would be kind enough to bring her over to Sperryville in the morning. I would spend the night with Brother Broy, and I got out there, and I said, “Well, Brother Burnam, I suppose we have to part from this day,” I said “I am sorry but I don’t see anything else now but a departure from our church. “Well,” he said, “Brother Compton, I hope not. I hope we will have everything adjusted,” or something of the kind, and I said, “No; it will not be adjusted as long as you entertain the views you do.” So she went on over with them and they brought her over the next morning; and that’s the only conversation I had with him.

Q. Who in your judgment caused the split in the church in Luray, if anyone man caused it?

Mr. Barton: This question is excepted to as not calling for a statement of fact, but a mere opinion.

A. Elder Burnam commenced it, and Elder Perry carried it on more persistently perhaps than any other one man. On one occasion at his house, he was talking with me about his belief, for he believed in Sunday schools. I heard him say in a church, or may be at the association at Big Springs, he made this remark, he says, “I want it distinctly understood that I believe in Sunday schools and missions from beginning to end.” He made that declaration boldly, very much to the disgust of the most of the people there; but some who were there, and among them a man by the name of Keyser, Hampson Keyser, turned around and slapped me on the back and said, “That’s my belief, Brother Boot,” and he said, “If I hadn’t so understood that the Old Baptists believed in Sunday schools, I would never have joined the church.” Why, I says, “Brother Keyser, whoever told you that. Where did you get such a belief as that?” and he said “Elder Perry; Elder Perry told me.” So he did believe it, and as I started to say, I said to him, “Brother Perry, you believe that the preaching of the gospel is the means to the salvation of sinners---how about the child, the infant and the idiot,” and he said, “Well, there is a special arrangement for them.” Now, I never heard an Old Baptist use that expression before; but he certainly said it.

Q. Well, was the doctrine that Elder Perry taught there or discussed there, contrary to the doctrine of the Old Baptist Church, as you knew it?

A. Why, of course, it was.

Q. Have you read the deed of 1849 conveying this property to the Trustees of the Old School Baptist church?

A. No sir. Well, I reckon I have too, and I heard extracts from it.

Q. Well, do you believe, or do you know that the doctrine taught by Elder Perry and Elder Burnam is contrary to the doctrine as expressed in that deed?

A. I believe it is. Knowing Elder Lauck as well as I did--- I was baptized by him---and he was a man of strong convictions, and as well grounded in the doctrine of the Baptists as anyone I ever knew. I think he had all the doctrines, as they were practiced---all the doctrines and the practices expressed in those words. I think he meant in his expressions there to convey,  just exactly the idea of what the Baptists believe.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Mr. Compton, there is one thing, I will ask you: you state that Elder Perry said that there were special arrangements as to the salvation of infants---

A. And idiots.

Q. And idiots. Now, isn’t it a matter of fact that you and your people believe that there are special arrangements made for the salvation of children and idiots; in other words, don’t your people believe that they are saved without faith?

A. Our people, as I understand it, believe that the same salvation that saves an adult saves a child.

Q. Do you believe that infants and idiots are saved without faith. Please answer yes or no, if you can?

A. Well, I think their salvation is just exactly like yours and mine.

Q. Another question: Do you believe that adults are saved without faith?

A. I will quote you the scripture in regard to faith: “We are saved by grace through faith; and that not of ourselves.” It is a gift of God.

Q. Well, do you believe that adults are saved without faith?

A. They are saved by grace.

Q. With or without faith?

A. I say, they are saved by grace and faith as well, because they are all the gift of God.

Q. Then they are saved by grace through faith?

A. Through faith, which is not of themselves. Now if you can make it ---I don’t know that I could make it any plainer than that.

Q. Don’t you believe that faith is essential to the salvation of an adult, if they are saved by grace through faith?

A. Well, I will say, yes. I believe a child has just as much faith in preparation, or has as much faith as an adult; and the same God that manifests his faith and grace in us, has the same power to manifest it in that child, although it is not made manifest to us.

Q. Exactly. Now don’t you believe that idiots are saved the same way, by grace through faith.?

A. Well, I don’t think that is the sense that Elder Perry meant to convey.

Q. I mean do you believe it at all, in any sense, that idiots are saved by grace through faith and that not of themselves?

A. There is not but one salvation.

Q. Then answer whether you believe they are saved by grace through faith?

A. Why, certainly, I do.

Q. Then you don’t believe as Doctor Waters does, who has just testified, that every regenerate child of Adam is saved eternally faith or no faith; do you?

A. Doctor Waters, if I followed him closely there, said so far as belief is concerned. Now there is a difference between a natural belief and a spiritual belief. I believe that faith which is spiritually given is very different from a natural belief.

Q. Now let us take the spiritual belief. This eternal salvation, do you believe that that can exist without faith?

A. Well, now, I will tell you, I don’t think so, so far as I am concerned, and as I stated before, I don’t believe so, so far as a child. You cannot look into the child’s mind and read it; but the Lord of Heaven can do it, and He understands the working of the mind of that child just as much so as he does us.

Q. Now I will ask you this, quoting from Doctor Waters:

“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.”

Do you believe that?

A. I believe this, as I stated before, I just simply believe that so far as God’s work is concerned, it is a perfect work, and what he does is done, and I don’t know about his deferring a part of it, if the Doctor stated that, until he passes over the river.

Q. You believe that if they are in a saved state it is here, before they pass over the river?

A. I think this, so far as a child is concerned, there is no outward manifestation of it; but the same salvation that affects the adult, takes hold of the child.

Q. Now, Mr. Compton, do you believe a man can die in his sins and be saved?

A. No; I don’t believe---that---it is the spirit alone that quickens and I believe before anyone is saved that quickening takes place before they leave this world.

Q. Exactly so. Now then do you believe it is possible for a child one day old to possess faith, capable of faith?

A. Just as possible as an adult.

Q. Yes; that is what I believe, too. Now, I will ask you another question. Do you believe that faith comes by hearing---I am quoting from the bible---faith comes by hearing---do you believe that?

A. Yes; I will say I do.

Q. Hearing what? What is your idea of that?

A. Hearing the Spirit of God---God’s Spirit.

Q. And do you believe that hearing then comes by the word of God?

A. I believe that that child that dies in its infancy--- whenever the Lord touches it and tenders its heart and where it is chosen by Him, the faith strikes hold there just as it does in an adult.

Q. Now, do you believe that any infant dying in infancy is lost?

A. I have no reason to believe it. I have always felt that all children that die in their infancy, the fact of them dying in infancy, is an evidence to me of their salvation.

Q. You believe then that all infants who die in infancy die in the faith?

A. Are saved; yes sir.

Q. Now, let us drop the infant business. You believe that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God; is that true?

A. Yes; but I don’t believe that faith comes by the preached word of God, always.

Q. Do you ever believe it does?

A. No; I don’t believe it at all.

Q. You don’t believe that it ever does?

A. No. The word there, I think is God’s word, and it is the Spirit, that’s it. Because it is the spirit alone that quickens, and therefore it is---

Q. Mr. Compton, the Bible asks, “How can they hear without a preacher? “ How do you interpret that? And “How can they preach except they be sent.” Now, how do you interpret that scripture?

Mr. Downing: This question is excepted to because this witness is not shown to be a minister of the gospel and whatever interpretation he may place upon the bible or upon a bible sentence or chapter does not affect the real question in this case, which is, to whom did Buracker intend to give this property?

A. Well, if I could see the connection there and read the connection, I could answer the question.

Q. Well, it is all in the same connection?

A. Yes, I know, but there is a further connection there.

Q. Well, you cannot answer thatthen at the present time?

A. I will not answer that.

Q. All right. I will ask you this question: Do you believe that it is heresy to preach the gospel to the unconverted?

A. Why, of course, not.

Q. You don’t believe that?

A. I believe it is the duty of all ministers to preach the gospel to every creature.

Q. And to call on them to repent and believe?

A. Well, yes; I think men should be called on to repent, but God gives them repentance. They cannot repent with godly repentance, until it is given them.

Q. Now, Mr. Compton, you are some sort of a missionary Baptist, aren’t you?

A. Well, I don’t know about that.

Q. You heard Brother Dalton’s deposition with reference to missions. Do you endorse Brother Dalton’s views?

A. Well, I would say this: so far as the bible directs missions, I am a missionary; but no further.

Q. You are a missionary Baptist on bible plans?

A. I don’t like to be called a Missionary Baptist.

Q. But you believe in missions on the bible plan?

A. I believe that if a minister of the gospel feels a call, a spiritual call, to go out and preach the gospel anywhere at all, it is his duty to go. Now, if you call that missions, why, then I am.

Q. Well, suppose one of your ministers would feel himself to be called to go into foreign lands and preach the gospel, would you believe that he ought to go?

A. Yes; if he felt like he ought to go.

Q. Would you believe that he ought to be encouraged in that?

A. No; I wouldn’t encourage him at all.

Q. You wouldn’t encourage him, even though you thought he felt in his heart---

A. If he felt like going anywhere at all, let him go. Let him go like he is directed by the bible, go without purse or scrip.

Q. But you would not encourage him in it?

A. No.

Q. Would you declare non-fellowship with him if he does that way?

A. No; I wouldn’t do anything of that kind.

Q. You would not?

A. No; but I would declare non-fellowship for the church that believed in missions and sending out missionaries.

Q. For a church?

A. Yes, or individuals.

Q. I will ask you this further question: Do you know of Mount Carmel church ever having sent out a missionary, as a church, since the division?

A. Not our part of it.

Q. Do you know of Mount Carmel church of Regular or Means Baptists, ever having sent out a missionary?

A. Well, now, will you allow me to speak from hearsay.

Q. I am merely asking you from your own knowledge what you know about it?

A. If you want to know what I have heard I can tell you. I have heard so.

Q. Do you know so?

A. No; I do not know so.

Q. Had Mount Carmel church---

A. (Interrupting:) I have seen in your papers that one, Miss Hart, or Mrs. Hart, or  someone, was sent down into Mexico as a missionary.

Q. By one of our Regular Baptist churches?

A. Well, I don’t know whether it was by one of them or many of them.

Q. Well, any of them?

A. Any of them. I heard that she went as a missionary of the Means Baptist people.

Q. Did you read that anywhere?

A. I think so.

Q. Will you produce that if you can?

A. No; I couldn’t do it.

Q. You couldn’t produce it?

A. No. I think if you would look up some of the Baptist magazines, you would find it. I will say this, however, if. I have misquoted, of course, I am sorry, but that is my
recollection of her work.

Q. Now I will ask you this question: Up to the time of the division, Mount Carmel church of which you were a member, had she ever sent out a missionary as a church?

A. Not to my knowledge.

____________

MRS. JOHN K. BOOTON.

In answer to interrogatories in chief by H. H. Downing, Esq. :

Q. Mrs. Booton, will you please give the stenographer your full name?

A. Emily Heiskell Lauck Booton.

Q. Will you please give the stenographer your age, residence, and occupation?

A. Well, sir, I was born in 1834. I would be 75 the 7th day of May next; lived in Luray all my life; minister’s wife.

Q. Mrs. Booton, are you a daughter of Mr. William C. Lauck?

A. Yes, sir; I am---proud to say.

Q. How long have you known the Old School Baptist church in Luray?

A. Well, all my life, sir, since I had any knowledge of anything.

Q. Do you belong to that church?

A. I have been a member 50 years this April of Mount Carmel church.

Q. You have had a division in that church, have you not?

A. Well, yes sir; there was a division about the time of my father’s coming to Page in 1830. My mother and father were baptized in 1832, just about the time it was leading to a separation.

Q. Separation of what?

A. Of the Old and the New School Baptists for the very issues that this is for.

Q. When did this separation occur?

A. Well, I suppose in about 1890, somewhere along there. I don’t know when it was mooted. The pill was so nicely coated, it was gradually brought in, when we Old Baptists were not thinking of anything of the kind. I know of Elder Burnam’s two visits here prior to my father’s death, and he didn’t say a word about such things, not until after my father’s death.

Q. For how many years have you known of the faith, the doctrine and the practice of Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church in Luray?

A. Well, sir, that was instilled into me, I reckon, from my birth almost. My father was a man who was congenial in his family; and as we often said, we knew Pa’s religion
as well as anything, and it wasn’t worthwhile to catechize us; and we grew up under that.

Q. What was the faith of the Old School Baptist church from your earliest recollection, up to the time of the division here, with reference to missionary-ism, to Sunday Schools, and to instrumental music?

A. Well, sir, my father, and my father-in-law bitterly opposed them. I have seen them read extracts from pamphlets from other denominations, objecting to them. My father. drew the articles of faith, rules of decorum for the Rappahannock Association that was in existence but a few years; and he made an amendment denouncing all those things and mentioned each one, as contrary to the scriptures, without divine authority. I thought that was plain enough.

Q. Then do I understand you to say that Mount Carmel Old School Baptist Church of Luray opposed missionary-ism?

A. They did, sir.

Q. Sunday Schools?

A. If they didn’t there would be no use of the Missionary Baptists building another house when we built ours.

Q. What do you mean by the Missionary Baptists---who do you mean?

A. Oh, you know better than I can tell you.

Q. I know; but I want it to go down in the record?

A. Well, I mean those who had to be paid by a missionary system to go abroad and preach what they thought was the gospel. We didn’t think it though. We didn’t think they carried the gospel.

Q. Now do you know what the practice is of the Regular Baptists of Mount Carmel?

A. Well, I know they profess to believe in them; but I don’t know it. I don’t know their hearts.

Q. Do you know whether they have Sunday Schools?

A. The Burnamites?

Q. Yes, ma’am.

A. Yes, sir; they do.

Q. Do you know whether they contribute towards the support of missionaries?

A. I do not for I have never heard one of them preach, since Elder Burnam went over in that direction. I don’t know what they preach. I know what they practice from hearsay. I have never met with them--- and I know it is contrary to the Old Baptists.

Q. Which faction of the Mount Carmel Church is the true faction of the Old School Baptist Church known by the name of Mount Carmel.

Mr. Barton: This is objected to as not being within the jurisdiction of the witness to decide the case; it belongs to the judge.

A. Why, of course, the one that I belong to.

Q. Well, which one do you belong to?

A. I belong to the Old Hard-shell Baptists; that never believed in men’s  instrumentalities. My daughter when she was a little girl---the children were all saying which was their church, and one of them said she was an Old School Baptist, and one of them says, “what do they believe?” She said “By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of ourselves, but the gift of God;” and I thought a preacher couldn’t have told it better. My little daughter only seven years old said that. We don’t go to Sunday Schools for our knowledge. We are raised up in it, and we read the Bible for ourselves. I used to see people that drank all the week, go off on Sundays with Sunday School books under their arm to teach. I have seen that many a time; and I don’t believe in that. I believe in raising your own children up.

Q. Who brought about the division that occurred here in 1890 in Mount Carmel  Church, if you know?

A. Elder Burnam most undoubtedly ; and he came here and got hold of Brother Perry whose nose he could turn. Elder Perry came to our house, and in my presence, said “Brother Booton, we will have to have Sunday Schools, or our children will all go off into other churches.” Mr. Booton sprang to his feet and answered “No, sir; if I have, like Elijah of old, to stand alone, I will not agree to it.” Now you know where he stood. They just gradually paved the way and went around with their histories amongst the people in the country, thinking they could bias their minds before they tried to teach it from the pulpit.

BY COL. LEEDY:

Q. Did you mean to say that you had been a member of this church and never had had your membership anywhere else?

A. Nowhere else. Well, yes; for a few years at Battle Run, you know, the time of the disturbance here. After Mr. Booton’s death. When Johnny joined, I knew I couldn’t get to Battle Run and had it moved here; but of course, I always felt I was a member here.

Q. There was a short time then when you were at Battle Run?

A. Yes, sir; just a short time. I don’t remember the length of time, but not a great while.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

BY MR. KEYSER:

Q. Mrs. Booton, the New School Baptists have a church building here of their own in Luray, have they not?

A. Yes, sir; and they didn’t pretend to go in ours.

Q. In which they worship?

A. Yes, sir. And I would have been mighty glad if the Burnamites would have walked over there. We could have spared them, and there would have been no hard thoughts.

Q. Those Burnamites are pretty wicked people, don’t you think?

A. Well, they have got that to answer for?

Q. There are in Luray, if I understand, a denomination calling themselves New School Baptists, and then your people, calling themselves Old School Baptists or Primitive Baptists sometimes?

A. Old School.

Q. Don’t you go sometimes by the name of Primitive?

A. Yes, sir; but we never went by the name of Regulars that I know of.

Q. And in addition to that there is a third organization calling themselves Regular Baptists?

A. Yes, sir; I reckon so.

Q. And the Regular Baptists are the complainants in this case---they are the ones that brought this suit; isn’t that right?

A. Yes, sir; I suppose so. We want to be on the defensive and they are on the aggressive. I suppose.

Q. The New School Baptists went off from the other branch of Baptists in 1832, or about that time; isn’t that right?

A. Yes; it commenced about 1828---well,  indeed, 1816 Luther Rice came from England and mooted it. It was laid on the table from year to year until they got up a disturbance and then finally separated. My father at that time would have gone with the other side if he had believed in these things: but he didn’t.

Q. Then, Mrs. Booton, ever since 1832 these New School Baptists have maintained a separate and distinct organization here in this town; isn’t that true?

A. Yes; we Old School Baptists have been a distinct, separate people since the day of Jacob---the Israelites also were not recognized among the other nations of the earth, and we stand that way and always will.

Q. Abraham was an Old School Baptist, wasn’t he?

A. I think all the Christians were.

Q. All the Christians?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You don’t think many of these New School Baptists are Christians, including Colonel Leedy?

A. Yes, I do. I love a Christian everywhere. I can’t help but respect them and honor them, it don’t make any difference what denomination. But I don’t like these innovations.

____________

JOHN H. BOOTON.

In answer to Interrogatories in chief by H. H. Downing, Esq. :

Q. Mr. Booton, have you given your name?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You are a son of what Mr. Booton?

A. I am a son of John K. Booton, John Kaylor Booton.

Q. And grandson of Ambrose C. Booton?

A. Grandson of Ambrose C. Booton and William C. Lauck.

Q. You have stated your age, have you?

A. No, sir.

Q. Please state you’re age, residence and occupation?

A. My age is 34; I am a citizen of Luray; I am by profession a school teacher.

Q. How long have you been acquainted with the faith, doctrine and practice of the Old School Baptist church in Luray, known by the name of Mount Carmel?

A. Since I was large enough to know what a church was.

Q. Will you please tell the stenographer what the faith, doctrine and practice of that church has been since your earliest recollection?

A. The faith of Mount Carmel church at my earliest recollection was the same as the faith of all the other Old School Baptist churches in Page County, identical with them in fact. The organ now standing in Mount Carmel church is the first musical instrument ever placed in such a church in Page County, and was contrary to all the practices of the denomination in the county. My father, within my recollection, never would admit that the preached word was a means of salvation to the unregenerate sinner. He opposed Sunday Schools, and I was never permitted to go to a Sunday school because I was the son of an Old School Baptist preacher. He opposed missionaries, except in as much as a preacher might take it upon himself to travel and preach the gospel without asking any aid from the churches he left behind. He believed in predestination, election, the final perseverance of the saints, and in a salvation absolutely unconditional. He believed that we are saved by grace through faith and that not of ourselves; that it, the faith, is the gift of God; and that man, until God has first given him faith, is incapable of exercising faith, and that therefore no amount of preaching could bring him to the exercise of faith until God had first moved on his heart. I state this because we have often talked this subject over together, and this was one of his favorite texts.

Q. Now I asked you for the faith and doctrine and practices of the Mount Carmel Church; you have given me the faith of your father; please state whether the faith that he had was the faith of the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church?

A. It undoubtedly was, sir.

Q. Do you know the practices with reference to missionary-ism, and Sunday Schools and instrumental music, indulged in by the sect in Luray calling themselves the Regular Baptists?

A. I am aware of the fact that they have an organ in the church. I have heard that organ played in passing the church, and upon one occasion when I attended their preaching. I know from observation that they have a Sunday School, and I have heard that Mr. Bostick is a missionary sent out by that church; and that Mr. Burnam has also done certain missionary work supported by Mount Carmel Church.

Q. By Mount Carmel Church?

A. By Mount Carmel Regular Baptist Church.

Q. Mr. Booton, do you know the difference in faith and practice between the Regular  Baptists of Mount Carmel and the New School Baptists of Luray, or is there any?

A. As far as I have been able to learn, there is only one distinction. The New School Baptists have a missionary board; the Regular Baptists have not. It would hardly take a board to manage one missionary.

Q. Do they both contribute to the support of a missionary or missionaries?

A. I have heard they do.

Q. Do they both have Schools?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do they both have instrumental music?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do they both believe in unconditional election and predestination?

A. As I understand unconditional election and predestination, and as my father and  grandfather taught it---my father and grandfathers---it is impossible for them consistently to believe in these doctrines and maintain a system of human means.

Q. Please state what you mean by “human means”?

A. By human means, I mean that the preacher by preaching the gospel is able to bring conviction to a sinner who has never been moved upon by the spirit in regeneration.

Q. How do you regard a Sunday School---as human means or not?

A. I regard a Sunday School as having its only excuse for existence in the argument that it is a hot bed from which the young plants are to be transplanted; and if I have been raised an Old School Baptist and the doctrines I hold are correct, the final perseverance of the saints means that of all that the Spirit of God has moved upon none shall be lost,
and the hot bed is unnecessary; consequently, contrary to our doctrine.

Q.  Well, do you think Sunday schools and Missionary-ism consistent with the terms  used in the deed from the Buracker Heirs to Mount Carmel Old School Baptist Church at Luray, those terms, and the doctrines therein stated, being, “unconditional and eternal election, predestination of God, final perseverance of the saints to glory, that the elect  were chosen in Christ to salvation before the world was?”

A. I regard Sunday Schools missions and human instrumentalities as contrary to that deed; because that deed was made immediately after the split, or very soon after the split, with the Missionary or New School Baptists, at which time we were accused, and to some extent rightly, of holding to high Calvinism, when they professed to hold to  moderate Calvinism; and those terms were evidently used in that deed to distinguish us from the people holding to moderate Calvinism. I would like to read in that connection—

Mr. Barton: All this is excepted to because, instead of being a statement of fact, it is an attempt on the part of the witness to construe a legal document, which is the province of the court and not the witness. Counsel object further to the witness undertaking to continue the judicial act by reading authorities in support of his opinion.

Mr. Downing: All right; go on, Mr. Booton.

Mr. Booton.

A. (Continuing:) This is from “Baptist Principles Reset,” by Jeremiah B. Jeter, a missionary Baptist minister, published in 1901.

Mr. Keyser: Objected to because published since the division in 1890.

A. (Continuing:) Published by a man living at the time of the division.

Pages 12 and 13:
“It may be proper to add that Baptists generally hold to what may be termed, for the sake of distinction, ‘moderate Calvinism.’ They are far from acknowledging Calvin as authority in matters of religion; but the system of doctrine which bears his name, as it has been modified by the study of the Scriptures, is now commonly accepted by Baptists. Fifty years ago, they mostly adhered to high Calvinism, as maintained by Dr. John Gill, of London. Since that time their views have been considerably changed, through the writings of Andrew Fuller and others. These differences of views, however, have not disturbed their harmony or hindered their co-operation, except with a small dissenting party, whose Antinomian views led them to proclaim their hostility to missions and to all liberal efforts for the diffusion of Christianity.”

We are that small minority, and I believe that it was to designate that small minority that the Burackers placed that clause in that deed.

Mr. Barton:  This statement of the witness is excepted to for the same reason as given above, his belief not being a matter of any moment in this case.

By MR. DOWNING:

Now, Mr. Booton, will you please, as briefly and as clearly as you can, state to the Commissioner the cause of the split in the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist Church at Luray in 1890, as you’ve learned from records, and of your own knowledge?

A. The first I know of the split in 1890, I was in the Page Courier office---this must have been, I think it was a year prior to that, but I am not sure---at any rate, I was in the Page Courier office, and Judge Newman came in. He said to Mr. Berry, “Tom, have you heard what the Old School Baptists did yesterday?” “Yes; what did you hear?” “I heard that they voted for Sunday Schools.” Mr. Berry said, “Well, what do you think about it.” That much of the conversation I am sure of. The Judge’s other observation was to the effect that they would come around all right like other denominations after awhile.

A. (Continuing:) I went home and asked my father about the matter. He told me what had happened; said it was contrary to anything that he or his father had ever believed.
The causes of the division at that time were Sunday Schools, missions, tract societies, and the doctrine that the preached word is a means of reaching the unregenerate sinner.

Q. Were the grounds upon which this separation took place publicly discussed here in the Town of Luray about that time?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know what issues were discussed by those respective speakers?

A. There was a debate at that time between Elder Potter and Elder Pence. The subject of that debate was, as near as I can recall it, “Do the scriptures teach that the preached word is a means of salvation to the unregenerate.” That is as near as I can quote it from memory, and I haven’t heard it since that time---haven’t seen it.

Q. Well, state whether or not that was the line of division upon which the churches separated?

A. It was.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

By MR. KEYSER:

Q. How old were you in 1890?

A. Sixteen.

Q. The subject of this debate between Pence and Potter, you are giving according to your own recollection of the matter; is that true?

A. Purely.

Q. The cause of the division in 1890 is purely your own recollection in the matter, is it?

A. Yes, sir

Q. Do you know that the Regular Baptists believe in human means as you have so defined it here?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You know that to be a fact?

A. I know that from reading their articles in the Old Paths, and the Regular Baptist Magazine, and from their practices.

Q. The way you have defined human means is as follows: “That the preacher by preaching the gospel is able to bring conviction to a sinner who has never been moved upon by the Spirit in regeneration.” Can you say, of your own knowledge that that is what Elder Huff, who is now the minister of the Regular Baptists in Luray, preaches and believes?

A. I have never heard Elder Huff preach a doctrinal sermon.

Q. Can you say of your own knowledge that that is what the members of the Regular Baptist Church at Mount Carmel believe in now?

A. No; I cannot tell you what any man believes.

Q. Or rather, I say “now”; I mean in 1890; that is what I mean, at the time of the division?

A. Only in so far as I am capable of judging another man’s belief by his actions.

Q. By what actions do you judge them that way; or do you arrive at their belief as you have so interpreted it here?

A. By the practice of Sunday Schools and the practice of missions.

Q. Now you say you can also show this by some of their writings. Will you produce some of their writings to show that they believe in human means as you have defined them here?

A. I didn’t say that I could produce their writings.

Q. You said you had derived that information from some of their writings.

A. About what, sir.

Q. Now I demand the production of those writings by which you arrive at your information. Will you so produce them.

A. Will the stenographer please read my statement above there.

(Stenographer reads as requested.)

I stated that I knew that from articles that I had read in those two magazines. I do not keep every magazine that I read, nor preserve every article from which I draw a conclusion, and consequently I cannot produce them.

Q. Can you produce any of them?

A. I could in reasonable time.

Q. Can you tell me where to find them?

A. Owing to matters, foreign to the cause in controversy, shortly after my father’s death, I advised my mother to burn all copies that we had of the Regular Baptist magazine and of Zion’s Advocate, in which lot were the magazines in which these articles occurred.

Q. Do you know about what years these articles occurred in any of those magazines?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. All right; let us have the year, if, you can give it, and I will furnish you the magazine, maybe?

A. All right, sir. They occurred in the magazines from about 1888 up to about 1892.

Q. Now is that in the Old Paths or the Regular Baptist Magazine from 1888 to 1892, or both?

A. I recall one article in the Old Paths written by Elder McInturff.

Q. Do you think it was before 1890, before the division or after the division?

A. It was, as near as I can remember, immediately after the division.

Q. And what was the subject of that?

A. It was a reply to an article written by Mrs. Lucy C. Brumback.

Q. In that article does Elder McInturff lay down the definition of human means as you have defined it here and endorse it as such?

A. He doesn’t state it as I have defined it here.

Q. Does Elder McInturff in that article say he believes in the use of human means?

A.  In that article he demands if anybody can deny the use of means.

Q. Does he say human means?

A. I don’t know, sir. You are going a little too far back for my recollection.

Q. Isn’t there such a thing as divine means?

A. You will please define what you mean by divine?

Q. I want to know if you know of any such thing as divine means?

Mr. Weaver: The witness has a right to understand the question before you can compel him to answer it.

Mr. Keyser: I insist upon an answer to that question.

Q. (Continuing:) Do you know anything about divine means; I will ask you that?

A. I know nothing about anything in regeneration that comes between the Holy Spirit and the heart of the sinner acted upon.

Q. That is not the question I asked you.

A. If by divine means you mean the action of the Holy Ghost himself, I know that there is such a thing as divine means. If in regeneration you mean anything else but the action of the Holy Ghost, acting directly upon the heart of the sinner, I know nothing about any divine means.

Q. Now then, Elder McInturff in this article, he didn’t say whether it was divine means or human means that he was speaking of; did he?

A. He said that it was the preached word, as near as I can remember; and any preached word in act of regeneration is what I term human means.

Q. That is what you term human means?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now then, the preached word, if I understand you correctly, can never be what you term divine means, is that right?

A. If preached by anyone else but Christ himself, it cannot be divine means in the regeneration of a sinner. Stick that pin.

Q. Now you say you know of your own knowledge, I believe, that Mr. Bostick is a missionary sent out by this church over here; is that what you stated?

A. No, sir.

Q. Well, what did you state?

A. I said supported by this church.

Q. Well, I will ask the stenographer to run back to his statement there on that.

(Stenographer reads as requested).

Don’t you know, Mr. Booton, that Mount Carmel Church, or no other Regular Baptist Churches send out any missionary at all?

A. By the expression “that church” I mean the Regular Baptist Church as a whole. I said that “I had heard.” I repeat the assertion.

Q. I am asking you this question as to whether or not you know whether any Regular Baptist Church sends out a missionary at all?

A. No, sir; I don’t.

Q. Don’t you know that Regular Baptist churches don’t believe that churches send out missionaries?

A. No, sir; I don’t know that.

Q. Don’t you know that Regular Baptists believe that the Holy Spirit sends the missionaries?

A. I know that every denomination that sends out missionaries profess to believe that the Holy Spirit by means of the church sends out missionaries; and I am convinced that this is the belief of the Regular Baptists in common with other missionary  denominations; but my conviction does not come from a personal knowledge of the actions of their church. I have never attended a missionary meeting of the Regular Baptists.

Q. Now, Mr. Booton, I tell you, as a matter of fact that no Regular Baptist churches ever send out a missionary. If I tell you that as an, actual fact, will you not believe me?

Mr. Weaver: We object to that question, because counsel is seeking to testify and he has had his day in court on the stand.

Col. Leedy: And he has no right to embarrass the witness by asking such a question.

A. In view of the fact that Mr. Bostick is reputed to be a Regular Baptist Missionary, and is reputed to derive his support from the Regular Baptist denomination, until my mind is clear of these facts, I cannot believe the assertion.

Q. Well, I will ask you this question: is there not a difference between a church sending out missionaries and the Holy Spirit sending out missionaries?

A. Yes.

Q. In view of your answer to the preceding question, if I understand you, you assume to be in a position to know more about the doctrine of the Regular Baptists worshipping at Mount Carmel than they know themselves; is that true?

Mr. Weaver. Objected to because the witness has never assumed any such position. He has never testified that he knew any more about it than they did themselves.
 
A. I have never assumed such a position; but I do state that I am so thoroughly convinced of my position that the bare statement of one man, although my personal friend, cannot convince me to the contrary.

Q. Don’t you know that Regular Baptists don’t believe in Missionary societies?

A. I have heard that they don’t.

Q. Don’t you know they don’t believe in any sort of societies as adjuncts to the church?

A. I have never heard that before.

Q. Don’t you know that they don’t believe in tract societies?

A. I don’t know that that they don’t.

Q. Now you have given the cause, or the question, that was debated between Pence and Potter in 1890 or 1891, shortly after the division. Was that the only thing that was debated between those men?

A. There were two subjects stated, one of which Potter debated in the affirmative; the other Pence debated in the affirmative; but I have stated the only subject that I remember, and as far as I can remember, the subjects were virtually the same.

____________

IRA C. BUMGARDNER.

In answer to interrogatories in chief, by Col. R. F. Leedy:

Q. Mr. Bumgardner, please state your age, residence and occupation?

A. I was born June 11, 1837; and by profession, farmer; Page County, Virginia.

Q. Of what church are you a member?

A. Big Spring, of this County.

Q. What denomination?

A. Old School Baptist.

Q. How long have you known the practices and customs of the Old School Baptist church---and doctrines?

A. For sixty years.

Q. For sixty years?

A. My father and mother were members there, and they took me along from a kid up.

Q. Have you been acquainted, all this time, with the Mount Carmel church at Luray, and other Old School Baptist churches of the county?

A. From about 1858 I have been acquainted with Mount Carmel and her customs; and the same with Mill Creek, and also with Hawks Bill church.

Q. From your knowledge of the Old School Baptist church, has there been any time, within your knowledge, that they favored Sunday schools or missions or any other institutions of human means to salvation?

A. Not as a body ; and not as a church.

Q. Was there ever any Sunday school or mission system practiced at Mount Carmel church, within your knowledge, before the division from 1887 to 1891?

A. No sir; there was not, not to my knowledge.

Q. Do you remember the division, sir? I mean the time that there was a division on account of doctrines proclaimed by Mr. Burnam and others?

A. Mighty well, sir---mighty well.

Q. Did the Old School Baptist church, as a body, regard those things as heresies or not?

A. They did---or unscriptural. I would use that word in preference to the word “heresy.”

Q. What do you refer to as “those things” as I had asked you?

A. How?

Q. My question was “those things.” Now what did you mean by that?

A. Sunday schools, missions, etc.

Q. Was there ever any instrumental music tolerated in an Old School Baptist church within your knowledge?

A. No sir; I never was in what we claim to be an Old School Baptist church where they used any instrument. Our worship was very simple.

Q. How did this division, if at all, as brought out by Mr. Burnam affect your church at Big Springs?

A. Caused a division.

Q. It caused a division there?

A. Yes sir. I would like to go a little further there---

Q. You can go ahead and say what you like?

A. At least the year of the division, I think, in our church was in 1889, that is my recollection of it. I had been west to visit by brother about seven weeks and came back and our first meeting was on the fourth Saturday and Sunday in September, which was our regular meeting day. When I got there, the first man that I met was John A. Brumback, and he had a paper from Elder Burnam, who was then stopping at his father’s, asking all persons that were in favor of his move to join with them and reorganize the Ketocton Association, down in--- I reckon it was in---not in Warren, but the next county---Clarke, I think. Any way, there was a resolution offered that day.

Q. Did your church---

Mr. Barton: Let him finish.

A. There was a resolution offered that day by a member against the means question, missions and Sunday schools. It was laid before the church and rejected. It was then reconsidered; or, in other words, they agreed to appoint a committee of three for a revision. It was then left to those three and they returned it, striking out some objectionable clauses. It was passed by a large majority. Then those individuals that left the church asked for letters of dismission and left us. Of course, we couldn’t give them a letter of the regular order, or anything of that kind.

By Col. Leedy:

Q. Was that at Big Spring church?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Were those that were given letters of dismission “Burnamites” or “Regulars,” as they are now called?

A. Now don’t understand me that they were given letters. Our custom as Baptists, and all the Baptists---I have plenty of letters there that run back 125 years, and for instance, a man lives over the ridge and he moves to this county, he would apply over there, and they always write “of our faith and order.”

Q. Were these the Burnamites, or rather the Regulars who applied for letters of dismission after the passage of that resolution?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Well, you spoke of the Ketocton Association, was your congregation or your church a member of the Ketocton Association at that time?

A. No sir.

Q. Where was your association?

A. Ebenezer.

Q. Ebenezer. Are you sure that  was in 1889, or in 1890?

A. I am not sure. If I was at home, I could tell though to a minute, but I can’t tell here. I  have been clerk of that church there for 33 years, but some things slip my memory.

Q. Did the Regulars then quit that church?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did they in any way interfere with its membership in the Ebenezer Association. In other words, did it retain its membership intact in the Ebenezer Association---Big Spring church?

A. No sir. Those bolting people, they never claimed it.

Q. I am asking you about the church itself, those that remained in the Big Spring church, the organization proper, your faction, did it remain in the Ebenezer Association?

A. Oh, yes, indeed.

Q. The Ebenezer Association never turned it out?

A. No sir---No sir.

Q. Where did those that left the church go---with what body of Christian people?

A. Those that called themselves the Regular Baptists, joined at Luray.

Q. They joined the Luray Regulars then?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You mean that they joined the Burnam branch here at Luray?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did they or not ever go back there and build a church of their own ---the Regulars?

A. They did.

Q. Were you familiar with the Ebenezer Association about that time?

A. I attended it about every year.

Q. Were you present when the question of the practices of the Mount Carmel church came up before the Ebenezer Association?

A. Was that at Alma, or Robertson---

Q. Alma, sir?

A. I was not present.

Q. Do you know whether or not the Ebenezer Association disfellowshipped the Mount Carmel church on account of these practices introduced by that faction?

A. No sir; they did not. I don’t know whether I got that right or not, sir. I don’t want to make an answer wrong. I remarked that I was not present at that association at Alma.

Q. Let the question be repeated very carefully to Mr. Bumgardner, so he will understand what I mean.

(The stenographer read the question referred to as follows:)
Q. Do you know whether or not the Ebenezer Association disfellowshipped the Mount Carmel church on account of these practices introduced by that faction?”

That is, by the Burnam faction?

A. I would answer that, yes sir; they did.

Q. Do you know whether this faction, before building its new church at Big Spring, attempted to get back into the old church?

A. Mighty well, sir. Will you have me make a statement?

Q. Yes sir; would be glad to hear it?

A. Well, they made this proposition, that we meet at the school house, and we give them a day in the month the use of the house until the end of the year, and at the end of the year, then try and see if we couldn’t unite on a pastor. I was the only one, only member of the church, that met them, and I did meet them and heard their propositions, etc. Now the custom of the Old Baptists is this; in regard to a person leaving the church: If they leave as an individual, they must come back as an individual, and they proposed to come back as a body. Consequently, we could not---we had been keeping house from the time the church was organized straight through, and we could not possibly take them in under that head.

Q. Does the faith and practice of the Big Spring church, of which you are a member, differ from the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church, of which Elder Pittman is pastor?

A. Not an iota, sir.

Q. Now when they built that church, whereabouts did they build it---close to the old grounds?

A. It is, I suppose, about 600 yards south; on land that was at that time owned by Dr. Bent, which now is owned by Dr. Ed. Brumback.

Q. Did they ever lay any claim whatever to the Old School Baptist church at Big Spring?

A. No sir.

Mr. Barton: All the questions and answers relating to the proceedings at Big Spring which have been repeated since the previous objection, are excepted to as irrelevant, not involved in the issues in this cause.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Now, Mr. Bumgardner, if I understood you, from your answer to a question a moment ago, you stated that the Regular or Burnamites, as you choose to call them, offered to come back in a body to the church, but the objection was that inasmuch
as they left individually, they would have to come back individually; is that right?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Then if they had offered to come back individually, you would have been willing to have received them, would you not?

A. If they had come back individually and acknowledged they did wrong in leaving us, we certainly would have received them back.

Q. Then if they had come back individually and acknowledged that they were wrong in asking for letters of dismission or leaving the church, you would have forgiven them, would you?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Now if I understand, the Regular or Means Baptists in your church at Big Spring were in the minority; is that true?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And the church---the majority of the church, of course, had the right to exclude a minority; is that right?

Mr. Weaver: That question is objected to as calling for an opinion on a question of law.

Mr. Downing: And for the further reason that the question of majority or minority has nothing to do with the question involved, as both the decisions of the Supreme Court of this State and the deed conveying the property in question eliminate the question of majority or minority in membership so far as property rights are concerned.

A. They were not excluded as a body; they were excluded as individuals, not in a body, because they made their application individually.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Mr. Bumgardner, in Baptist churches the majority has the prerogative and right to exclude the minority, have they not?

A. I don’t know---it would seem it would be the custom-I don’t know exactly how to answer that. As a fact, the majority generally rules.

Q. If a majority generally rules, could they not rule in that respect?

A. Yes sir. In our discipline, on any question that comes up, the majority carries the question.

Q. Yes. Then doesn’t a majority have a right to exclude a minority, individually?

A. Individually?

Q. Yes; if not in a body?

A. I judge they would have.

Q. If they didn’t have, then Big Spring church had no right to exclude a minority, had they?

A. That is correct, sir.

Q. Then am I not right?

A. Yes sir.

Q. A minority could never exclude a majority in a Baptist church, could they?

A. But there would be a question which you will not allow me to bring that point up, I am satisfied. There is a a question---

Mr. Weaver: Just say what you please. You have the right to answer in your own way. Just go ahead, sir.

The Witness: The question right there is, that they have made a departure from the faith. Now I will say another thing: We all in this country here took what is called the
Baptist Regular Magazine, from Missouri, edited by Elder Pence. One of our first writers was Elder Burnam. I never favored them things; and he began to throw the feelers out long before this thing commenced coming. He was working at that time on what he sprung on Page County, I think at the Hawks Bill, very sudden.

Mr. Keyser: The answer is excepted to insofar as not responsive.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Read the question again.

The stenographer read the question.

“ A minority could never exclude a majority in a Baptist church, could they?”

What have you to say in answer to the question now?

A. No. As Old Baptists rule, a minority could never exclude the majority.

Q. You believe in the doctrine of means, do you not, Mr. Bumgardner---gospel means, divine means?

A. I believe God uses means.

Q. In the quickening---

A. No sir.

Q. Well, in what sense does God use means?

A. Oh, in various ways.

Q. Well, just name one of the ways?

A. Well, he sent Jonah down to preach to Nineveh; his call to Abraham was another, and through that his children got down in Egypt, and finally he brought them out of there and put them in Canaan and gave them the civil law, which is the best law in the world, ever given the land.

Q. You believe also that God used means when he sent Ezekiel to prophesy to the dry bones?

A. What was Ezekiel’s answer?
I will ask you a question.

Q. Well, you just answer my questions; I have been on the stand once before?

A. “Thou knowest.” “Lord, thou knowest,” that was his answer.

Q. I will ask you if that is not another example of the use of means?

A. Yes.

Q. Don’t you believe this, that if God sends one of his chosen servants to any country to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified that there is another example of means?

A. I don’t believe in that preaching.

Q. You don’t believe in that preaching?

A. If you go into that.

Q. You don’t believe that God sends his own chosen servants to preach the gospel then; do you?

A. I don’t believe it that way.

Q. Well, who do you believe sends them?

A. I will have to define myself when you crowd me there. If you are going to take the preached word to convert the sinner, I have got to ask you a question; I can’t help it, I cannot answer my own without doing it.

Q. All right?

A. Why is it under the preached word two men may be sitting side by side, and one is convicted and the other not, if the gospel does it?

Q. Well, you know the Bible says the one shall be taken and the other left.

Col. Leedy: I just want to suggest and notify counsel that insofar as this examination is concerned, they are bound by the answers of the witness; that we have not examined him upon these theological questions.

Mr. Barton: If you can strike them out in any way I will be delighted. I do not think theology has anything to do with this case.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Did you never hear of a Bible class in Mount Carmel Baptist church back in the ‘60’s somewhere, conducted by Elders Lauck and Perry?

A. I don’t think I did.

Q.  You never heard that?

A. It might be that they held a Bible class, but I never heard of it.

Q. I believe you were not acquainted with the customs of that church further back than 1858?

A. Oh, I suppose that’s about the time I commenced attending, because I was attending Elder Booton’s school in Luray at that time who was the pastor, I think; but I have no recollection, at least I never got there when they had a Bible class.

Q.  You do remember that there was a Sunday school so-called in the Baptist church here before the division, do you not---the Mount Carmel Baptist church before the division in 1889 and 1890?

A. A Sunday school in the Old Baptist church?

Q. In the Old School Baptist church here before the division of 1889 and 1890---you do know there was a Sunday school in there then, taken part in by the members of that church; do you not?

A. There was one established by Elder Burnam.

Q. Well, wasn’t it in that church?

A. It was in that meeting house.

Q. Wasn’t it in the Mount Carmel church?

A. It was in that meeting house.

Q. That is what I asked you?

A. It was in that meeting house.

Q. In there before the division?

A. But it wasn’t in the Old School Baptist church.

Q. Then you don’t call that the Old School Baptist church from 1887 up to 1890, do you---before the division?

A. You had two churches in the same houses then.

Q. But there were not two houses there in---1887?

A. I don’t know a thing about that.

Q. Then you are not acquainted with the history of that church?

A. I may not be in that length of time. I may not be. There is a point of time of possibly 12 or 18 months, when the association was at Alma, that I was in ill health really, and took no part in the meetings, and did not attend the association.

Q. You know very little about the time of the division then that occurred in Mount Carmel church?

A. I don’t know anything personally about the division that occurred in Mount Carmel church at all.

Q. And you don’t really know of your own knowledge the cause of that division, do you, of your own knowledge?

A. Well, I reckon I would judging that I read that communication from Elder Burnam that was sent our church. I was with the members there. If I would base it on that, I
would certainly have to answer, yes sir; I did know.

Q. You base your information on that?

A. Yes sir; if I base my information on that. His communication was plain.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Downing:

Q. In that communication, did Mr. Burnam advise that his people leave the Old School Baptists?

A. I would have to answer that in this way, sir---

Mr. Barton: I understand that that communication was in writing, or printed?

The Witness: In writing.

Mr. Barton: Then this question is excepted to as not the best evidence.

By Mr. Downing:

Q. Do you know where that communication is---where it can be gotten?

A. No sir; I do not. I never saw it but the one time. It was then in the hands of Jno. A. Brumback.

Q. Signed by Mr. Burnam?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Now then I will repeat the question---

“In that communication did Mr. Burnam advise that his people leave the Old School Baptists?”

A. He advised them and urged them to meet with them down there where they were going to reorganize the Ketocton Association.

By Mr. Weaver:

Q. Mr. Bumgardner, it is not the custom of the. Old School Baptist church to exclude anyone unless they have departed from the faith, is it; or been guilty of some breach of moral laws?

A. No sir; not unless they break the by-laws of the church.

Q. And that Sunday school about which Mr. Keyser asked you, which you said was started by Mr. Burnam, that is what caused all the trouble here, wasn’t it?

A. We think so. He organized that Sunday school in the Hawks Bill first, before he did here, I guess. I don’t think it lived but about one month, may be. I don’t recollect.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. There is one question I omitted to ask. Your church at Big Spring is in full fellowship with Elder Dalton, is it not?

A. Why yes sir.

Q. And with Elder Waters and Elder Daily?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You also---your church also embraces the same doctrines taught by Elder Waters; doesn’t it?

A. I suppose so.

Q. You suppose so?

A. Most of them---a number of them anyhow. The Advocate is edited at this time by Dr. Waters.

Mr. Keyser: That is all I want to ask.

Col. Leedy: I will ask you this question: You are also in full fellowship with Mr. Pittman of this church?

The Witness: Undoubtedly.

Col. Leedy: Well, I will ask you still another one: Are you in full fellowship with Elder Huff and Elder Lee, the brethren to my right?

The Witness: No sir; we think they have departed from the old faith and practice, somewhat.

Col. Leedy: That’s all.

The Witness: I would like to say one thing more to these people---all of you?

Col. Leedy: We will let you say what you please, sir?

The Witness: It was the worst thing that ever happened for the Baptist church when Potter and Pence debate was held m the town of Luray. These things that the Baptists have been fighting over are all non-essentials---there ain’t an essential in it.

Mr. .Keyser: Just right there I want to ask you one more question on that. The very troubles that exist between the Regulars and the Primitive Old School Baptists---those different bodies---are non-essentials; is that right?

The Witness: Yes sir; that’s the way I see it.

Col. Leedy: You mean, Mr. Bumgardner, that Sunday schools and missions are not essential?

The Witness: They don’t save any man’s soul.

____________

MRS. MARY A. MILLER

In answer to interrogatories in chief by Col. R. F. Leedy:

Q. Please state your name and age?

A. Mary A. Miller; I will be 81 years old the 23d day of October. I was born in 1827.

Q. And you reside in this town?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How long have you resided in this town?

A. Since my birth.

Q. Do you belong to any church?

A. None at all.

Q. Were you one of the parties who executed a deed to the Trustees of the Old School Baptist Church of Mount Carmel in 1849?

A. I was.

Q. Have you, or not, been familiar with the practice of that church from your early recollection?

A. Yes sir; I have.

Q. Do you know the several wings of that church, the one represented by what are known as the Burnamites or Means Baptists, and those represented by Elder Pittman, Mr. John W. Grove and others? I say, do you know the several wings?

A. Yes sir; I do.

Q. Do you know whether or not the Old School Baptists---that branch of the church to which you made that deed, did at that time, or any time since, until just previous to the division in the church, practiced Sunday schools, or missions of any sort?

A. No, sir; they did not.

Q. Do you know whether the wing represented by Mr. Pittman, or that represented by Mr. Huff, or which of them, is the Old School Baptist church as it existed when you made that deed?

Mr. Barton: This question is excepted to as not calling for a fact; but an expression of an opinion, and to some extent a judicial determination of the question involved in this cause.

A. Brother Pittman.

Q. Have you heard a great deal of the preaching of the Old School Baptists from that time on until now?

A. In my younger days, I did. I was a regular attendant, but since my health has gone down, it is very seldom. But I am with them, let me tell you.

Q. You are with them?

A. I am right there.

Q. I am glad of it?

A. Yes sir; I am right there with them.

By Mr. Weaver:

Q. With whom?

A. The Old Ironsides.

Q. And the Old Ironsides are the parties to whom that deed was given in 1849?

 Mr. Barton: This question is excepted to for the same reason as stated above, and also because it is leading and suggestive.

A. Yes sir.

By Col. Leedy:

Q. Will you state, Mrs. Miller, whether or not there had been a division some twenty years before this deed in the Baptist church, and whether or not this deed was drawn so as to vouchsafe to the Old Church the property as against any future division of a like kind?

Mr. Barton: Objected to for the same reasons as stated above, and as being distinctly leading and suggestive, and undertaking to construe a written instrument which is a function of the court.

A. There was none.

Q. You don’t know of any division in this particular church previous to 1890?

A. No sir.

Q. Is that what you meant by your former answer, that you did not know of any division in this church previous to 1890?

A. Yes sir.

By Mr. Weaver:

Q. Mrs. Miller, do you know anything about the split or division in Mount Carmel church along about 1889 or 1890?

A. Oh, yes; I remember hearing of it, you know; there was a great to do.

Q. Tell us what you know about it, Mrs. Miller?

A. My dear child, I can’t tell. You ask me questions, and I will answer them, so far as I know.

Q. Do you know who caused that division?

A. Oh, who---who was it?

Q. I am asking you?

A. Wasn’t it Burnam?

Q. That is what we think, Mrs. Miller; but I am asking you if you know?

A. Yes; so far as I know. Yes, indeed.

Q. Then, so far as you know, it was Mr. Burnam who caused this division?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Do you know what Mr. Burnam did to bring about this division?

A. No, I don’t. Well, you know they went off to themselves. They were for Sunday schools and missions and so, and the other side didn’t go with them there; and that is
where---

Q. The trouble then arose over Sunday schools and missions, did it not?

A. Yes sir; that is as far as I know.

Mr. Keyser: Let her finish her other answer.

Q. You had finished your answer, had you not?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Now Mrs. Miller, the so-called Burnamites favored Sunday schools, missions and the like, did they not?

A. They did. Yes sir; they did.

Q. But the Old Ironsides opposed all such illusions.

A. Yes, sir; they did.

Q. You are sure that this deed was intended for the benefit of the Old Ironsides as you call it?

Mr. Barton: Objected to for the same reasons as before, and because plainly leading and suggestive. It puts words in the witness’ mouth.

A. Yes sir; it was. Yes sir; it was.

Q. How do you know, Mrs. Miller, that this deed was intended for the benefit of the Old Ironsides, as you term them?

Mr. Barton: Objected to for the reasons just given.

A. We all signed it. My brothers and sisters and my mother were Old School Baptists. She was an Old Ironside all the way through. You can look; at her there. (Indicating
photograph.)

Mr. Barton: This answer is objected to as undertaking on the part of the witness to construe and explain a written instrument by parole testimony.

Q. Did your mother, and brothers and sisters, to whom you have referred, believe in Sunday schools and missionaries?

A. No sir; they did not. They were brought up in the Old School Baptist faith---all of us were.

Q. And according to the faith that you were brought up under, that faith did not believe in Sunday schools, and missionaries, did it?

Mr. Barton: This question is objected to for the seasons repeatedly stated.

A. No sir.

Q. When was the first time, Mrs. Miller, that you ever heard of a Sunday school being held in Mount Carmel church?

A. Not until the division here.

Mr. Weaver: That is all.

Mr. Barton: We have no questions to ask.

____________

M. V. GARDNER.

In answer the interrogatories in chief by Col. R. F. Leedy:

Q. State your age, residence and occupation?

A. I will soon be 70, in a month .or so; Mill Creek, Page County; farmer.

Q. Mr. Gardner, are you a member of any church, sir?

A. Yes sir.

Q. What church?

A. Old School Baptist.

Q. What congregation?

A. Mill Creek.

Q. Are you familiar with the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church of Luray during your lifetime, sir?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How long have you known that congregation?

A. Well, ever since I have had a recollection.

Q. Are you familiar with its practices during your life time?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Will you say whether or not it practiced Sunday schools or missions of any kind until just prior to the split in 1890?

A. No sir.

Q. Do you remember the split of 1890, sir?

A. Well, yes sir; I was through it.

Q. Well, upon what would you say that split occurred, upon what doctrine or practice?

A. It occurred upon practice, Sunday schools, missions and church organ practices.

Q. And church organs?

A. Yes sir. That caused the split.

Q. Just state what you know about it, what led up to it. If you can give its gradual stages, step, by step, we will be glad to hear it, sir?

A. Well, I wouldn’t undertake that. It is too much. I haven’t got memory enough. There was so much of it. We were very lenient with them for a long time. We thought they would see the error of it and come back, and it went on in that way.

Q. Who was the leader in this new doctrine of evangelizing the world by missions and Sunday schools?

A. Elder Burnam.

Q. Were you at Alma, at Ebenezer Association, at the time the Mount Carmel church was dropped from the fellowship of that association?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Do you remember why that was done, sir?

A. Because of their practice.

Q. Do you know whether or not Mount Carmel church of Old School Baptists have been reinstated into the Ebenezer Association?

A. Yes sir; I know that she was.

Q. When was it?

A. Well, I don’t recollect the date.

Q. Was it the next association after the church had been disfellowshipped?

A. Yes sir; it was during that time.

Q. Do you know why they were brought back into fellowship?

A. Well, I don’t believe I could just-they had made some acknowledgments. I don’t know just what they were.

Q. Do you know whether or not they had purged themselves of these new practices?

A. Well, they had to some extent.

Q. Do you know whether they had gotten a new pastor?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And had discarded Elder Yates?

A. Yes sir.

Mr. Keyser: This last question and answer objected to because the minutes of the church is the best evidence on that.

By Mr. Weaver:

Q. Mr. Gardner, is the Old School Baptist church of Mill Creek, of which I believe you are a member, in fellowship with the Old School Baptist Mount Carmel church at Luray?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Are their doctrines and practices the same?

A. The same. Identically the same.

Q. Has your church, within your knowledge, ever practiced Sunday schools, missions and like institutions?

A. No sir. No sir.

Q. Have they ever had instrumental music?

A. No sir.

Q. You are positive that there has been no Sunday school or missions in your church?

A. Oh, yes sir.

Q. And that your church is in fellowship with Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church at Luray?

A. Yes, sir.

By Col Leedy:

Q. Your church is a member of the Ebenezer Association too; isn’t it?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Will you say whether or not you remember that any members from the Mill Creek church joined what was known as the Burnam wing about the time of the split or previous to the split?

A. Yes sir; there was one.

Q. Do you know anything about the Hawk’s Bill church, whether there were any from there?

A. There were, but I couldn’t just say how many.

Q. That was just previous to the split?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Was that about the time or previous to the time they were doing all that tremendous voting?

A. Yes; that was the time.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. What do you refer to when you speak of “tremendous voting?”

A. Well, there was a difference---there was a few that voted with what I could call the Burnam party in different customs.

Q. Where?

A. They wasn’t in our church. We didn’t have it. We didn’t have but one dissenting voice there with us.

Q. I ask you where?

A. Why, here at Mount Carmel church.

Q. Is it not a fact that these members that you speak of that left the Hawk’s Bill church and Mill Creek church joined what you call the Burnam party after this tremendous vote in Mount Carmel church?

A. I suppose it was. I would say it was.

Q. Are you opposed to the use of a tuning fork in churches?

A. Well, we don’t have them in our church.

Q. Do you know of any churches of your faith and order that do have them?

A. No sir; I do not at this time.

Q. Did you never see Elder Daily use a tuning fork in this Mount Carmel church here?

A. Yes sir; I have.

Q. Did you approve of that?

A. We didn’t think it necessary.

Q. Isn’t that instrumental music?

A. No; I wouldn’t call that instrumental music, just to take the tune of a piece.

Q. Don’t you know you are wrong when you say that the organ business was one of the causes of the split in 1890?

A. No sir; I don’t know I am wrong.

Q. Don’t you know there was no organ in the Mount Carmel church in 1890?

A. No sir; I don’t know about that.

Q. Would you say there was?

A. No sir; I don’t know. I don’t know when the organ was placed in there.

Q. Then how do you know organs figured in the split of 1890?

A. Well, it has been in there. I know that caused disturbances in the church, by church organs in an Old School Baptist church.

Q. And one of the causes of the split in 1890; is that true?

A. Well, I don’t know how far back it goes.

Q. Well, you said it was awhile ago. Do you stick to that now?

A. No; I won’t say that. I don’t recollect the date.

Q. Will you say it was not one of the causes of the split in 1890?

A. If it was not in there, I wouldn’t.

Q. Why did you say in the first place it was one of the causes of the split, when you don’t know whether the organ was in the church at the time or not?

A. Well, I know that has been one of the causes all along, using organs in Old School Baptist churches.

Q. We are speaking now with reference to this particular Mount Carmel church?

A. Well, I won’t say for certain because I don’t know the date.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Weaver:

Q. Mr. Gardner, what is a tuning fork. I never heard of one before.

A. It is a piece of steel with two prongs, and that prong by hitting down will give the key of a certain tune.

Q. What is the size of them as a rule?

A. Well, I would say about five inches long.

Q. A little difference then between a tuning fork and an organ?

A. Oh yes; it is different from that.

By Col. Leedy:

Q. A tuning fork doesn’t make music, does it?

A. No.

Q. It only starts music?

A. It gives the key of certain pieces of music. And Elder Daily was a singing school teacher and he used them generally.

____________

REV. H. M. STRICKLER.

In answer to interrogatories in chief by Col. R. F. Leedy:

Q. Mr. Strickler, are you a minister of the gospel, and if so, what denomination?

A. Yes sir; I am a minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church South.

Q. How long have you been a minister of the gospel?

A. Well, sir, I preached nearly three years to the soldiers during the late Civil War, and I have been preaching ever since. I joined the conference---been a member of the Baltimore Conference since 1867.

Q. You were Lieutenant in White’s Battalion, were you not?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And while a Lieutenant in White’s Battalion, you preached to the soldiers?

A. Yes sir; preached and fought too, if the two go together. Not that I wanted to, but I was in it, and had to do the best I could. I didn’t enjoy it very much.

Q. I don’t know whether you did or not. I always heard people say you went into battle laughing?

A. Well, I thought it was no time to cry when that time came.

Q. I want to ask you, sir, as a minister, one or two questions: I want to ask you whether 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, is consistent with any mission establishment, or with Sunday schools, or any means inaugurated by men to accomplish salvation?

Mr. Barton: This question is excepted to as calling on the witness for a construction of the law and the rule of evidence which belongs alone to the court, and not asking from the witness testimony upon a fact.

Col. Leedy: It is calling for the ecclesiastical opinion of the witness, who is competent to speak, especially in the absence of ecclesiastical courts in this country.

A. Well, I give my opinion in regard to it that it has not been so considered; and, in my judgment, I would not so construe it in that way.

Col. Leedy: That is all we want to ask.

The Witness: I want to remark in this presence this morning---I just want it to be understood that I am not a party to anything that is going on. I have only been asked to make a statement here; that is all. I don’t want any denomination to think I am interfering in the least.

Col. Leedy: They understand you are called here by process.

The Witness: Yes; I have been called by Mr. Leedy to make this statement.

Mr. Weaver: You did not volunteer any statement?

The Witness: Not at all, sir.

____________

DR. JOHN F. LONG.

In answer to interrogatories in chief by A. G. Weaver, Esq.:

Q. State your age, residence and occupation?

A. I am near sixty; I live at Long, Page County, Virginia; physician, farmer, and merchant.

Q. Doctor, how long have you lived in this county?

A. All my life, except when off to lectures.

Q. Are you a member of any church?

A. Yes sir.

Q. What church?

A. Hawk’s Bill Old School Baptist.

Q. Is that church in fellowship with the Old School Baptist Mount Carmel church of Luray?

A. Yes sir.

Q. What association does church belong to?

A. Ebenezer.

Q. Are you familiar with the doctrines and practices of the Old School Baptist church of Mount Carmel at Luray?

A. I thing so, sir, so far as I understand it.

Q. Have you been an attendant of that church?

A. Yes sir.

Q. To what extent, doctor, and for what period?

A. Well, have been attending that church ever since I have been a member at Hawk’s Bill, and before.

Q. Well, approximately, how long?

A. I suppose thirty-five or forty years.

Q. Will you please state whether or not, within your knowledge, there was ever a Sunday school or a missionary society, or like institutions carried on in the Old School Baptist church of Mount Carmel at Luray up to the time of the division in 1889 or 1890?

A. None that I ever heard of.

Q. Do you recall when such institutions were first attempted or inaugurated in that building---about when?

A. I don’t know that I could tell you the exact year. Elder Burnam was the man who inaugurated the first Sunday school there, and he could tell you, I suppose, and has told you. But it was some little while before the split between his wing of Baptists and us,  probably a year or so before that.

Q. Are you referring to the split of 1889 or 1890?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Doctor, will you state what caused that split?

A. Well, sir, I think it was caused mainly by practices, that they call innovations in the church; and on the subject I believe of regeneration. There was a great deal of agitation on that about that time, and we had a debate in the church about that time.

Q. What practices are you referring to?

A. Well, the inauguration of Sunday schools and missions, and preacher salvation, or preacher regeneration, I mean. I think the idea set forth by those gentlemen, if I am not mistaken---simply my opinion, what I could gather from reading and hearing them preached--- that the sinner is regenerated after he hears the gospel preached, and that there is no regeneration where the gospel don’t go. I think that was one of the main points that was in debate between Elder Pence and Elder Potter. Elder Potter was the Old School, and Elder Pence---I don’t know what side he was---nobody else knew hardly at the time he was here---they called him Arminian. He pretended to be an Old Baptist.

Q. Where was that debate held, doctor?

A. In Mount Carmel Church.

Q. About what time?

A. Well, I don’t know exactly. It was sometime about 1889 or 1890.

Q. Was that debate held about the time of this division in Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church?

A. Yes sir; it was close to that time. It was just before Elder Lampton died.

Q. Did you hear that debate?

A. Yes sir; I heard a good deal of it.

Q. What position did Elder Potter take in that debate---I believe you said he was the Old School?

A. Yes sir. Well, he took the position that the sinner was regenerated by the Spirit of God independent of the works or means of man in any respect.

Q. What position did Elder Pence take?

A. Well, he was kind of a straddle bug. He wanted to take it that it could be done, I believe, without the preacher being present, and also it was done through the preacher by the preached word. I think that was his main position, if I understand rightly.

Q. Was Mr. Pence one of the so-called Burnamites?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did he go off with that faction?

A. Yes sir; he was a representative man of their side.

Q. He represented the Burnamites in this debate with Elder Potter?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Doctor, will you state whether or not a long about that time, or before that period, there was an effort made in your church---that is, the Hawks Bill, as I understand---to inaugurate Sunday schools, missions and like institutions?

A. There was an effort made there. They didn’t call it a Sunday school. They were afraid of the name---afraid that would scare us---they called it a bible class, I think sir. It was made there by Elder Burnam, the gentleman over there, he was the first man. He came there on a Saturday and he preached us a sermon, and no one could object to his sermon---at least I didn’t object to it---it seemed all right. The business meeting came up and he said he had a proposition to make to the church. The proposition was that we organize a Sunday school---a bible class---in that church, in which the members would meet one hour before preaching and read the bible and ask questions on it, etc. I waited awhile and there were no objections from anyone, and at last I spoke. I told them that this was something new to my recollection; I hadn’t been a member then many years, but I had known the practices of the church for a good many years, and they certainly hadn’t had anything of that kind in it during my remembrance; and I made a suggestion that the church lay this matter over until their next regular meeting, and consider the matter, talk with each other, and see whether it would meet with the approbation of the church or not, before we took a vote on it. I said, “Now, I make this simply as a suggestion; not as a motion. If the older member think it ought to be made a motion, they can put it.” But before anyone had time to speak Elder Burnam remarked---he said “I move that anyone that objects to us meeting here tomorrow morning one hour before preaching and reading the Bible and asking questions on it, will raise their hand.” Well, nobody raised their hand. He said, in opposition to this, they will raise their hand, and no one did. I couldn’t raise my hand in opposition to any one to meet in there at any hour they wanted to read the bible and ask questions on it. I couldn’t object to a statement like that. If they wanted to meet there in the night and talk about the bible or ask questions on it, I don’t know as I could object to it. Well, then, no one said anything and he remarked then that “we will meet tomorrow morning one hour before meeting.” That was on Sunday morning they were to meet; and on Sunday morning the most of his congregation at the hour that they met was from Luray church, of this neighborhood. It seems like they had been posted as to what time they would meet. They were there on time, just one hour before preaching. I didn’t get there until a little bit later. When I got there, I saw them all there, and was informed they were there and had met about 10 o’clock and were asking questions. As to how they were conducting that, whether they had text books there or asked them out of the bible, I don’t know anything about that. But that’s as far as ever any Sunday school or Bible class went in the Hawk’s Bill. The members in it objected to it and it was voted down, and never amounted to anything. That was the end of it.

Q. When was it voted down, Doctor?

Mr. Keyser: The question and answer are both objected to on the ground of being irrelevant.

A. At our next meeting. It was decided at our meeting. I don’t know whether there was a minute taken or not. It was decided and dropped. We had no more meetings of Sunday schools after that.

Q. Do you know whether or not any of the members of Hawk’s Bill Church withdrew from your church and became members of the Regular Baptist Church at Luray here?

A. Yes sir. We excluded them and they came and joined Luray Church.

Q. Why did you exclude them, Doctor?

A. Because we thought they advocated heresies.

Q. What were those heresies?

A. A committee was appointed to go wait on them, and we did visit several of them, not all of them though, but we visited several, until we were satisfied that they all believed alike. Brother Ed Brumback there was one of the committee, I think, that met.

Q. How far is Hawks Bill Church from Luray here, Doctor?

A. It’s about six miles---between five and six miles.

Q. About six miles?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And on this Sunday morning to which you have referred, quite a number of the Luray people were present and on time for that meeting?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Do I understand you to say that this motion of Mr. Burnam’s was made the Saturday before?

A. Yes sir; on Saturday before.

Q. Do you know whether or not any of the members of your church had invited the Luray people to come; down and participate in this new move?

A. I do not, sir.

Q. Was Mr. Burnam pastor of that church at that time?

A. No sir.

Q. He was not?

A. No sir; never was pastor of Hawks Bill church.

Q. At any rate, these people, these Luray people, traveled some five or six miles and got there the next morning right on the dot?

A. Yes sir.

By Colonel Leedy:

Q. Doctor, how long have you been an active church member and a Bible student?

A. Well, I don’t know that I have been a very active church member or a bible student; but I have belonged to that class of Old Baptists for about 22 years, I guess.

Q. Is it a fact or not that you have paid a great deal of attention to church matters?

A. Well, I have tried the best I can, in my weak way, to do my duties as I see it.

Q. Is it a fact or not that you have made a study of the bible?

A. Well, I have, to some extent, yes sir, so far as my time would permit. Plenty of people have made a more exhaustive study than I have, of course.

Q. From your knowledge of theological matters would you say that eternal and unconditional election, perseverance of the saints to glory, etc., and that the elect were chosen in Christ before the world was---would you say that that doctrine is consistent with any mission or Sunday school system as a means to regeneration?

A. The way I understand the mission business, I should think the two would be antagonistic. Now the mission people, they understand it different, but the way I look at it, what I have read and heard them preach, that is, the different denominations, not only the wing from which we have separated but others, they all seem to have the same ideas, that if a heathen or any person don’t have the gospel preached to him, he will have no chance to be saved. In fact, they have challenged us “HardShells” as they call us, to show an instance where the Bible has not been to prove that there has been any conversion or regeneration of Christians or anything of that kind. And I look upon that as stating or believing that the Bible must be preached before there can be salvation, or they would not make that challenge on their part against us; and that challenge is in print, and I suppose the gentlemen on the other side will not deny it. I have read it several
times.

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Doctor, don’t you know that Regular Baptists do not believe in what you call preacher quickening?

A. I don’t know hardly what they do believe in, Mr. Keyser .

Q. Well, just answer the question?

Col. Leedy: He has answered it.

A. I only know this, from what I have read and learned from them, that they do believe in preacher regeneration.

Q. That is your opinion from what you have read?

A. Yes sir; I have that down from one of your men in black and white.

Q. Well, produce that please?

A. I will do it, sir.

Q. That they believe in preacher quickening?

A. Yes sir; I mean regeneration or quickening.

Q. I am taking what you said just awhile ago?

A. Regeneration or quickening of the sinner.

Mr. Weaver: State what that is, Doctor?

The Witness: I am reading from a letter from Capt. A. N. Finks, of Criglersville.

Q. Do you base your opinion as to the belief of Regular Baptists from that letter of A. N. Finks?

A. Yes sir; he refers in this letter that that is the standing of his people who believe in means. He used that expression that he is speaking as a representative of all his
people.

Mr. Weaver: Well, just produce that. Counsel on the other side have called for it, and we insist that it go in evidence.

Mr. Keyser: That is all right. I just want to see whether it is proper evidence or not.

Mr. Weaver: You called on him to produce it.

Mr. Keyser: I want him to produce proper evidence; that is all.

Mr. Barton: Without reading the letter, I object to any statement of anybody as to what his particular faith is as affecting the question at issue in this case. I object to the reading of the letter.

Mr. Weaver: The court’s attention is called to the fact that counsel for complaints on cross-examination of this witness called for his written authority for a certain statement. The witness now produces his authority based upon the writings of a Regular Baptist, and we submit to the court that the matter is in as their evidence.

Col. Leedy: It is further stated by counsel for defendants that counsel on the other side asked the witness first if he knew of any statements coming from any person of the other faith, and he answered that he did, and this called for this witness’s statement.

Mr. Weaver: We ask that the letter be read.

The Witness: You just simply mean that part bearing upon this question. The letter is a long letter, but the part I refer to as bearing upon the question---

Mr. Weaver: Just read it?

The Witness: (Reading:)

“Now you have brought the question down to this point, if I understand you: That the sinner is regenerated by the direct power of the Holy Spirit without the use of means, and the difference is this: I believe that the spirit takes the minister just as a man takes a hoe or ax---”

I don’t know whether he means he  is going to hoe him out or cut him out.

Mr. Barton: Hadn’t you better read, and not put your own words into the letter?

The Witness: All right, sir; I will do that. (Continuing:)

---”Just as a man takes a hoe or ax and uses him. It is all the Spirit’s work. The hoe or ax can do nothing. The minister is in the hands of the Spirit to use just as we use the hoe or ax. Now can you see man’s work in this? Why do you misrepresent us by saying that we believe the ministry or the word can do anything in the absence of the Spirit. Let me illustrate again: You believe that the Spirit alone does the work, just like a man who would work a hill of corn with his finger. I believe the spirit takes a minister and uses him, as the man would take the hoe to work the corn. Now do you understand me? If so, never say again that the ministry can do any more than a hoe can. How the Spirit does it with the preached word is the mystery.”

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Now, Doctor, is that what you call preacher quickening?

A. That is what I would call it---what this man calls it exactly. He says that he believes that is the way a man is regenerated.

Q. I asked---

Mr. Weaver: Let him his finish his answer .

The Witness: He says that is the way a man is regenerated and charges upon me just what I read, and then he states what he believes about it---

Mr. Keyser: Exactly so.

The Witness: That the sinner was regenerated by the preached word.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. We have heard the extract read?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Which speaks for itself?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Now you answer this question, if you please: Is that what you call preacher quickening?

A. That is what he called it.

Q. Is that what you call it?

A. I am not talking about what I call preacher quickening; I am talking about what your people call preacher quickening; and I went on to state what your people said about it, what your man, Captain Finks said about it. I didn’t give you my individual opinion of what I thought about it. I was giving the opinion of your man, what your man said, and how your man said it was done. As far as my individual opinion is concerned, I don’t believe that the Lord regenerates a sinner that way, if he did, then none would be regenerated only where the preacher was or had a hand in it; and I don’t believe that. Everybody would die and go to the bad place then if the preacher wasn’t there.

Q. Now, Doctor, I think I have asked you a reasonable question, and I am calling now for your opinion inasmuch as you say Regular Baptists believe in preacher quickening.I ask you again, if the position which Mr. A. N. Finks took in that letter, an extract of which you have just read, is what you call preacher quickening?

A. Well, yes sir; that is what I could call preacher quickening.

Q. Why didn’t you answer that in the first place, then?

A. I thought I had answered it from Captain Finks, one of your men.

Q. You state also, Doctor, that Regular Baptists believe that regeneration comes after the subject hears the gospel preached?

A. Yes sir; I said---

Q. Where do you get that from?

A. I get it from Captain A. N. Finks, sir, the letter I just read; and I also get it from reading, I don’t just remember where, but I have seen the same idea set forth by the Regular Baptists, but I don’t just remember where exactly, now. 

Q. I now ask you, Doctor, to produce a single writing of any Regular Baptist minister that teaches any such doctrine, that regeneration comes after the subject hears the
preached word?

A. I said comes through the preached word.

Q. You didn’t say that in the beginning. You said it came after the preached word?

A. Well, at the time the word is preached, and it must be preached, and that the Lord---to bring up Captain Finks here---that it was done as the hoe was used. He was working through the preacher. You may call it at the same time or immediately after. I might have used the word immediately after, but of course, I meant at the time the preacher was preaching, using the preacher as a means through which this was done. That is what I meant sir; and I mean that that has been set forth---I have read it, I think, in different papers, the idea has been set forth, but I don’t just now remember. I am only speaking from memory.

Q. Doctor, according to your statement, you are versed somewhat in the Bible, and I will ask you this question: Is it not true that Christ in His prayer for his Disciples as recorded in the 17th Chapter of John where He says, in speaking of Apostles and Disciples:

“Neither pray I for these alone; but for them also which shall believe through their word.”

Didn’t Christ, I say, intend there to convey the idea that some would believe through their word?

Mr. Weaver: This question and questions of like character are objected to as irrelevant, because, as has been stated by the senior and distinguished counsel for complainants, “theology has nothing to do with this case,” the only doctrine involved being those doctrines as set forth in the deed of 1849.

A. I want to say that I am surprised at Mr. Keyser, asking a lay member, such a question as that, when it would require a great deal of knowledge and forethought and reading, that would puzzle our older friend, Mr. Burnam there; but I will state this, that when Christ said those words, taking the Bible as its own best interpreter, it says, “the believer hath passed from death unto life.” Now then where you will find anyone believing in Christ it is certainly evidence that they have passed from death unto life, and when He said “believe on me through their word,” it is the word they preach. There might be some cavil as to what that word was. We will not enter into that discussion; but if he means there that the gospel they were preaching, and the gospel wasn’t then written, if he takes that view of it, Paul says, “We preach Christ crucified---To the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness, but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, the power of God.” Now if you will find anybody that is a believer, you must find somebody that was first born again by the Spirit of God. When they hear this preached word coming from the preacher, and believe it, it is evidence to my mind that they are born of God, and a great many hear it, and do not believe it.

Q. Is that all, Doctor?

A. Yes sir.

Mr. Keyser: That is all I want to ask you. Your sermon is very much in point.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Weaver:

Q. Doctor, did I understand you to say that in this debate, concerning which you have testified on your examination in chief, between Messrs. Potter and Pence, that Mr. Pence, who represented the Regulars, took some such position as preacher regeneration or, in substance, to that effect?

A. I thought so. Every text that was quoted, he seemed to take an Arminian view of it, and I know one text, where it speaks of the sower who went forth to sow seed. He quoted that and wanted to take the idea there that the word sown was the preached word---the seed there sown was the preached word, and that that did the work. Now if you will look at that, the word there sown did not make any change whatever in that ground at all, nothing brought forth fruit there but what fell in good ground; the ground was already good, and that is the way I look upon the gospel. When the gospel is preached, unless there is good ground to receive it, it will produce no crop.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Barton :

Q. You might fertilize it a little, couldn’t you, Doctor?

A. Yes sir; you might fertilize it a good deal, but sometimes it burns up the stuff instead of doing it any good. It is said in there, that unless the Lord build, they labor in vain who build; and if the Lord doesn’t do the work, I haven’t very much opinion of man’s work in doing it.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Doctor, I will ask you this question: If, as you say, Elder Pence took the position that the seed was the word, didn’t he take the correct position?

A. That the seed was the word sown? No sir; that did not make the change. It sets forth that the seed---the parable does---refers to the field, but it didn’t make any change there. It made no change there whatever. I am glad to see that you are informed by the pastor there by your side, if I am wrong, I hope to be corrected.

Q.The seed is the word then?

A. The seed was the word in that instance, and it never removed a stone from that ground or a thorn.

Q. But you accused Elder Pence of taking the position that the seed was the word?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And I merely asked if he didn’t take the correct position there because the parable says so?

A. Yes sir; he took the correct position so far as that is concerned, but it did not bear him out in his theology, because his theology was this, that that preached word did the regenerating, or fixed the ground for it, when it didn’t do anything there, that word preached there didn’t change any of that ground there at all, showing that his own scripture was against him.

 
E. T. BRUMBACK.

In answer to interrogatories in chief by A. G. Weaver, Esq.:

Q. State your age, residence, and occupation?

A. Well, sir, I will be 67, the 8th of this month; I am a farmer; live in Page County.

Q. How long have you lived in Page County?

A. All my life.

Q. Are you a member of any church; if so, what?

A. Yes sir; Hawks Bill.

Q. Is that an Old School Baptist church?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How long have you been a member of the Old School Baptist church at Hawks Bill?

A. Since 1887.

Q. Do you know whether or not your church is, and has been, in fellowship with the Old School Baptist church of Mount Carmel at Luray?

A. Yes sir, it has been.

Q. As represented by Elder Pittman?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Mr. Brumback, are you familiar with the practices and doctrines of the Old School Baptist church at Mount Carmel?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Will you please state whether or not the Old School Baptists of Mount Carmel have inaugurated Sunday schools, missionary societies, or like institutions?

A. No sir; they never did.

Q. Do you know whether or not they ever used instrumental music?

A. No sir.

Q. To what extent have you attended, in past years, the Old School Baptist church at Mount Carmel?

A. Well, sir, I attended it almost monthly when the weather is good, my wife being a member of that church---well, she used to be, but she withdrew her membership about the time of that split on account of the split---on account of the practices---and moved her membership to Hawks Bill, but she continues to come to Luray, her old home, every third Saturday, if it is convenient, depending upon the weather.

Q. Mr. Brumback, you stated something about a split in Mount Carmel church. Do you recall when that split occurred, about?

A. Well, I think it was about 1887 to 1890, somewhere along there.

Q. Can you state what caused that division or split?

A. Yes, sir; I think I know.

Q. Well, just state it, please sir?

A. Well, it was on account of the Sunday school and the mission work that was being introduced there---means.

Q. Who Introduced those institutions.

Mr. Keyser: Let him finish.

A. (Continuing:) Well, I spoke of the Sunday school and the mission work being the prime cause of the split. The Old School Baptists never believed in it, or practiced it, or endorsed it at all.

Q. Well, who inaugurated those things?

A. Elder Burnam.

Q. Who?

A. Elder Burnam was the man that first introduced it in our county. Well, I say first, I believe in 1832, somewhere back there, it was introduced by some other preacher, I don’t remember who, and that’s what caused the first split and made the New School Baptists party. They went off and called themselves New School Baptists.

Q. Then the same thing that caused the New School Baptist split caused the split in Mount Carmel at Luray?

A. That is my understanding, sir.

Q. Do you gather your understanding from history and reading?

A. Yes sir; from reading and observation. I have been around here for a good while, and I knew pretty well what has been going on.

Q. Mr. Brumback, do you know whether or not along about the same period as the split in Mount Carmel, there was an effort made to establish a Sunday school in Hawks Bill church?

A. Yes sir; there was.

Q. Who made that effort?

A. Elder Burnam.

Q. Tell us something about that, Mr. Brumback?

A. Well, I will tell you---

Mr. Keyser: One minute. We can make one exception---

Mr. Weaver: Yes; to cover all of it.

Mr. Keyser: It is understood and agreed that the exception to this question and answer shall cover all questions and answers of like nature with reference to Hawks Bill Church, it being irrelevant to the issue involved in this case.

Mr. Weaver: Of course, we don’t agree that it is irrelevant. We just agree that your exception shall cover all of it.

The Witness: Well, I want to make a little statement or rather a conversation that was held between Elder Burnam, Brother Perry and myself one Sunday at Brother Perry’s house. I went home with him from church, and that was about the time that Elder Burnam was thinking about introducing a Sunday School, or trying to do it at Hawks Bill, and he wanted to know how Sister Lucy stood upon that question---that is my wife---whether she would endorse Sunday Schools, and I invited him to go up to see her, and see what she would say about it, and he accepted the invitation and he and Brother Perry came together. Do you remember that Elder Burnam?

Elder Burnam: I remember being there on one occasion.

The Witness: Well, you were there. It was a rainy evening---I shall never forget it---after getting there, my wife told Elder Burnam if she had known he was coming she would have invited her neighbors in and we would have had preaching. He told her he had something more important on than preaching, and she wanted to know whether it was to convert her over to Sunday Schools. Well, he says, we win see about that. I remember that, and she does too. So she said, “well, we will have our supper over after a little, and we will see about it.” I believe that was her words, but they had a talk and he failed to convert her. She was the same in belief that she was before; and after that, having introduced them right here in her church, she called for a letter and withdrew from Mount Carmel and had her membership put in at Hawks Bill

By Mr. Weaver:

Q. Now, Mr. Brumback, just go on and state to what extent Elder Burnam made efforts to establish a Sunday School there at Hawks Bill Church?

A. Well, I was there the time that Dr. Long spoke of and it is hardly worth while for me to make the same statement.

Q. Yes; we want it in the record.

A. Well, I can go over the same ground then, I suppose.

Q. Go ahead, sir.

A. Another thing I want to mention, Elder Burnam said in this conversation at Elder Perry’s, that it wouldn’t do to spring these new things upon the churches at once; that it should be preached from house to house by the fireside. That is one thing Elder Burnam said; and if it wasn’t a new thing, as he calls it now, I don’t know why he should have been afraid to spring it upon the churches at once instead of going around converting the people by their firesides, which seemed to be the idea, and after having converted them, then take it into the church, then take a vote, and carry the churches.

Q. Now just go ahead, Mr. Brumback, and state to what extent Elder Burnam made efforts to establish a Sunday School there at your church?

A. Well, sir, I think he was a little afraid of calling it a Sunday School, as Dr. Long told you, and preferred to call it a Bible class. I think his idea was to inaugurate a Bible class there, and after a little make it a Sunday School. Of course, I don’t know, but from what he has done since that, I am sure that would have been the case; but there was some objection to it, some dissenting voices and it was dropped. It was laid over, as the Doctor told you, for one month, and as they couldn’t make it unanimous at all---well there was only a very few of them---that favored Sunday Schools---well, there were a few who favored Sunday Schools, and those came down here, as the Doctor told you.

Q. Did those few that favored Sunday Schools withdraw from the Old School Baptist Church at Hawks Bill and join the Burnamites at Luray?

A. Well, some of them just simply withdrew, and some were dropped. I don’t know which you would call it.

Q. To what church did they go?

A. They came to Mount Carmel.

Q. Which branch of Mount Carmel, the Burnamites or the other---

A. Yes, sir.

Q. The Burnamites?

A. Yes, sir. If they left the Old School Baptists there, it was no use to come here and join the same party.

Q. Mr. Brumback, Dr. Long has testified here that on the occasion of the first effort made by Mr. Burnam to establish a Sunday School, that it happened on Saturday morning that he sprung this movement on those people for the first time publicly, and that on the next morning at the appointed hour, a good many people from Luray here were present, without invitation from the church. Do you recall that instance?

A. Yes, sir. I remember it.

Q. You don’t know who invited the Luray Burnamites to attend that meeting; do you?

A. No, sir; I have no idea. Well, I might have an idea, too, but I don’t know.

Q. You are positive, however, that the first movement along that line was the Saturday before?

A. That is my recollection.

Q. And the next morning at 10 o’clock they were all present and on time?

A. Yes, sir; that is my recollection about that.

Q. They were either present or accounted for?

A. Yes; accounted for I guess. I say, I think they were present.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Mr. Brumback, you say your wife was not converted then to Sunday Schools?

A. No, sir.

Q. Didn’t Elder Burnam go there at your request to try to convert your wife?

A. No, sir; I didn’t tell him to try to convert her. He wanted to know of me how she stood upon that question.

Q. You believed in Sunday Schools yourself?

A. I will tell you-in the beginning I didn’t see what it was going to lead to; but the very moment I saw the effect it was having, I was opposed to it. I was opposed to anything that would bring strife and division in the churches.

Q. Before that you were in favor of it?

A. I never gave it a thought until Elder Burnam spoke of his plans.

Q. Before that you were in favor of the movement for Sunday Schools, were you not?

A. No, sir; I cannot say I was. Before that there was very little, if anything, said about Sunday Schools in our neighborhood at all.

Q. And yet you did invite Brother Burnam to your house to talk to your wife about Sunday Schools; isn’t that right?

A. Yes, sir; he wanted to know what she thought about it, and how she stood, and I told him to come up and see her. My wife was always very fond of Brother Burnam. He used to visit her father, and spent a good deal of time there.

Q. Why did you invite Elder Burnam there to your house to talk to your wife about Sunday Schools?

A. Well, sir, because I thought he wanted to know how she stood, and I didn’t object to his talking to her. I knew how she stood, and I thought he would find out after he talked to her a little bit.

Q. Now, deep down in your heart Mr. Brumback, didn’t you invite Elder Burnam there to your house to try to persuade your wife according to your own way of thinking with reference to Sunday Schools, was that not your prime motive?

A. No, sir; that was not.

Q. You knew your wife was opposed to Sunday Schools?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You knew, as you say, that Elder Burnam was in favor of Sunday Schools?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And yet, under those circumstances, you asked Elder Burnam there to talk to your wife with reference to Sunday Schools?

A. I told him to come and see her and have a talk with her, and see how she stood.

Q. Now with reference to Hawks Bill Church. Don’t you know, as a matter of fact, that Sunday Schools were sought to be introduced in Hawks Bill Church at the request of Elder Lampton, one of your preachers at that time?

A. I remember his making a move to that effect, and he said if there was a dissenting voice, it would be dropped, and he soon saw that there was opposition to it, and the only reason he made that move, in my opinion, was that the very parties that came away from there and joined down here, was trying to persuade him to inaugurate something of the sort, and he told them then---I remember all about it---if there was any opposition  whatever, to it, it would be dropped.

Q. Elder Lampton believed in Sunday schools at that time then, did he not?

A. No sir; I don’t believe he believed in it really. If he had why hadn’t he had them where he had been preaching before.

Q. Then you think that Elder Lampton, with whom you fellowshipped at the time,  sought to introduce in Hawk’s Bill church something that he did not believe in himself; is that true?

A. Well, sir, of course, I don’t know what he believed in. He never practiced it, and never preached anything that would encourage a thing of the sort. The only time there was ever anything mentioned in regard to it was at that one time that I remember.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Weaver:

Q. Now Mr. Brumback, about this invitation which my friend has referred to: Elder Burnam expressed the utmost willingness to go, didn’t he, and talk with your wife about Sunday schools?

A. Yes sir. Well, I don’t know about “the utmost willingness.” He just accepted the invitation and came. I don’t suppose he would have gone if he hadn’t been willing to go.

Q.  Didn’t he first mention the matter to you before you invited him to your house?

A. Yes sir; he did. He wanted to know how she stood.

Mr. Keyser: Question and answer objected to as leading.

Mr. Weaver: Well, this is cross-examination on a matter you brought out.

Q. As a matter of fact, he kind of hinted for the invitation, didn’t he?

A. I don’t say he was hinting for it. He just wanted to know how my wife stood on it.

Q. And he first brought up the matter before you invited him to your house?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Now Mr. Keyser has asked you something about Elder Lampton and Sunday schools. As a matter of fact Sunday schools were dropped at your church, were they not?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Were they not dropped at the very next meeting after they were started?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And he was pastor of that church at the time?

A. Yes sir.

____________

D. H. GANDER.

In answer to interrogatories in chief by Colonel R. F. Leedy:

Q. State your age, residence and occupation?

A. My present residence is Willow Grove Mills, Page County; 57 years old; miller.

Q. Mr. Gander, are you a member of any church?

A. No sir.

Q. You are not a member of any church?

A. No sir.

Q. Have you ever attended the Old School Baptist churches in the neighborhood?

A. Oh, yes sir.

Q. Are you familiar with their practices, and have you been?

A. Yes sir.

Q. For how long?

A. Well, I suppose something like---I can remember I suppose something like 47 years. I was about ten years old, and I used to attend the church regularly at Mill Creek every second Sunday, and other churches around.

Q. Did you ever attend the Mount Carmel church at Luray?

A. Yes sir; I have attended the church here.

Q. In your early life?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Are you familiar with the practices of that church up to the time of the split?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Was there incorporated in its practices any such thing as Sunday schools or missions, during that time?

A. No sir; , there was never anything like that practiced among the Old School Baptists in my early recollection.

Q. Do you know what association the Hawk’s Bill church and Mount Carmel church belong?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Which one is that?

A. The Ebenezer .

Q. Do you know whether it was expelled from the Ebenezer Association? Or dropped?

A. I think so, to the best of my recollection.

Q. You were not present at the time?

A. No sir; I was not there.

Q. Do you know whether she is in fellowship now with the Old School Baptist brethren and in fellowship with the Ebenezer Association?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Do you know any difference in their practice today and in your early boyhood in that church?

A. No sir. They practice the same today as they did in my early recollection.

Q. Do you know anything about the practices of the other party, the Regulars?

A. Well, all I know is that there was a split---there seemed to be a division and a split on Sunday schools and mission work and like of that. They couldn’t agree upon that point, and there was a split over that.

Q. Do they practice new things that were not practiced in the Old School Baptist church in your early recollection?

A. Yes sir; to my recollection they do.

Q. You are not an authority on theology, I suppose?

A. No sir; I don’t claim to be any authority on that line. I am only speaking from my recollection and personal observation.

Q. What are those things that are practiced now by the Regulars that are different from the Old School as you remember them?

A. Well, I believe they believe in Sunday schools and mission work, and the Old Baptists did not.

Mr. Weaver: And do not today, do they-the Old Baptists?

The Witness: No sir.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q.  Of course, David, you do know that Mount Carmel church for about three long years before the division had a very nice little Sunday school in it; do you not?

A. No sir; I am not acquainted with that.

Q. You don’t know that?

A. No sir.

Q. Then you were not acquainted with Mount Carmel church before the division, were you?

A. Well, I have attended preaching there long before the split, I know.

Q. And yet you never heard of a Sunday school in Mount Carmel church before the division in 1890?

A. No sir.

Mr. Weaver: You mean you never heard of the Old School Baptists holding a Sunday school in that church?

The Witness: No: not that I ever heard of.

Q. Before the division the church was all together and one?

A. Yes sir.

Q. What did you call them when they were all together before the division?

A. I thought they were all the Old School Baptists.

Q. And yet you don’t remember---

A. I didn’t know there was anything brewing to divide them at all at that time; and didn’t know it until they were divided, and I think that took place at Criglersville or Robertson River, or some place over the Ridge.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION.

By Col. Leedy:

Q. You did not know of any church denomination known as the Regular Baptists previous to that time, did you?

A. No sir; they were all known as the Old Baptists, the Old Ironsides Baptists they were called then, and Hard Shells they were called.

Q. And Rock Ribbed?

A. Yes, Rock Ribbed.

Mr. Keyser: Don’t you know that Hawk’s Bill church calls herself even now, or did a few years ago, Regular Old School Baptists?

The Witness: Well, all I ever heard they were Old School Baptists. I never paid much attention to the new name, the Regulars. I always heard them called Old Baptists, Old School Baptists.

Mr. Keyser: You don’t know what they call themselves?

The Witness: I didn’t know anything about the Regulars then. They were called Old School Baptists.

Mr. Keyser: You don’t know what they call themselves?

The Witness: Old School Baptists, at that time.

By Col. Leedy:

Q. You were married, doubtless, by an Old School Baptist minister, were you not?

A. Yes sir; Elder Paul Yates married me.

Q. Did he return your license as an Old School, or a Regular?

A. Old School, of course.

Q. Don’t you think all Old Schools are regular?

A. Well, I don’t know.

Q. Well, don’t you think so?

A. Well, I suppose they are. They are regular in their time of having their preaching. They all seem to be very regular, they meet on their regular days.

Mr. Weaver: Some of them---so-called--- are pretty regular at the time of holding Sunday schools aren’t they?

The Witness: Yes sir.

__________

E. L. YATES

In answer to interrogatories in chief by A. G. Weaver, Esq.:

Q. Where do you live?

A. Rockingham County.

Q. State your age and occupation?

A. Forty-three; farmer.

Q. Are you a member of any church; if so, what?

A. Naked Creek church, Old School Baptist.

Q. How long have you been a member of the Old School Baptist Church?

A. Nearly seventeen years.

Q. How long have you been familiar with the doctrines and practices of the Old School Baptist church?

A. Well, off and on all my life, since I have been large enough to remember.

Q. Was your father an Elder of that faith, the Old School Baptists?

A. Elder of the Old School Baptists church; yes sir.

Q. What was the name of your father?

A. Paul Yates.

Q. Is your church in fellowship with the Old School Baptist church of Mount Carmel?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Who is your pastor?

A. Elder Pittman.

Q. Are your doctrines and practices the same as the Old School Baptists of Mount Carmel?

A. They are.

Mr. Keyser: Question as immaterial.

Q. Mr. Yates, within your earliest recollection, did you ever hear of a Sunday school or a Missionary Society or like institutions being conducted by the Old School Baptist church?

A. No sir.

Q. You never did?

A. Never did, sir.

Q. Do you know anything about the Old School Baptists of Mount Carmel here?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Do you know anything about the split in the Mount Carmel church along about 1889 or 1890?

A. Some little, yes sir.

Q. Do you know what caused that split?

A. Sunday schools and missionaries.

Q. Do you know who brought about that split?

A. Elder Burnam.

By Col. Leedy:

Q. The pastor in charge, he was your uncle, that went off with the Burnam people, was he not?

A. Yes sir.

Q. C. L. Yates?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Your father was Paul Yates who remained with the Old School?

A. Yes sir.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Who was pastor of Mount Carmel church at the time of the split in 1890?

A. My uncle, Charles L. Yates.

Q. Charles L. Yates?

A. Yes sir.

Mr. Keyser: That is all I want to ask.

Mr. Downing: Were those institutions, Sunday schools and missionary-ism new to the Old School Baptist church when they were introduced here in Mount Carmel?

The Witness: I think so, sir.

Mr. Weaver: As I understand, you stated you had never heard of a Sunday school or missionary society conducted by the Old School Baptists?

The Witness: No sir.

Mr. Keyser: Did you ever hear of a missionary society conducted in what you call the Regular Baptist church?

The Witness:  I know very little about them sir.

Mr. Weaver: You don’t know much about the Regulars?

The Witness: No sir.
____________

J. B. RUFFNER.

In answer to interrogatories in chief by Colonel R. F. Leedy:

Q. Will you state your age, residence and occupation?

A. I am nearly sixty years old; live near the White House, Page County; merchant.

Q. Are you a member of any church, Mr. Ruffner?

A. Yes sir.

Q. What church?

A. Old School Baptists.

Q. What place?

A. Mill Creek.

Q. Do you remember or are you familiar with the practices of the Old School Baptist church?

A. I think I am, sir.

Q. Are you familiar with the practice of Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How long have you known Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church?

A. Ever since I can recollect anything.

Q. Do you remember the split in that church from 1887 to 1890?

A. Yes sir; I have heard a good deal of talk about it anyhow.

Q. Do you know whether any of your members from Mill Creek church went to the Regulars in that church?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How many?

A. One.

Q. Who was that?

A. Mrs. Keyser.

Q. Have you any record of that matter?

A. Yes sir.

Q. I will ask you, are you the clerk of the church or not?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did you keep the records at that time?

A. Yes sir.

Q. To what association does your church belong?

A. Ebenezer .

Q. How long has it belonged to the Ebenezer Association?

A. I don’t know that. I don’t remember.

Q. Before your recollection?

A. Yes, indeed; long before I was born.

Q. Is it in fellowship with the Old School Baptist church of Mount Carmel?

A. Yes sir.

Q. As represented by Mr. Pittman?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Were you at Robertson River in 1889 at the association?

A. No sir.

Q. Were you at the Ebenezer Association at Alma in 1890?

A. No sir.

Q. Now you say you lost Mrs. Keyser from your church---

A. Yes sir.

Q. Who went to the Regulars?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Will you please give us the history of that case?

A. Well, I can read you the minutes.

Mr. Barton: This is objected to as not being relevant in any sense to the case, being the history of a single individual and not of the sentiment of Mount Carmel church.

Colonel Leedy: We just want to show that it was on account of this very doctrine that there was a difference between Mrs. Keyser and that church, and she joined these people.

Mr. Weaver: Have you a minute covering that matter?

The Witness: Yes sir; I think so.

Colonel Leedy: Will you refer to it---turn to it and read it.

Mr. Weaver: Give us the date of it and everything.

The Witness: (Reading:) “Mill Creek Church. Met July 12, 1890, after preaching by our pastor, T. N . Alderton. Then proceeded to business, first inviting brethren and sisters of our faith and order to seats with us. Then the door of the church was open for membership, but no addition. The minute of last meeting was called for and read by the clerk and adopted. Brother John H. Menifee was appointed, to write our letter to the association. Messengers to the association were Elders J. H. Menifee, P. W. Yates, R. T. Strickler, M. V. Gander and Phillip Long. Election was held for housekeeper, whereupon Sister V. Corbin was elected. The charge preferred against Sister Nannie Keyser was as follows: That whereas certain Baptist ministers, formerly of our faith and order, namely, Elders E. H. Burnam, James Bradley, T. Pence and others, have departed from our faith, by trying to introduce such things as Sunday schools and theological schools and other institutions and inventions for the purpose, as they say, to build up the Church of Christ and to keep it alive, all of which is contrary to our constitution and articles of faith and practice, and said Sister Nannie Keyser did write an article for the Regular Baptist Magazine, fully endorsing the course of said preachers and teaching those objectionable things, and in said article encouraged said preachers, invited them to continue to come among our churches for the purpose of continuing their church dividing course,  destroying work, and said Sister Nannie Keyser did attend their meetings and otherwise encourage them, and neglected her own church meetings; and when her attention was called to it by our deacons, under the instruction of the church; she failed to give  satisfaction. She was notified to appear before the church and explain; and at our June meeting, 1890, she came forward to the church and contended that she was right in endorsing Burnam and the Regular Baptist Magazine, and through her husband, as spokesman, did seek to justify herself, and asked for a letter of dismission from the church, saying she did not desire to remain longer with them. The matter was laid over until the July meeting, when it was again taken up, and as she had refused to be present, and it was decided out of order to give her a letter of dismission as she had departed from the faith and fellowship of our church, on motion and seconded, she was excluded from the fellowship of the church and until such time as she may be led to see her wrongs and repent or turn from them and ask for admission again. Nothing more. Then adjourned. J. B. Ruffner, Clerk. T. N. Alderton, Moderator.”

By Colonel Leedy:

Q. You are familiar with the practice then of the Old School Baptist churches in this country; are you?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And the doctrines?

A. I didn’t say anything about the doctines. I am not versed on the doctrines. I meant the practices.

Q. Do you know whether the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church ever practiced Sunday schools and a mission system, or anything of that sort?

A. Not to my recollection.

Q. Did any of the churches within its association, the Ebenezer, do so?

A. No sir.

Q. Do they now?

A. No sir; not the Old School Baptists.

Q. Now of these two parties, I want to ask you, Mr. Ruffner, which is the Old School Baptist church, the one represented by Elder Pittman, as its pastor, or the one  represented by Elder Huff as its pastor?

Mr. Barton: This question is excepted to as calling for the opinion and judgment of the witness, and not the statement of a fact.

A. Why, the one represented by Elder Pittman.

Q. Why?

A. Because he practices the Old School Baptist practice---what they have been practicing for years before, I think.

Q. Does the other side, or not, practice as the Old School Baptists had practiced before?

A. I don’t think so.

Q. Do you know about this division, who caused it, and what was the cause of it, at Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church?

A. Well, they said it was caused by introducing Sunday schools and missions, and having organs in the churches and the like.

Q. You never heard anything about tuning forks?

A. No.

Q. You did not know that tuning forks were instruments of music, did you?

A. No; I knew nothing about it.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Don’t tuning forks make a musical sound?

A. Not to my ear, it don’t.

Q. Did you ever hear of Brother Daily using any in the Old School Baptist church immediately after the division?

A. Yes sir; I have seen him.

Q. Do you approve of tuning forks?

A. I don’t object to it.

Q. Don’t you know there were no organs in the Old, School Baptist church or the Regular Baptist church at the time of the division in 1890 at Luray?

A. No sir.

Q. You don’t know?

A. No sir.

Q. Yet you put that down as one of the causes of the division?

A. That is what was talked about anyhow, plenty of it.

Q. Talked about something they did not have at that time?

A. Didn’t you say they did have.

Q. I asked you if you knew whether they did have one?

A. They have since.

Q. I said at the time of the division?

A. They put them in afterwards.

Q. We have one there now; we plead guilty to that?

A. Yes sir.

Q. What is your objection to that organ?

A. I have no objection to it at all.

Q. You have no objection to organs in churches, have you?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Why?

A. It is not the place for them.

Q. Why?

A. I am not going to give you any reason why.

Q. You are not going to give any reason?

A. No.

Q. Can you give any reason why?

A. It makes no difference whether I can. I am not going to give any.

Q. You won’t say whether you can give any, and you refuse to give a reason?

A. I am not going to say anything about it.

Q. Well, I won’t make you?

A. I know. You can’t, that’s the reason. You would if you could.

Q. I don’t think you have any reason, do you?

A. Well, it don’t make any difference about that. You are trying to urge it, I see that.

Q. No; I want to get you in the record as refusing to testify on that point?

A. All right, sir. I refuse to testify on that.

Q. I believe you said you had no objection to organs in churches?

A. Yes; I said that; but I have objection to having them in an Old School Baptist church.

Q. Do you know what became of the membership of the lady whom I am proud to call my mother that you have just read about in your minutes?

A. No sir.

Q. You don’t know that she joined the Mount Carmel Baptist church immediately after that?

A. No sir; I don’t know. I suppose you do.

Q. I do. You don’t know that she esteems that one of the greatest honors of her life; do you?

A. No sir.

Q. That action of your church there?

A. No sir; I don’t know it.

____________

W. E. GRAYSON.

In answer to interrogatories in chief by A. G. Weaver, Esq.:

Q. State your age, residence and occupation?

A. Well, sir, I am in my 64th year; Front Royal, is my residence; my occupation is printer.

Q. How long have you resided in Front Royal, Mr. Grayson?

A. Nearly 11 years.

Q. Prior to that time, where did you reside?

A. In Luray.

Q. How long did you reside in Luray, Page County?

A. Not all the time in Luray, but in the county, different portions of the county.

Q. You have been a resident then of Page County all your life with the exception of 11 years?

A. No sir; I lived in Missouri seven years, from 1870 to 1877.

Q. Mr. Grayson, are you a member of any church?

A. No sir.

Q. Have you been an attendant of Page County, particularly, the Old School Baptist church of Mount Carmel?

A. Yes sir; I have attended nearly all the Baptist churches, all the Old Baptist churches in the county, more particularly here in Luray in my latter days. When I was a young man I used to go to all of them.

Q. Mr. Grayson; are you familiar with the practices of the Old School Baptist church of Mount Carmel at Luray in former years?

A. Well, to some extent, I am, yes sir.

Q. What is your earliest recollection of the Old School Baptist church?

A. Well, that dates back a good ways, sir. My first impression about the church was when my mother was baptized, I reckon, in 1832. I saw her baptized and after that went to church with her a great many times.
Q. What church?

A. Mount Carmel church.

Q. From your knowledge, Mr. Grayson of the Old School Baptist church, particularly, the Old School Baptist church of Mount Carmel, did you ever hear of a Sunday School being conducted by a church of that faith?

A. No sir; not the Old Schools.

Q. Do you know anything about the division or split in Mount Carmel church along from 1887 to 1890, along that period?

A. Yes sir; I know there was a division.

Q. Do you know what caused that division?
A. Well, they tried to introduce Sunday schools, foreign missions and things of that kind into the church.

Q. Who tried to do that, Mr. Grayson?

A. It was claimed that Mr. Burnam was the leader of it. The first I heard of it, he had introduced it.

Q. Was that the first time you ever heard of a Sunday school attempting to be held in the Old School Baptist church?

A. Well, I think it was talked of here several years before, before the Sunday school was introduced.

Q. Talked of by whom?

A. By the members of the church.

Q. Which branch, the so-called Burnamites?

A. Talked about by both.

Mr. Keyser: The question is objected to as leading and suggestive.

Q. Did the parties who talked in favor of the Sunday school subsequently go off with the Burnamites?

A. Yes sir.
By Mr. Downing:

Q. Mr. Grayson, have you any knowledge of a discussions, religious discussion, that took place in Luray about the time of the separation in Mount Carmel church?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did that discussion represent the issues upon which the separation took place?

A. It represented the two factions of the church, as I understood it.

Q. Do you know what questions were discussed?

A. I don’t know that I could state the question that was up for discussion, but it was relative to the preached word, or something of that kind, being instrumental in the salvation of the soul. I can’t just repeat the question as it was stated on that occasion.

Q. Which side contended that the preached word was the means of the salvation of souls?

A. That side was taken by Mr. Pence---Elder Pence.

Q. Who were the followers of Mr. Pence in that discussion?

A. The Burnam faction of the Mount Carmel church.

Q. Who were the followers of Mr. Potter in that discussion?

A. The Old School Baptists---the Primitive Baptists, I call them.

Q. From your knowledge of the practices of this church, prior to the time of its separation, and since its separation, which faction now represents the Old School Baptist church, as you knew it in ante-bellum days?

A. The faction that is represented by Elder Pittman.

Mr. Barton: This question and answer is excepted to as not a statement of fact, but an expression of the opinion of the witness, according to his own theological views.

Q. What makes you say that Mr. Pittman’s side is the side that was formerly the Old School Baptist church, and is now?

A. Well, as I understand it, just before the split in the church Elder Yates was pastor of Mount Carmel church, and he advocated the same thing that Mr. Burnam did, and when his year was out, I think, they did not re-elect him---they did not call him for the next term, and they were perhaps without a pastor here for a year of two, then the Old Baptists called Elder Dalton, and lie was succeeded by Elder Daily, and he was succeeded by Elder Pittman. That is the way I bring it down.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Mr. Grayson, according to the history of Mount Carmel church, when did they usually select their pastors? Was it not at the December meeting in each year?

A. I couldn’t tell you. I hardly ever attended their business meetings.

Q. Were you a member of the church at that time?

A. No sir; I am not a member of the church.

Q. Do you not know it to be a fact that a Sunday school was conducted in Mount Carmel church some three years before the division, which was participated in both by Means and Anti-Means members of that church at the time---or who afterwards sided with the Means and Anti-Means party of the church?

A. I don’t know just when the division took place.

Q. The division took place in 1890?

A. Well, I don’t know the year it was first introduced, or tried to be introduced in the church.

Q. Don’t you know that before the division, there was a Sunday school conducted in Mount Carmel Baptist church?

A. Only from hearsay. I never attended the Sunday school, nor none of my children attended it. I did hear there was a Bible class there conducted by the Burnamites, held there every Sunday morning.

Q. Don’t you know that those who afterwards sided with the anti-means party also took an interest in that Sunday school or Bible class, as you may call it?

A. No sir.

Q. You don’t know that?

A. No sir; I am not familiar with that.

Q. You have spoken something with reference to this discussion between Pence and Potter about the time of the division?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Now will you please state what the subject of discussion was on that occasion?

A. Well, I said I couldn’t state the question exactly perhaps, as it was stated for discussion.

Q. Did you hear the discussion?

A. I heard it one day, I think, perhaps.

Q. What were they discussing that day?

A. I don’t know that I could recollect. I perhaps heard the statement of the question. I was hardly close enough to catch any of the discussion at all.

Q. Who was discussing the subject the day that you heard it?

A. Well, they both talked on that day.

Q. And what did they talk about?

A. I couldn’t tell you. It has been so long. One said it was means, and the other said it was not means.

Q. What was the means?

A. That the preached word was a means of assisting the sinner to the salvation of his soul.

Q. Now, as a matter of fact, Mr. Grayson, you did not understand exactly what they were talking about that day, did you?

A. Yes sir; I understood what they were talking about. I knew what the question was before they commenced.

Q. Didn’t you say you were too far off to hear it?

A. I didn’t hear it all. I could catch some of it.

Q. Now then just give us something you did hear?

A. I don’t know that I could do that. It has been a long time.

Q. How do you know what they were talking about, if you can’t remember what they said?

A. Because I went there for that purpose, to hear them talk on that question, and I heard all I could. I wouldn’t like to undertake to repeat their words, because I don’t know that I could.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION

By Col. Leedy:

Q. Mr. Grayson, one question. I believe you say you don’t know whether there were any of the anti-means engaged in that Sunday school at that time or not. I will ask you this question, do you know whether there were any anti-means in the church at that time who did not engage in the Sunday school?

A. No sir; I don’t know.

Q. How about your own family?

A. I know my family did not.

Q. Your family were members?

A. My wife was a member.

By Mr. Downing:

Q. Was she opposed Sunday schools?

A. Yes sir; opposed yet.

Q. Did you ever know of an Old School Baptist church anywhere that was in favor of Sunday schools?

A. No sir; not the old-time Baptists. I never heard of it.

By Colonel Leedy:

Q. Your mother was living then, wasn’t she?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Did she take any part in the Sunday school?

A. No sir.

Q. Did she oppose it?

A. She talked all she could against it.

By Mr. Downing:

Q. What was the maiden name of your mother, Mr. Grayson?

A. She was a Coffman---Catherine Coffman.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Mr. Grayson, did your little children ever attend any Sunday school at all?

A. Yes sir: I think all of them did.

Q. Where?

A. I think Willie went to the Methodist Sunday school; that was only while we were living here at Luray, and after that question of bringing Sunday schools into the Old Baptist church, my wife said she wouldn’t let him go to any of the Sunday schools. She wouldn’t let him go to any then.

Q. Did any of your mother’s children attend any Sunday school anywhere, including yourself?

A. Yes sir; I did at one time. I was Superintendent of a Sunday school at one time.

Q. You fell from grace?

A. No sir; I never had any to fall from.

Q. You didn’t hurt yourself then?

A. No sir.

Mr. Weaver: But you never saw or attended a Sunday school conducted by an Old School Baptist church, did you?

The Witness: No sir: nor by an Old School Baptist.

____________

T. R. CAMPBELL.

In answer to interrogatories in chief by Colonel R. F. Leedy:

Q. Mr. Campbell, state your age, residence and occupation?

A. I am 77 years old; residence, Luray; I am a retired gentleman without any money.

Q. A retired gentleman without money?

A. Yes sir.

Q. You are the ex-Mayor of this town, are you not?

A. Yes sir; I was mayor 8 years.

Q. Are you a member of any church; if so, what church

A. I belong to the Baptist church, at Luray. We call it the New School Baptist.

Q. Not Regular?

A. No sir.

Q. Not Old School either?

A. Not Old School-not the Hard Shell.

Q. Mr. Campbell, how long have you been acquainted with the Old School Baptist denomination?

A. Well, I guess I have been for seventy years.

Q. Nearly seventy years you remember it?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Do you remember whether the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church ever had Sunday schools, or adopted any mission system prior to the time of their splitting from 1887 to 1890?

A. I think not. Not to my recollection. They never believed in any Sunday schools. I am speaking more of what occurred before the war. I used to go to the church frequently then. The church then had as their preachers Old Billie Lauck, and Ambrose Booton, and Keyser, and Compton, and Menifee, such as that.

Q. And they did not practice Sunday schools?

A. No sir.

Q. Or missions?

A. No sir.

Q. Well, do you know whether or not they opposed those institutions?

A. Well, it was generally said so. Generally believed so by parties.

Q. Are you familiar with the practice of the Regular or Burnam element?

A. No sir I cannot say that I am.

Q. You don’t know what the difference is?

A. No sir.

Q. Whom do you consider the Old School Baptists today---

Mr. Barton: Objected to as not calling for a statement of fact, but a mere opinion.

Q. (Continuing:) those represented by Mr. Pittman as their pastor, or those represented by Mr. Huff as their pastor?

Mr. Barton: This question also, because in aid of the other, it is leading and suggestive.

A. Whom do I consider?

Q. Yes?

A. Well, I would consider represented by Mr. Pittman.

Colonel Leedy: That is all. The witness is with you gentlemen.

Mr. Keyser: Stand aside, sir.

____________

A. M. HITE.

In answer. to interrogatories in chief by H. H. Downing, Esq. :

Q. Mr. Hite, please state you age, residence and occupation?

A. Sixty-six; residence four miles southwest of Luray, at Mill Creek; occupation, farmer.

Q. Are you a member of any religious denomination?

A. No sir; I am not.

Q. Are you familiar with the practices of the Old School Baptist denomination?

A. Yes sir; I think so.

Q. Are you familiar with the practices of Mount Carmel church of Old School Baptists?

A. Not as much as with Mill Creek and Hawk’s Bill. I have frequently been here to hear the Old School Baptists preach at Luray at Mount Carmel, but not as often.

Q. Are you familiar with the practices and doctrines of that branch claiming to be the Old School Baptists headed by Mr. Huff, known as the Burnamites?

A. No sir; only they practice Sunday schools, and foreign missions, and such things.

Q. Are those practices of Sunday schools, and foreign missions in accord with the practices of the Old School Baptist church of Mount Carmel prior to the war?

A. State that question again.

(Stenographer reads question.)

By Mr. Downing:

Q. Are they alike in practices?

A. No sir.

Q. Did you ever know of a Sunday school or a missionary society, or missionary-ism, in any of its forms, in an Old School Baptist church?

A. No sir.

Q. Do you know whether the Burnam faction has Sunday schools or missionary societies in its church?
 
A. That’s what I have been told. I don’t know it of my own knowledge. I never attended their Sunday schools or churches.

Colonel Leedy: Are you a member of any church?

The Witness: No sir.

Mr. Downing: That is all we want to ask him.

Mr. Keyser: Stand aside, sir.
____________

DAVID SPITLER.

In answer to Interrogatories chief by Colonel R. F. Leedy:

Q. Mr. Spitler, please state age, residence and occupation?

A. Well, I am 62 years old, will be this coming September.

Q. Where do you reside?

A. About three miles up Hawk’s Bill, Page County.

Q. Your occupation?

A. Farmer.

Q. Do you belong to any church?

A. Yes sir.

Q. What church?

A. Old school Baptist.

Q. Which one, the Hawk’s Bill or Mount Carmel?

A. Hawk’s Bill.

Q. Are you familiar with the practices of the Old School Baptist churches in this county, sir?

Mr. Barton: Excepted to, unless it applies solely to the Mount Carmel church.

A. Yes sir; I am.

Q. Have you been familiar with the practices of the Mount Carmel Baptist church for a long time?

A. Yes sir; I guess so. I was there---attended all the churches, that is, before the split you mean?

Q. Yes sir.

A. I have been a member twenty-two years, I suppose.

Q. Do you know whether prior to the time of the split there was any Sunday schools or mission system inaugurated in that church?

A. No sir; not that I recollect of.

Q. Do you know of any Old School Baptist, Simon-pure Old Baptist church that practices those things anywhere?

A. No.

Q. Are you familiar with the practices of the Regular Baptists?

A. Well, no. I have not been to hear them.

Q. Why don’t you go to hear them?

A. Well, we have churches of our own.

Q. Then the Regular Baptists are not the Old School?

A. Well, I shouldn’t think so. The New School flopped off once, and I think may be there was another flop off since.

Colonel Leedy: I think that’s all.

Mr. Keyser: Stand aside, Mr. Spitler.

C. J. MAUK

In answer to Interrogatories in chief by A. G. Weaver, Esq.:

Q. State your age, residence and occupation?

A. Fifty years of age; I live three miles north of Luray; farming is my occupation.

Q. Are you a member of any church?

A. No sir.

Q. Have you been familiar with the practice of the Old School Baptist church from your boyhood, or not?

A. Yes; I have attended the church, all my life.

Q. Did you ever attend the Mount Carmel Baptist church, Old School Baptist church at Luray?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you familiar with practice along with the others?

A. Yes; the same.

Q. Did it at any time prior to this split, practice Sunday schools, within your knowledge?

A. Well, I don’t know just when you say the split was. There was a little---what they called a Bible class or something---they wouldn’t designate it as a Sunday school in the first place.

Q. How long was that before 1890?

A. Couple of years I think.

Q. Couple of years when?

A. Prior to 1890.

Q. Two years prior to 1890 they designated it as a Bible class?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever know, other than that, of a Sunday school in an Old School Baptist church anywhere?

A. No sir.

Q. Did you ever know of an Old School Baptist church that inaugurated missions?

A. No sir.

Q. Did you ever know this church to have done so prior to the split?

A. No sir.

Q. Do you know whether or not their doctrines oppose it?

A. Yes, bitterly; and the preachers too.

Mr. Barton: Question is excepted to as calling for a statement of opinion and not a fact, and on a question which the witness is not qualified to speak, as he stated what he knew about the practices of the church.

Q. Who was the first man who introduced these Sunday schools; do you know?

A. I cannot answer that. I don’t know exactly who. I only know of it by some of the people that attended-the children of some of the Baptist people that attended the Sunday school, or Bible class, they called it.

Q. Do you know whether or not that was started by Mr. Burnam?

A. No sir; I don’t know.

Q. You have no knowledge on that point?

A. No.

By Col. Leedy:

Q. In your judgment and knowledge of the Baptist denomination, which is the Old School Baptists of Mount Carmel, those represented by Mr. Pittman as their pastor, or those represented by Mr. Huff as their pastor?

Mr. Barton: This question objected to as calling for a matter of judgment from the witness, and not a statement of fact.

A. Well, it is very patent to my mind that those represented by Mr. Pittman are the people that I have been identified with all my life, my parents and grand parents and all were members of it.

Mr. Weaver: Members of what?

The Witness: The Old Baptist church.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Mr. Mauck, you are not acquainted with the doctrine of the Means or Regular Baptists, are you?

A. Why, I wouldn’t like to say I am acquainted with any regular doctrine, on doctrinal points.

Q. You don’t know what doctrine of the Regular Baptists or the Old School Baptists either, that treats of the Sunday school or mission question, do you?

A. No, I don’t. I simply know that one practice Sunday schools and the other does not.

Q. All you know of is with reference to the practices?

A. Yes.

____________

 
JOHN W. LONG.

In answer to Interrogatories in chief by H. H. Downing, Esq. :

Q. Please give your age, residence and occupation?

A. 56; I live in Massanutton, Page County, about 7 miles west of here; farmer.

Q. Are you a member of any religious denomination?

A. No sir.

Q. Are you familiar with the practices and doctrines of the Old School Baptist church in Page County?

A. Well, I can say yes, I guess. I have been among them all my life.

Q. Have you often attended their meetings or not?

A. Yes sir; nearly all in this county, except a few churches I don’t go to.

Q. Do you know whether Mount Carmel church, prior to 1887, believed in and practiced means or instrumentalities?

A. I could not answer that question positively because I very seldom ever come to church at Luray. It is seven miles. Only when I went to school here in 1869, then I attended the Old School Baptist church regularly then, but since that I haven’t attended it more than four or five times.

Q. Can you state, at that time, what their practices was?

A. There were no Sunday schools then.

Q. Did they have any missionary societies then?

A. If they did, I don’t recollect of any.

Q. At that time do you know, from the preaching if the Old School Baptist church favored missions or whether they were known as anti-mission Baptists?

A. No; I was young then, I didn’t take much account of what they preached then, about that time. But what times I have been here since then, they didn’t practice it I know. What few times I have been here.

Q. Do you know what the practice of the Regular Baptists is with reference to Sunday schools, and missionary societies?

A. Well, they hold Sunday schools and have missionaries. The Old Baptists do not.

Q. Which is in accord with the practice of this church, if you know, the practice of the Old School Baptist church here prior to the war, Mr. Pittman or Mr. Huff?

A. Mr. Pittman. Mr. Pittman’s church now, that’s the Old Baptists here. Mr. Pittman holds the church now, but when I went to school here Mr. Perry preached then.

Mr. Downing: You gentlemen take the witness.

Mr. Keyser: Stand aside.