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&rsqu