In answer to interrogatories in chief by A. G. Weaver, Esq.:

Q. State your age, residence and occupation, Mr. Coffman?

A. I will be 73 next birthday, in December next; and have been trying to farm a little; residence, Rockingham, near Elkton.

Q. Are you a member of any church?

A. Yes; I belong to these Old Baptists here.

Q. What church do you belong to?

A. The part that Elder Pittman preaches for.

Q. The Mount Carmel Old School Baptist?

A. No sir; I don’t belong to this church. I belong to Naked Creek church in Rockingham County.

Q. Who is the pastor of that church?

A. Elder Pittman.

Q. Is your church in fellowship with the Old School Baptist church of Mount Carmel?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Are you familiar with the practices of the Mount Carmel Baptist church; and, if so, how long have you been familiar with them?

A. Well, I have been right here among them--- I lived in this county until I was 43 years old; and I have been in Rockingham ever since, and I have been here since I was---as a boy says---old enough to notice things.

Q. Within your knowledge, do you know of any Sunday school or mission system that was ever adopted by an Old School Baptist church?

A. No sir.

Q. Do you recall the split or division in Mount Carmel church along in 1887 to 1890?

A. Yes sir.

Q. What caused that split, Mr. Coffman?

A. Well, they practiced things that the Baptists never did practice before, and was opposed to, and wouldn’t put up with it.

Q. What were those things.

A. Well, what you have heard all day.

Q. Well, I want to get it in the record from you?

A. Bringing in new things to our people, Sunday schools, foreign missions, and Bible publishing houses and so on. They did try that for awhile. I don’t think they ever published many though.

Q. Now, Mr. Coffman, along about that time, do you know anything about a debate that was held in Mount Carmel church between Elder Potter and Elder Pence?

A. Yes sir; I heard it all. I can’t tell you much about it. Its just like a dream to me. I can’t tell you anything about it hardly.

Q. They were each representing opposing factions, were they not?

A. Yes sir. Mr. Pence challenged Mr. Potter for a debate--- least, his friends did--nd they debated on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday after the fourth Sunday in August, 1890, right after the association at Alma.

Q. Which faction was represented by Mr. Pence?

A. What they call the Burnam party.

Q. Who did Elder Potter represent?

A. He represented the Old Baptists, that has been preaching in this church ever since I was a boy.

Q. Can you state in a general way--I don’t mean in detail or to give exact language---what was the general line of discussion?

A. No sir, I can’t. I have had the grip several times, and sometimes it just leaves me entirely, and that is a thing I never thought much about, and I couldn’t tell you anything that would be any profit to anybody. I wouldn’t be ashamed to tell it if I knew it word for word. It was all right.

Q. As I understand, you never heard of a Sunday school or mission system being adopted by an Old School Baptist church?

A. No sir. The closest they came to getting one in an Old School Baptist church was when they tried to get it in here, and they did a little while. There was none before that
to my recollection. 

Q. Who tried to get it in here?

A. These people that are fighting us now.

Q. Are they known as the Burnamites?

A. Yes sir. I don’t know just what year they commenced it. They might have commenced it a couple years before the division. I couldn’t say that. I didn’t attend the meetings here very often at that time.

By Mr. Downing:

Q. Did that discussion represent the division in the church---did it have reference to the division in the church?

A. Yes sir; I reckon it did. In the first place, I think Mr. Pence sent a man to see Mr. Potter and he wanted to know what they were to debate about, and as well as I remember, he said,---that Potter asked him where he stood, and he said he was just
where he always was, and Potter said, “there is nothing for us to debate about then, if we are both Old Baptists.” That was directly after dinner, and after awhile he came again and got to talking to him and he gave him his position, but I couldn’t explain it to you.

Q. Did they discuss the question of Means and Anti-Means?

Mr. Barton: This is objected to. The witness has repeatedly said, he cannot remember, and cannot recall or repeat what was said or occurred.

A. Well, I think they did. They discussed it a good deal. They were three days at it.

Q. Were you Moderator at Alma church at the time the Ebenezer Association was held there about 1890?

A. Well, that’s what they say.

Q. At that meeting state whether any action was taken with reference to Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church, and, if so, what?

A. Well, they dropped Mount Carmel church from the Association that day.

Mr. Keyser: The question is excepted to because the minutes is the best evidence---the minutes of the association.

The Witness: I have got it right here, if you want that.

By Mr. Downing:

Q. Refer to the minute of the association, if necessary to refresh your memory, and tell whether Mount Carmel church was dropped, and if she was dropped, for what she was dropped?

Mr. Barton: That question is equally objectionable. If the minute contains the fact, it is the best evidence, and no reference by the witness is proper.

A. You want me to read it.

Q. Yes.

A. (Reading:) “Motion to drop Mount Carmel church from the fellowship of this Association on the charge that she retains as her pastor Elder C. L. Yates who teaches the doctrine of means and instrumentalities in the regeneration of sinners; advocates
Sunday schools, and has been guilty of serving a body of regularly excluded members, as their pastor. Furthermore that a considerable number of the member of the said Mount Carmel church hold, teach and practice the heresies above named, and we have no fellowship for such things. The above being offered as a motion, was seconded, and by the vote of the association, the said church was dropped from the fellowship of the association.”

Q. Is that a true minute of the meeting?

A. Yes sir; that’s just what she did.

Q. Was Mount Carmel church afterwards reinstated in Ebenezer Association?

A. Reinstated the next year at Hawks Bill, just as soon as that part of the business came on.

Q. Why was she reinstated?

A. Well, she had separated, and we wanted our members back in there. We didn’t drop them on their account, but it was on account of the others.

Q. You mean to say that that part of the church which believed as Ebenezer Association believed was reinstated?

A. Yes sir. They all let him preach there, and they were having trouble, and we dropped them, and they got clear of him, or he quit, I don’t know which, I wasn’t there about that time, and they took the others back. I don’t know who was pastor. I reckon Elder  Dalton was pastor maybe. He was pastor at the next year’s association.

By Mr. Weaver:

Q. In other words, Mr. Coffman, Ebenezer Association reinstated Mount Carmel church after the church had purged itself of those members who had practiced Sunday schools and missions; isn’t that the fact.

Mr. Barton: That question is objected to as giving the testimony which the witness is desired to make in the question.

A. Got clear of them; and then took the balance of the church back.

Q. They didn’t reinstate Mount Carmel church then until after those members who had advocated Sunday schools had been dropped; isn’t that a fact?

Mr. Barton: This question is objected to as leading and suggestive.

A. Yes sir.

By Mr. Downing:

Q. Were you at the Robertson River association?

A. Yes sir.

Q. When Mr. Burnam undertook to introduce certain articles of faith by Fristoe instead of publishing the regular letter?

A. Yes sir; I was there.

Q. What objection did Mr. Burnam make to the circular letter?

A. Well, I don’t know really what he said now about that, but it was an out of order. Elder Lampton was appointed the year before at Mill Creek to write the letter to read there at that church, and there was no getting around it. If it isn’t to suit their notions about their doctrine and all, they appoint a committee just to cut it down until it did suit, add to or take from. They never go in unless its according to their articles of faith, and nobody else had any right to put any letter in. Nobody asked Elder Burnam, unless the other party did. I don’t know whether they did or not. I can’t say.

Q. What was the action of the association?

A. They adopted Mr. Lampton’s letter.

Mr. Barton: This is objected to on the same ground as the last question. The  proceedings themselves should appear and not the parole statement of the witness.

Q. Mr. Coffman, will an association keep a church as a member of itself when that church differs in faith, doctrine or practice from the association?

A. No sir; if they do, they are all out of order, I should think. I have never known them to do it.

Q. What is the rule in an association where a church, according to the ideas of the association, indulges in heresies?

Mr. Barton: This is objected to as irrelevant.

A. Well, they take about the same plan we did with Mount Carmel church, I guess.

Q. What was that plan?

A. We would have to do with them just like we did Mount Carmel church at Alma.

Q. What did you do with Mount Carmel?

A. Dropped them from the association.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Mr. Coffman, I just want to ask you a question. Is it not the practice of the association to select or elect a man clerk of the association who is a member of some church in fellowship with that association?

A. I don’t know whether it makes any difference whether he is a member or not, if he is a good, honest man, he can keep the records, and we had that---we didn’t have anything against J. W. Grove at Alma, but he had to go out with the balance, because he was in bad company.

Q. Yes, I see. He went out with the balance?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And yet your association retained him as clerk?

A. We did. I wish we had some more like him.

Mr. Weaver: When Brother Grove got rid of his bad company, he came back along with the rest of the church, didn’t he?

The Witness: Yes sir; he has been back ever since, and been clerk a great part of the time.

____________

ISAAC SPITLER.

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

Q. State your age, residence, and occupation, Mr. Spitler?

A. I am 63 years old; my residence is close to Antioch Church on the Hawks Bill, in this county; farmer.

Q.  Mr. Spitler, are you a member of any church organization; and, if so, please state what organization?

A. I am a member of the German Baptist, or Dunkards, they call them.

Q. German Baptist or Dunkards?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Have you been acquainted with the Old School Baptist denomination for a long time, sir?

A. Yes sir; I used to go to hear them preach a good deal, and still go yet when I get a chance.

Q. Are you acquainted with the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church?

A. The one here at Luray?

Q. Yes sir .

A. No sir; not so much as the Hawks Bill and Mill Creek.

Q. You have visited the Old School Baptist church at Mount Carmel, have you?

A. I have been there several times---yes sir.

Q. You are acquainted with the practices of those Baptist churches, are you not?

A. Well, I don’t know. I hear the New Baptists, as they call them and the Old. There is a difference in them.

Q. Which do you call the New, Mr. Huff’s element, or those represented by Mr. Pittman?

A. Mr. Huff. I always call them the New Baptists, or Burnamites.

Q. You don’t mean New School Baptists---you don’t have reference to the New School Baptists?

A. No sir.

Q. What branch does Mr. Pittman here represent of Mount Carmel?

A. The way I understand it, the Old School Baptists.

Q. Why do you call Mr. Huff’s branch the New Baptists?

A. Well, because I think that’s a kind of spring off from the Old School.

Q. That’s a very good reason?

A. That is my reason.

Q. Do you know whether the Old School Baptists practice Sunday schools, or any mission system?

A. No sir; not when I used to go hear them, they didn’t.

Q. You never heard of them doing that?

A. No sir.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Just one question: Have you ever heard Elder Huff preach?

A. Yes sir; I heard him preach a funeral once.

Q. Have you ever heard Brother Burnam preach?

A. Yes sir; I have heard him preach once.

Q. Since the division?

A. Yes sir.
____________

J. B. ALESHIRE.

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

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

A. 53; residence, Massanutton about five miles from Luray; farmer.

Q. Mr. Aleshire, with what church are you identified?

A. The Old Baptists.

Q. What church?

A. Mill Creek.

Q. Are you acquainted with the Mount Carmel Baptist church and the other Old School Baptist churches of the county?

A. Yes sir; I go to them a good deal.

Q. Have you been acquainted for many years with the practices of the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church?

A. Well, I think so.

Q. How long, sir?

A. Well, I have been attending the church here at Luray for about nine years pretty regularly. I get there right regularly.

Q. Did you know anything about its practices previous to that time?

A. No; nothing more than what I heard.

Q. Is the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church in full fellowship with the Ebenezer Association now?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Has it been so since 1890---since 1891?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Is your church and Mount Carmel here all in fellowship?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And all in fellowship with the Ebenezer Association?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Do you know of any time, except during this split perhaps, that the Old School Baptist denomination had Sunday schools or any mission system in it?

Mr. Keyser: Question objected to unless it refers to this church, Mount Carmel church, and he says he knows nothing about it prior to the split.

A. No sir.

Q. Did you know whether Mount Carmel church was in fellowship with Ebenezer Association just prior to the split?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Do you know whether it was dropped from fellowship about the time of the split?

A. No; only from the minutes of the association.

Q. You know it from that?

A. Yes.

Q. You know then that it was reinstated, do you not?

A. Yes sir; I do.

Colonel Leedy: That is all.

Mr. Keyser: Stand aside.
____________

MAJOR C. W. FINTER.

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

Q. Major, please state your age, residence and occupation?

A. I will be 72 the third day of May next; I live about 21 miles east of Luray. I have no particular occupation, except I farm out there where I am renting. My occupation has left me. I used to be a carpenter.

Q. Are you acquainted with the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church, and have you been for sometime?

A. I have known of it for about 56 or 58 years. I helped to make the brick that the church is built out of.

Q. You did?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Have you been acquainted with the practices generally of that denomination?

A. I cannot say that I am so well acquainted with them. I have been to their church a good many times.

Q. Do you know whether or not they practice Sunday school and missions in those days?

A. Not in the early times of the church, they didn’t. However, they did practice or advocate Sunday schools at certain times some years ago. I think they had some division about it.

Q. You think they had some division about it?

A. Yes sir; and a right smart trouble about it.

Q. That was about 1887 to 1890?

A. I don’t remember how long ago, but it has been a good many years ago. But for a long time they didn’t advocate or practice anything of that kind.

Q. Aside then from that time that you speak of, you have not known the Old School Baptists to practice Sunday schools or missions?

A. No sir.

Q. Or since that time?

A. Afterwards, there was part of their members advocated something of that kind, and they had a split and organized, I think, another wing, called the Means men, or Means party, which do or have practiced Sunday schools.

Q. Are they what are known as the Regulars or Burnam wing?

A. I think, sir, the regulars are those that built the church and practiced up the
Ironside---we call it--- doctrine.

Mr. Weaver: You mean regular in the faith?

The Witness: The means party I think are those that drawed off, a new wing, or new party.

Q. The new party is what you call the Means party?

A. Yes sir.

Q. And the other party is what you call the old party?

A. The other party is what I call and always have been called and known as the Old School Baptists.

Q. Which is the Old School Baptist, in your judgment and knowledge, the one represented by Elder Pittman as pastor, or the one represented by Elder Huff as pastor?

Mr. Barton: This question is objected to as calling for the judgment or opinion of the witness instead of a statement of fact.

Colonel Leedy: It ought to be a good one; he helped to build the church.

The Witness: That has nothing to do with the doctrine.

Colonel Leedy: Go on and answer the question, Major, please.

A. I think, sir, Elder Pittman is representing the old wing of the Old School Baptists and Elder Huff is what I would term the Means party.

Mr. Weaver: You didn’t mean to say that the Means party, as represented by Elder Huff, built the church?

The Witness: No sir.

Mr. Barton: This question is objected to as leading and suggestive.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. Major, I will just ask you one question: As a matter of fact you are not acquainted with the happenings, and what transpired in the church itself, immediately before the division; are you?

A. No sir; only what I would hear spoken of, which I know nothing about at all.

Colonel Leedy: Do you belong to any church at all, sir?

The Witness: No sir.

Colonel Leedy: Not partial to any church?

The Witness: No sir.

____________

F. H. THARP.

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

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

A. I am 52---soon will be 52; Luray, Virginia; express agent.

Q. Are you a member of the Old School Baptist church or not?

A. No sir.

Q. Are you acquainted with the practices of the Old School Baptist church?

A. Yes sir; to some extent.

Q. How long have you known them, sir?

A. Well, I suppose for---I attended their church 32 or 33 years ago.

Q. 32 or 33 years ago?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Are you acquainted with the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church, and have you been for thirty years or more?

A. Yes sir; I used to go to church there some in 1870. I was going to school here at that time, and boarding with people who were members of that church, and I used to go there occasionally with them.

Q. Do you know whether or not they practiced missions and Sunday schools and things of that sort?

A. They didn’t then that I know of---not that I ever heard of. They had a Union Sunday school here then, the Main Street Baptists and the Methodists, and I used to go to the Union Sunday school. I remember that I used to go to the Sunday school in the morning, and go over there with the people I was boarding with at night, and get a raking about Sunday schools.

Q. Do you know of any Old School Baptist church, except from perhaps 1887 to 1890 when the split was, that practiced Sunday schools and authorized missions, and things like that.

A. I never heard of a Sunday school in all Old School Baptist church at all until the one that was held in the Mount Carmel church.

Q. You know that there is a branch of Baptists, calling themselves Regular Baptists, that do practice Sunday schools and missions, do you?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Are they the Old School Baptists?

A. No; I wouldn’t call them the Old School Baptists.

Q. Which do you call the Old School Baptists---those whose pastor is Mr. Pittman---or whose pastor is Mr. Huff?

A. Mr. Pittman.

____________
F. W. WEAVER.

In answer to interrogatories in chief by A. G. Weaver, Esq.:

Q. What is your age, residence and occupation, Mr. Weaver?

A. Forty-two; County Clerk of the courts; Luray.

Q. Have you made an examination of the marriage records of your office, with reference to the returns made by different ministers on marriage licenses?

A. I have, at the request of Mr. Berry, just made such examination--not of all different ministers, but of some of these churches.

Q. What churches?

A. The churches, or the parties whom I examined?

Q. The ministers?

A. Reverend J. R. Daily, John Huff---I believe that is all.

Q. How does Mr. Huff return his marriage licenses---how does he sign his name?

Mr. Barton: Is that in writing in your office?

The Witness: Yes sir.

Mr. Barton: Then this question is objected to as not the best evidence.

By Mr. Weaver:

Q. Have you got a certificate signed by Mr. Huff?

A. I have some of the originals; yes sir.

Q. Will you look at them and file certified copies as exhibits with your depositions?

Mr. Barton: You need not copy anything but the return.

By Mr. Weaver:

Q. Just read the return made by Mr. Huff?

A. (Reading:). “I, John Huff, a minister of the Regular Baptist church,” and signs his name after the full certificate.

Q. Any others?

A. I think there are several of Mr. Huff’s.

Q. Are they all the same?

A. Yes sir; they are all the same.

Q. Certified as Minister of the Regular Baptist church?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Now you have stated you had some returns from Elder Daily. How does he sign, or subscribe himself, or make his return?

A. I omitted to say that I examined one or two---I couldn’t think of the name a minute ago---of Reverend E. H. Burnam. He signs his name the same way, the Regular Baptist
church.

Q. What date is that.

Mr. Walton: What is the date of all of them.

A. This is dated October 25, 1900; and the others of Mr. Huff in 1902.

Q. Now look as to Mr. Dailey’s return?

A. I have several of Reverend J. R. Daily. (Reading:) “I, J. R. Daily, a minister of the Old School Baptist church,” and his are signed in the same way.

Mr. Downing: What is the date?

The Witness:  Those I have examined of Mr. Daily’s are 1902 and 1903.

Mr. Barton: So far as the objection noted to the testimony of the witness is concerned, it has been met by the production and reading from the originals.

____________

MILTON MOYER.

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

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

A. I am 51 years old; my residence is about three miles from here in Springfield District, in this county; farmer.

Q. Are you a member of the Old School Baptist church, sir?

A. Yes sir.

Q. How long have you been; and how long have you been acquainted with that denomination?

A. I have been a member 32 years. I was baptized by Elder F. M. Perry.

Q. What church?

A. Mount Carmel church.

Q. Mount Carmel?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Are you acquainted its with its practices, and have you been for years?

A. Yes sir; I have.

Q. Were you familiar with the conditions at the time of the split in the church?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Were you then opposed to Sunday schools or not?

A. Yes sir; I was.

Q. Did you vote on that subject?

A. Yes sir; I did.

Q. And voted against schools in the church?

A. Yes sir.

Q. Had there ever been Sunday schools or missions, authorized in that church, prior to the time of the split, say from 1887 to 1890, when the split culminated?

A. Well, I will tell you, when Mr. Perry was pastor, we never had any trouble in the church, and never had any Sunday school. There was no Bible class in all his ministry there. We had prayer meeting every Wednesday night one winter, I recollect, and maybe two, we had prayer meeting; but we never had Sunday school, and there was no such thing as a Sunday school known in our church---or Bible class, when Mr. Perry was serving the church. When Mr. Perry resigned, Mr. Menifee was called to the care of the church and he never had any Sunday school in all his time, or Bible class; and after Mr. Menifee resigned, Mr. Yates was called as pastor of the church, and for the first two or three years that he was pastor of the church---the last two or three years was when the trouble came, and the bible class that you talk about that was in our church before our church divided, was brought about. Mr. Yates brought it about in this way, as near as I can tell you. I will tell you the truth---I will tell you word for word, just as near as I can tell you, let God be my witness---after service, I don’t know just what meeting it was, or what time it was in the year, but after Mr. Yates went to Europe, he and Mr. Burnam and Mr. Walker---I think there was three of them.

Mr. Weaver: Walker?

The Witness: Walker, I think. They went to Europe and came back, and Brother Yates came down out of the pulpit after the meeting was all over, after preaching and the business was all transacted, and he brought a note out of his pocket and said that he had some questions there that he wanted to get the church interested in, and if the church took it up and was interested in it, he would keep it up; and if not, they would just drop it, and he asked a lot of questions and then he told them he wanted them not to answer them until the next meeting, and to see how many questions would be answered the next meeting; and so when the next meeting came there was a good many of the questions answered, Miss Stover up here, John Stover’s daughter, Mr. Joe Stover’s daughter and Mr. John Pendleton Grove’s wife answered some. A good many was answered and then after they answered them, he gave them another list for the next meeting, and it kept on that way, until he said then that the church seemed to be interested in it and he would just say we would meet an hour or half an hour earlier the next meeting for the study of the Bible; and from that, it went on from a Bible class, and to a Sunday school, and that caused the trouble in our church.

Q. It went then step by step?

A. Yes sir; went step by step. There was no Regular Baptist church by the name. I came from my home---I was sexton of the church at the time---there are a few things that occurred in my life time that stays with me bright as day while thousands pass away that I never think of. One is that when my father started to the War in 1861, volunteered, I went with my mother---I walked---I was a little boy about that high, and Pap carried the baby who is dead and gone over the River, and he carried the baby to a little hill just about a mile out from the monument, which spot is bright to me as day, when I pass over it. I never pass over it that I don’t think of it. He handed the baby to mother in her arms, and kissed her goodbye. We went on back crying. I didn’t know what it meant. That is one of the things that happened that I will never forget; and another thing was the morning in our church over here, Elder Yates was pastor, and when our church divided they said they were going to take charge of our church---they were going to put us out, and take charge of our house. I was sexton of the church at the time, and I opened the church, Brother Menifee was there, and I opened the church, and the one lock to the church at the left hand was broke. It fastened just with a catch. The key to the right hand door never would unlock it, and I unlocked one and went in, and slipped the catch back and opened the other door, and Elder Yates, or Brother Yates, whatever I might call him---came in after me and went on to the pulpit, until I got across between the benches and opened the other door, and after I got the other door opened, before I got the other opened, he was in the pulpit reading his text. Brother Menifee was an old man, and of course Brother Yates wasn’t so much younger, but Brother Menifee was an older man. There’s Elder Burnam and Brother Dalton, if that was the style of Old  School Baptists, I just want them to answer it. Brother Yates was the pastor and Brother Menifee was an old man, and he never said anything to Brother Menifee to come in and preach, never took him by the arm like our brethren do, with a spirit of love like he should have done; and when he got through reading, Old Brother Menifee walked up and sat on the front bench, and when Mr. Yates or Brother Yates got through reading his text, reading his chapter, Brother Menifee says, “Brother Charlie, may I make a statement.” He says, “When I get through.” That’s just the way he answered him, “when I get through.” Old Brother Menifee sat down, and he preached, and after he got through preaching, and they dismissed, then Brother Menifee preached.

Q. That was the first time that the two parties met there together

A. That was the first time, yes sir, in that spirit. They had been before time and again. And when old Brother Yates came down out of the pulpit, Brother Menifee says, “Brother Charlie, you wouldn’t treat me this way five years ago.” He never said a word. Now that’s just as true as there is a God in heaven.

Q. Was that split about Sunday schools and missions?

A. Yes sir; that was the cause of it; yes sir.

Q. Then did you all go in and hold your own meeting at the church?

A. Yes sir; we had meetings after that. They asked him to stay and he said “No; he wouldn’t. He would like to stay but he would go on. He didn’t stay to hear Brother Menifee preach; and from that time on Brother Menifee preached for us; and that was the cause of the trouble. I would come down here by the New School Baptist church over here, which I respect just as highly as I do any denomination on earth, everybody has a right to their opinion and let us have ours, and they would say “Milt, come in here and say your lessons; you are a little late today”---but I never had anything to do with the Bible class at all---they would say “You might just as well; we will all be together after while; no use going up there.”

Q. Do you see any difference between the Regulars, as they call themselves, and the New Schools?

A. No sir; I don’t.

Q. Do you see any difference between the Regulars and the Old Schools?

A. I do.

Q. Are the Old Schools different at all from what they were when you first knew them, in their practice?

A. No sir.

CROSS EXAMINATION.

By Mr. Keyser:

Q. At the time you speak of, when Elder Yates went in and occupied the pulpit, was that on Saturday or Sunday?

A. Yes sir; on Saturday.

Q. In what month was that?

A. Well, now, Mr. Keyser, I couldn’t tell you. I don’t know whether it was in October or November, or in September or October; but it was in the fall.

Q. Was that after the church was dismissed from the Ebenezer Association in August, 1890?
A. Indeed, I’m not able to tell you.
Q. Don’t you know whether---you said it was in September or October?

A. I say this meeting was either in September or October, but whether the church was dropped in August before that, I ain’t able to tell you.

Q. You know the association met in August before that?

A. Yes sir.

Q. At Alma in 1890?

A. Yes sir. I went there but was taken down sick with the fever and wasn’t at the debate.

Q. You resigned as sexton, did you?

A. No sir; I was sexton of church.

Q. How long did you remain sexton?

A. Indeed, I couldn’t tell you. The book will show. I was sexton some eleven or twelve years.

Q. You resigned as sexton of the church that Elder Charles L. Yates preached to?

A. Yes sir. I and Thomas Beach were sextons together, and I would serve the church one Saturday, and he the next, you know.

____________

MARTIN STRICKLED.

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

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

A. Well, I will be 72 next month; my occupation is rather retired life, but I still find plenty to do. I am a resident of this county and this town.

Q. State whether or not you have been right well acquainted with the Old School Baptists as a denomination?

A. Well, yes sir; I have known them all my life, I believe.

Q. Do you know the practice of the Old school---the practices of the Old School Baptist church with reference to their views as to missions and Sunday schools and the like?

A. Well, I never knew them to be a missionary church and have Sunday schools in my recollection.

Q. How long have you known them?

A. Well, ever since I knew anything. Ever since I can recollect as a boy.

Q. Have you had any acquaintance with the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church at Luray?

A. Well, no more than knowing the members when I would see them. I never read the history of the church. I can’t tell you much about that.

Q. You never knew of an Old School Baptist church that had Sunday schools and authorized missions; did you?

A. I don’t recollect of any; no sir.
_________
VERNON FORD.

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

Q. Mr. Ford, will you please state your age, residence and occupation?

A. Forty-five years old; resident of Luray; occupation, merchant.

Q. Are you familiar to any extent, with the doctrine and the practices of Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church in the town of Luray?

A. Not familiar with their doctrine, no sir. I don’t know what the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church in Luray is. There seems to be two denominations worshipping in
that church; that is, there are two sets of people that worship there, that hold separate services. They both I believe claim to be Old School Baptists. I don’t know which are the
Old School Baptists though; or may be both of them are.

Q. Are you familiar with the practices of Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church as it existed prior to 1887?

A. Well, I couldn’t give you the date; but, as a boy, I lived in a store with an Old School Baptist preacher, Mr. Perry---I think I went to live with him about 1878 or 1879. At that time, they didn’t have Sunday schools in this Old School Baptist church on the east side of the bridge. Sometime since that time there has been a Sunday school held there.

Q. By whom have those recent Sunday schools been held there?

A. Of my own knowledge, I couldn’t say by whom they are held. I have never attended one of their Sunday schools, and I couldn’t say.

Q. You cannot say whether it is the people who follow Mr. Huff, or who follow Mr. Pittman?

A. Well, from absolute knowledge, I could not; that is, from observation, I could not. I have heard a good deal as to who hold the Sunday schools and who do not; but I have never been in the church myself, and don’t know.

Mr. Barton: Don’t say what you have heard.

The Witness: I haven’t done that.

Q. Mr. Ford, have you any knowledge of the practices of the Old School Baptist church generally?

A. As I said, as a boy they did not have Sunday schools in that church. I never know of an Old School Baptist church---well, I don’t know anything about any other Old School Baptist church except this church; and I am only as familiar with this church as any other citizen of the town would be. After I got to be about a man, they began holding Sunday schools there. I know they did have Sunday schools there, because I have passed there when Sunday school was going on.

Q. If the Old School Baptist church should favor missions and missionary-ism and indulge in the practice of Sunday schools, would it be a departure, or not, from the ancient practice of the church, as you knew it.

Mr. Barton: This is objected to as calling for a decision of the case from the witness, instead of a statement of fact.

Mr. Downing: Notwithstanding his objection, you will please answer the question.

A. I don’t know what their doctrine has been always as to missions, Mr. Downing; but certainly the practice of holding Sunday schools would be a departure from what it was as I knew it as a boy, the practice of this church as a boy.

Mr. Downing: That is all we want to ask you, sir.

Mr. Keyser: That is all.
 
EXPLANATION
____________

Elder John R, Daily also testified in this case, but there was no extra copy made of his testimony, and it could not be included herein without going to the expense of making copy from the court’s record. This was not thought necessary as Brother Daily’s testimony covered about the same points as that of other witnesses, with the exception that he explained the division in the White Water Association of Indiana, in 1845, brought about by two leading preachers, who afterwards deeply regretted the division; confessed their mistakes to each other and made an effort to heal the breach---which had no special bearing in the Mount Carmel case.

COMPILER.

Close of Defendants’ Testimony.

Brief of Argument
________

By W. F. Keyser
By Downing and Weaver
For Complainants.
For  Defendants
________

The Compiler, publishes herewith the above Briefs --- one on each side of the case. Able arguments were made before the Court by the other attorneys, and their Briefs were submitted to the Judge and filed with the Courts Record, but in order to show the trend of argument it was not thought necessary to publish all the Briefs, and therefore for the sake of brevity, and to curtail expense, two only are presented to the reader.

______________

Note of Argument

Of W. F. Keyser

Counsel for Complainants
______________

In the discussion of this case, in order to avoid confusion in the mind of the Court, I  shall designate the Complainants in this case as “Means-Baptists” and the defendants as “Anti-Means-Baptists,” as to which terms the Court will see the reason therefore later on.

In the outset I lay down this proposition: Means Baptists are in a better position to know what they do believe than anyone, else knows for them; in other words, I think, I myself know my own mind and heart and belief better than anyone else,---I am, by far, the better judge of that.  This is a very reasonable proposition; and the defendants, the Anti-Means party, come into court saying that we do not believe---that is impossible that we can believe---in what we say we do.

Now, I take it, that if we, who are the Means-Baptists worshipping at Mount Carmel  church, believe in the doctrines as laid down in the deed of 1849, which is the title deed to the Church property, then there has been no departure from the faith, so far as the deed is concerned, on our part.

And; indeed, if necessary, I may go further and say that, even though our belief in the doctrines as expressed in the deed may to the natural mind appear inconsistent and incompatible with what we practice, still that does not by any means prove that we do not, with our hearts and souls, believe them. And unless our Anti-Means brethren can show that we do not believe those doctrines, or hold to them, they cannot by any method or means deprive us of our rights in the Mount Carmel Church property.

The doctrines named in the deed are what are known as Calvinistic Principles, and as Elder Burnam, an ordained minister of over fifty years, one of our Means Baptist  ministers of high culture and deep learning, in speaking of those very doctrines, says: “There is not a word in it that does not meet with response from all our people here (Luray) and every where.”

That clause in the deed, having or containing said doctrines, reads as follows:

“The said piece of ground and meeting house thereon to be for the perpetual use of said Mt. Carmel church of Old School Baptists, and their successors, holding the doctrine of Unconditional and Eternal Election, Predestination of God, final perseverance of the Saints to Glory, etc., that the Elect were chosen in Christ to Salvation, before the World was.”

And, indeed, the body of Means Baptists worshipping in Mount Carmel church have incidentally, through the minutes of the church in the meeting held on the 4th day of July, 1908, subscribed to these very doctrines. The minutes, in part, read:

At a regular meeting of Mount Carmel Baptist church, at Luray, holding to the doctrines set forth in the deed to said church property, dated March 8th, 1849, as follows---” (Here follows the exact language expressing the doctrines in the deed of 1849.)

In fact, these very doctrines are the bulwarks of our faith; the very foundation of the Christian religion, as we think, and the hope of our salvation; and our forefathers in the faith, ---as we ourselves solemnly assert that we do,---held these sacred truths more dearly to their own hearts than life itself.

My position in this case is a very unusual one, and different to that of the other counsel on both sides, for I address the court not only as one who pleads the cause of that devoted little band of Christians worshipping at Mount Carmel of like faith and order with myself,---any one of whom, I verily believe, would forfeit life itself rather than sacrifice a single principle such as is named in the deed of 1849,---but I speak to you, also as one who, deep down in his own soul, feels the truth of what he believes and who knows what he believes.

Now, when I say that our forefathers in the Baptist faith embraced the very doctrinal principles as named in the deed, I think I am stating a proposition that even our anti-means brethren will concede to be true. However, I am in a position to prove it from the evidence---the undisputed evidence---in this case, but before attempting to do so I desire to give a few items of Baptist history.

Immediately after the toleration granted to Protestants and Baptists by William of Orange--- William the Third---the ministers and messengers of about one hundred congregations of Baptists in England and Wales met in London, in July, 1689, and adopted what was, and still is, called the London or Centenary Confessions of Faith.

The Philadelphia Association, the oldest institution of the kind in America and the first one, was formed in the year 1707, beginning with five churches but in process of time became a numerous body. It adopted the London or Centenary Confessions of Faith in the year 1742.

From this Association sprang what is know as the Ketocton Association, which was formed in the year 1766 from four churches that had been constituents of the Philadelphia Association, one of which was Smith’s Creek Baptist church, New Market, Virginia, and which church is in full fellowship with the Means Baptists worshiping at Mount Carmel.

The Ebenezer Association was formed in 1828, with ten churches which had hitherto belonged to what was known as the Shiloh Association, and Mount Carmel church was one of that number.

Elder Burnam, in his deposition says, the doctrines named in the deed are the very same as are enunciated in the Philadelphia and the Centenary Confessions of Faith, and the very same also taught in the Catechism of Mr. Benjamin Keach, who was one of the signers of the Centenary Confessions in 1689, and whose catechism was written off immediately after the adoption of the Centenary Confessions; and Elder Dalton, of the Anti-means brethren, in his deposition, says one of the reasons of the name “Old School,” was because they adhered to the old faith; and nowhere are these statements denied.

Now, if I can show to the court that our forefathers in the Baptist faith, such as those who formed these two time-honored Baptist bodies not only, as stated, believed in the doctrines and principles as laid down in the deed, which none deny, but also that they, too, believed in the doctrine of Means, as we understand that to be, and practiced it, too, then I ask the court if it would not be going a long way to say that their views and practices, during all the ages, as to Means, were also incompatible, inconsistent and impossible with their belief in those doctrines and principles such as set forth in the deed?

In the discussion of this case I shall take up:

I. The question of Means;

II. The question of Sunday School;

III. The question of Missions;

IV. The question of Names of the parties litigant; and

V. The status of the complainants with reference to the title to the Mount Carmel church property.

I.  EXPLAINING WHAT MEANS ARE:

Elder Pence, a scholar and deep thinker, himself an ordained minister of the Means Baptist faith for over forty-seven years, says that we believe in the use of means or  instrumentalities in the salvation of sinners in this sense:

“That God himself has appointed and ordained and revealed the gospel of Jesus Christ as is laid down in the New Testament as the means or instrument which He himself employs in the regeneration and conversion and salvation of sinners. That is the belief of the Means Baptists.”

Elder Burnam in his deposition, says:

“And now I will state what our people (Means Baptists) have always understood by ‘means.’ Not that a man, or all mankind, or all the angels of God and men combined, could ever regenerate one, but that God (as our fathers taught) spake through the gospel by his Holy Spirit in the preaching of the Word at his pleasure to the regeneration of men;” and by way of illustration, speaking of the day of Pentecost, adds:

“God’s Holy Spirit regenerated those men, through the Gospel which Peter preached.”

Although our Anti-means brethren accuse us of believing in “human means,”---as to which more will be said later on,---I desire to say that we believe in “Divine means,” as above expressed, and which is in perfect harmony with the writings and teachings of the fathers in the Baptist faith, as will now be shown, they being those means which are of God’s own choosing and using.

Now, let us see what our forefathers in the Baptist faith believed about means.

Burnam’s deposition, from the Centenary Confessions of Faith, 1689:

“As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so he hath, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto.” etc.

On page 188, Cent. Cnf. “…the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves even under those means which God useth for the softening of others.”

On page 201, Cent. Cnf. “Of saving faith. I. The grace of faith whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened.

Burnam’s deposition, from Cent.Cnf. “Although the Gospel be the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace, and is as such abundantly sufficient thereunto, yet that men who are born in trespasses may be born again, quickened, or regenerated, there is moreover necessary and effectual, insuperable work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul, for the producing in them a new spiritual life; without which no other means will effect their conversion unto God.”

Now let me refer to what Mr. Benjamin Keach, one of the signers of the Centenary Confessions of Faith says about the Gospel as a means: Elder Huff’s deposition quotes Keach in his exposition of the parable of the marriage supper written in the year 1701:

“. . . but naturally the will is corrupt, depraved, and wills only that which is evil, and it is adverse to all things that are truly and spiritually good, and so it remains until grace, or the Holy Spirit, takes away that enmity and averseness which is in it, and so makes it willing; and this is done generally by the powerful preaching of the gospel, God being pleased to accompany it with the operation of his own Spirit and divine power.”

From Booth’s Reign of Grace, published in 1813, Elder Huff quotes as follows:

“Election makes no alteration in the real state of its objects. For, as they were considered in that gracious purpose, in a sinful, dying condition, so they continued in that situation until the knowledge of the Holy Spirit and the power of evangelical truth reached their hearts. The means being decreed as well as the end, it is absolutely necessary, to  accomplish the great design of election, that all of the chosen, in their several generations, should be born of the spirit and converted to Jesus; called of God and bear His image.” “In performing this work of heavenly mercy the eternal Spirit is the grand agent, and evangelical truth the honored instrument.”

From the minutes of the Philadelphia Association, which had adopted the Centenary Confessions of Faith, the minutes dating from 1707, Elder Burnam quotes the following:

“The application of the gospel under the influence of the Divine Spirit, in the work of conviction and conversion, is absolutely necessary, in order to our receiving saving benefit from it. In this precious work of grace in our hearts, the Law and Gospel, considered as means, go hand in hand, and are often found in the same verse. By the one is the knowledge of sin, by the other the discovery of deliverance. The one worketh despair, the other faith and hope.”

Article 3, Philadelphia Confession.
(Dalton’s deposition).

“That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God; that they were given by divine inspiration, and that this system of revelation comprehends everything necessary for us to know concerning God, and the direction of our obedience to him. By this divine Book, God hath made revelation of His gracious design in saving poor sinners, and pointing out the way through the mediation of the Lord Jesus, that by the instrumentality of this sacred word, stubborn and obstinate sinners are brought into the ordinances of faith and the incorrigible left without excuse and that by this word of the Lord all men shall be judged in the last day.”

Our Anti-means brethren, during these late years of their apostasy, have cut out from the above words:

“… that by the instrumentality of this sacred word, stubborn and obstinate sinners are brought into the ordinances of faith and the incorrigible left without excuse.”

See Elder Booton’s Footprints of the Flock, in Dalton’s deposition.

Article 5, Philadelphia Conf. (Dalton’s deposition.)

“That in eternity, God out of his own good pleasure chose a certain number of Adam’s progeny to eternal life, and that He did not leave the accomplishment of His decree to accident or chance, but decreed all the means to bring about the event; therefore they are chosen to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ,” etc.

In the above, the words, “but decreed all the means to bring about the event,” our Anti-means brethren have, during these latter times, also cut out for the apparent reason that, according to their modern doctrine as now expounded by them, they are not to their liking; else why did they cut them out?

In Burkitt & Read’s History of Kehukee Baptist Association, which was one of the  oldest associations in America, is found an abstract of principles adopted by that  Association in 1799, and which Elder Burnam says is the faith of the Means Baptists today. I here quote in Elder Burnam’s deposition, as follows:

“7. We believe that in God’s own appointed time and way (by means which he has ordained) the elect shall be called, justified, pardoned, and sanctified; and that it is impossible they can utterly refuse the call; but shall be made willing, by divine grace, to
receive the offers of mercy.”

Also from same history in Elder Burnam’s deposition:

“The word preached was attended with much divine power, that at some meetings two or three hundred would be in floods of tears, and many crying out loudly, ‘What shall we do to be saved ?’ “

Also from the same history, same pages:

“The Lord was pleased to make use of weak and simple means to effect great purposes, that it might be manifest that the work was His and not man’s.

Also from same history in Elder Burnam’s deposition:

“From experience, we think, we can assure our readers, that we have reason to hope that this, with other means, proved a blessing in this revival. Shaking hands while singing, was a means (though simple in itself) to further the work.”

From Dr. John Gill’s Commentaries on the New Testament, the author of which it is shown, by both ourselves as well as the anti-means brethren, to have been a Calvinist,---a hyper-Calvinist---(See Elder Pitman’s, deposition, who is an anti-means minister), and which was published in 1811 and which is authority for all Old School Baptists, we quote the following:

In speaking of the Gospel, he says:

“It is the power of God; not essentially, but declaratively; as the power of God is seen in making men ministers of it, in the doctrines held forth in it, in the manner in which it was spread in the world, in the opposition it met with, in the continuance and increase of it, notwithstanding the power and cunning of men, and in the shortness of time, in which so much good was done by it in the several parts of the world; it is the power of God organically or instrumentally; as it is a means made use of by God in quickening dead sinners, enlightening blind eyes, unstopping deaf ears, softening hard hearts, and making of enemies friends; to which add, the manner in which all this is done, suddenly, secretly, effectually, and by love, and not force; the extent of this power is, unto  salvation: the gospel is a declaration and revelation of salvation by Christ, and is a means of directing and encouraging souls to day to lay hold upon it.” (See Burnam’s deposition.)

Again, in speaking of the gospel preached by Paul, he says:

“But the apostle speaks this of himself, only as the instrument of means, which God has made use of in doing this work upon the hearts of his people; and which the other phases shew; for he is said to do it in Christ; he preached Christ unto them, and salvation by him, and the necessity of faith, in him; be directed then to him, to believe in him, and was the means of bringing them to the faith of Christ: and it was the power and grace of Christ accompanying his ministry; which made it an effectual means of their regeneration and conversion; and which were brought about through the Gospel; not through the  preaching of the law; for though by that is the knowledge of sin, and convictions may be wrought by such means; yet these leave nothing but a sense of wrath and damnation; nor is the law any other than a killing letter; no regeneration, no quickening grace, no faith nor holiness, come this way, but through the preaching of the gospel, in and through which, as a vehicle, the Spirit of God conveys Himself into the heart, as a Spirit of  regeneration and faith; and God, of His own will and rich mercy, by the word of truth, by the Gospel of grace and truth, which came by Christ, so called from the distinction from the law which came by Moses, begets us again as his new creatures; which shews the usefulness of the Gospel ministry, and in what account Gospel ministers are to be had, who are spiritual fathers, or the instruments of the conversion of men.”

Dr. Gill, in commenting on the words, “I beseech thee for my son Onesimus,” says in part, as follows:

“Now he comes to the request itself, and mentions by name the person on whose account he makes it, and whom he calls his son; not merely because of his affection to him, but because he really was his spiritual father; he has been the happy instrument of his conversion, and he was his son according to the common faith, or in a spiritual sense.”

Elder McInturff, in his deposition quotes Dr. Gill, in commenting on Acts 26:18, as follows:

“Now, though this is all the work of the Spirit, by whom only the eyes of the understanding are enlightened; yet this is ascribed to the apostle, not as the efficient cause, but as the instrument and means, through preaching of the gospel, which the spirit of God would, and did, make use of.”

From Wm. Fristoe’s History of Ketocton Baptist Association published in 1808, as set out in Elder Burnam’s deposition which is as follows:

“FIFTHLY---That in eternity, God out of his own good pleasure chose a certain number of Adam’s progeny to eternal life, and that he did not leave the accomplishment of his decrees to accident or chance, but decreed all the means to bring about the event; therefore they were chosen to salvation through sanctification of the spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. Their calling was decreed in the purpose of election: It is said, when called, they are called according to his purpose and grace given in Christ Jesus before the world began, and all in order to manifest the glory of his grace.”

In Elder Burnam’s deposition from Fristoe’s History, is taken the following:

“Tho’ a Sovereign God, may work above, beyond, and without means, according to his own good pleasure; yet as he hath been pleased to ordain means, and accompanies them by the displays of his power for the conversion and salvation of multitudes of poor sinners, it has been thought, by our ministers, a duty to obey the commands, of, and copy after the precedents left on divine record; it hath been customary to lay open the purity of the moral law, and show how it takes cognizance of all we do.”

Now, we will quote some more recent authorities on the subject of Means. Elder Burnam in his deposition, page 17, quotes the Old Baptist Test, edited by John M. Watson, in 1867, who visited this very church in Luray and was well received and greatly esteemed and admired by Baptists here. He says, in Old Baptist Test:

“As the Father draws sinners to Christ by means which he has ordained to that end, let us not fail to employ them.”

Elder Burnam says that this Old Baptist Test was a recognized standard in the faith, and  he had never heard it contradicted.

I also desire to call the court’s attention to Exhibit Two, filed with Elder Burnam’s deposition, called the Minutes of the Forty-ninth Anniversary of the Ebenezer Association. This association met with the Hawk’s Bill church in 1879, at which meeting Alma church asked for admission into this association and submitted her articles of faith, one of which contained these words: “The gospel, or preached word is not the means of salvation but points to Jesus, saying, ‘Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world.’ “ The association, as was its custom, referred these articles to a committee composed of prominent members of the Baptist body among whom was Elder John Clarke, an eminent Baptist minister of that day and of whom it may be said that he was the leader of the Virginia Baptists and the editor of Zion’s Advocate, a very prominent Baptist magazine. The committee rejected the article of faith of Alma church containing these words and changed it so as to read, “The gospel, or preached word, points to Jesus,” etc., eliminating the words “is not the means of salvation.” Why was this done? Evidently because Ebenezer Association at that time was not disposed to swallow the Anti-means doctrine. But, on the other hand, it clearly shows that the Baptists composing that association, at that time, believed that the gospel, or preached word, was a means of salvation when employed by God himself, attended and  accompanied by the operation of His Holy Spirit. Prior to this time the Ebenezer Association had endorsed the articles of Elder William Fristoe when in 1869, in her meeting with Mill Creek church, Page County, Virginia, upon the motion of Elder William C. Lauck, who offered a resolution to reorganize said association upon the principles of the Baptists as set forth in Elder William Fristoe’s History, and the same was put to a vote of the association and carried.

One of these articles, as contained in Fristoe’s History is quoted above, and shows that they believed at the time of the adoption of this article in the doctrine of means.

Thus it is seen that Ebenezer Association herself once upon a time needed  reorganization upon the principles as laid down in Fristoe’s History; or, in other words, Ebenezer Association became sick and “Doctor” Lauck prescribed for her a medicine which cured her for the time. In 889 she became sick again, and “Doctor” Burnam prescribed for her the same medicine that “Doctor” Lauck had prescribed in 1869, but she refused to take it, and became sick “nigh unto death.”

Much has been said with reference to the reorganization of Ketocton Association on the same lines, and by the adoption of the same articles in 1890, at her meeting with Salem church in Clarke County, Virginia.

Why should it be called a departure from the faith for Ketocton Association to thus reorganize on the principles as laid down in William Fristoe’s History, when Ebenezer Association had done the same thing in 1869, long before there was any thought of a division among the churches composing her body?

Elder Burnam’s deposition says that Elder Yates, who was the minister of Mount Carmel church at the time of the division in 1890 and for some time before and after said division, preached the means doctrine; and, also, that he endorsed and believed the doctrines laid down in the deed of 1849. And Elder McInturff, in his deposition, says the same thing.

Elder McInturff, in his deposition, quotes Dr. Purifoy on means.

Dr. Purifoy, after the division in 1890, became identified with the Anti-means faction, and the court is asked to turn to his deposition and read a strong article advocating the doctrine of means written by him (Purifoy) before the division.

In Elder McInturff’s deposition is given the entire article of Elder Dalton on the question of means, written by him in 1884. This is one of the strongest articles extant in support of the means doctrine. Elder Dalton is now classed with the Anti-means brethren, and the court cannot help but see that the Elder has changed front since he wrote that excellent article in 1884.

I desire to emphasize this question of means because Dr. Waters, who is a very prominent member of the Anti-means party, in his deposition on page 120, says, that, “Boiled down, the difference between us is on the question of means and anti-means.”

The ancient authorities quoted by Elder Burnam, on the question of means, were written before there was any split or trouble in the Baptist church and before any was even thought of. (Burnam’s deposition). And the court’s attention is called to the fact that practically all of the authorities quoted by us, to sustain our contention, are from Baptist sources.

They say in their answer that our position on means is inconsistent and incompatible with the doctrines in the deed of 1849; and that in the face of what all the ancient writers say; in these depositions we have six ministers, who have been in the service for years, who say they are not inconsistent. They have four, most whom only think our position is inconsistent or give that as their opinion.

In their answer to the bill they style us “human means Baptists” and themselves as “Anti-human means” Baptists.” Now, let us see how this is! The Ebenezer Association, held with Mount Carmel church in August, 1908, published what is called her “Circular letter,” an extract from it which reads as follows :

“Since we believe it is impossible for the sinner to choose eternal life before he has been created anew by the Holy Spirit, and since this recreation by the Spirit is a creation anew to eternal life, and since the employment of a fallible agent would make possible the failure of God’s purpose, we cannot believe that God employs the preached word or any other human agency as a means of salvation.”

(See Elder Dalton’s deposition.)

Elder Dalton endorses this Circular Letter, as does also Elder Pittman in his deposition, as also does John H. Booton, a prominent lay-member of the Anti-means party, in his deposition, and they all say that the gospel, or preached word, employed by God is a “human agency,” or in other words, human means.

Thus, it seems, that they regard the gospel, or preached word, as a system of human means. But they also believe that this gospel has the power to bring conviction to the hearts of sinners, for, as Elder Dalton says: “Brethren, these things have been a source of great comfort to me. I can now call to mind many that date the beginning of their conviction under my preaching.”

These were the words of Elder Dalton, in 1884, one of the “big guns” of the anti-means party of today; and he says he endorses it today. (See McInturff’s deposition. ) And also Dr. Waters, Elder Daily, and other of their ministers, as well as prominent members of their body, and yet they say that this same gospel is a system of human means! This human means, they believe, brings conviction to the heart of the sinner!

The language in the deed of 1849 speaks of Unconditional Election, etc.; but in this do they not imbibe the very essence of conditional salvation? Then, are they not human means Baptists, as distinguished from us who believe only in divine means?

II. THE QUESTION OF SUNDAY SCHOOLS.

The chief objections to Sunday schools on the part of our Anti-means brethren is in the name, for there are some of them who object to them only because they are “Sunday Schools.” Some of them object to them being conducted in the church building on Sunday, by whatever name they may be called. A few of them do not believe in them at all, but this last class is very small, for, as appears from their depositions, a great many of them believe in them, though not in the name, in some shape or other. Our ancient brethren must have believed in them and must have conducted them within the walls of the churches.

Elder Burnam, in his deposition quotes from the minutes of the Philadelphia Association as follows:

“Agreed, that since the catechisms are expensive, and few or none to be had, and our youth thereby not likely to be instructed in the fundaments of saving knowledge, that the several congregations that we represent should consult amongst themselves what they can raise of money for so good a design, and send, against the 1st of May next, by their letter, to Mr. Jenkins Jones or John Holmes, in Philadelphia, that they may know what number to draw out of the press.”

Again from said Minutes, he quotes as follows:

“Agreed, that every church should send in an account to Mr. Edwards, at Philadelphia, what number of catechisms each are willing to take, in order to know whether there will be proper encouragement to have them reprinted.”

Again from Minutes he quotes as follows:

“There being a call for the catechisms from divers places, agreed that the churches inquire among themselves, and see how many of them they will take, at seven shillings and sixpence apiece, and make a return of the same to the next association.”

And again from said Minutes, at section 12, he quotes as follows:

“12. Resolved, That it be recommended to the different churches in this association, to institute the catechising of children in their respective congregations, at stated seasons.”

The authorities just quoted show conclusively that the Baptists at that day and age believed in the instruction of their young within the walls churches, and the catechisms spoken of are the catechisms of Mr. Benj. Keach, who, as stated, was one of the signers of the Centenary Confessions in 1689. We do not know by what name these schools or classes were called, and, I take it, that that is a matter of very small consequence. It is shown by the depositions of numerous witnesses that Mount Carmel church herself, in the year 1867, conducted what they called at that time “a Bible Class,” possibly so called because it was conducted on a week night instead of on Sunday. We know this, however, from the deposition of Mr. Compton, that this school was conducted as a class, was participated in by members of the church at that time as well as by those who were not members; and we know, further, that the young were present and were imbibing what was taught in that class, because Mr. Compton says in his deposition that the reason it was discontinued was because Elder William C. Lauck, who was the chief spirit in the matter, did not want the “young” to “imbibe” any of the views of Salyards, who, they say, was a kind of skeptic, and who was also a member of that class or “school.”

Thus, we see, that as far back as 1867 was what would necessarily have been called a Sunday school, if it had been conducted on Sunday, held in Mount Carmel church, conducted in a class at which members and outsiders and children attended and in which they were instructed in the doctrines of the Bible.  Mount Carmel church today, and ever since, and even before the division in 1890, conducts on Sunday practically the same kind of school as was conducted in the church in 1867, with this exception, that very few if any outsiders attend and certainly we have no “Skeptics” belonging to any of our classes.

If it was right and proper in 1867, why was it wrong in 1887 and following? If it was not a departure from the doctrines as laid down in the deed of 1849 then, why is it a departure now? There can only be this difference; that then it was conducted on a weeknight, while now it is conducted on Sunday. And Elder John Clarke, heretofore referred to as being the editor of the Zion’s Advocate, a man who was greatly loved and esteemed in his day and whose memory is held sacred, certainly by Means Baptists and professedly by the Anti-means Baptists themselves, in speaking of Sunday schools, under date of August 1, 1877, in his magazine, in part, says:

“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 a school for children, but to what is taught in the Sunday schools of this day and generation.”
(See Grove’s deposition.)

Thus it will be seen that Elder Clarke, that Old Father in the Baptists faith, did not object to the name “Sunday school,” nor to the day on which the young children should be taught; and those who have testified for the Means Baptists, in the depositions in this case, show positively to the court that nothing is taught in the Sunday schools as now conducted by them in Mount Carmel church except the doctrines in the Bible, including those set out in the deed of 1849.

It may be remarked that Elder Pittman, who is now the pastor of the Anti-means party worshiping at Mount Carmel church, does not agree with Elder Clarke’s views on Sunday schools, and says that they are incompatible with the doctrines in the deed of 1849. (See his deposition.)

It is shown in these depositions, and I have no doubt that the court will read all of them, that there have been without exception, no prominent ministers of the Anti-means party in this part of Virginia who did not, at some time or other, advocate Sunday schools. Prominently among them was Elder Lampton, who made a move to have Sunday schools Hawk’s Bill church before the division in 1890, but who afterwards went with the Anti-means faction. (See deposition of Brumback.) And Elder Burnam, says, that Elders Dalton, Lampton, Daniel Hess, Alderton, Goodson, and Purifoy, who were all Anti-means Baptists, had all advocated Sunday schools,---with the possible exception of Dalton,---and all, without exception, had advocated missions.

Dr. Waters, when asked the question on cross-examination as to whether or not he at one time advocated Sunday schools, after a denial had to confess that he, too, had been afflicted with the same disease.

The question has been asked, “Can a church of Old School Baptists have a Sunday school, and remain an Old School Baptist church?” Now, if Mount Carmel church was ever a church of Old School Baptists she was one before the introduction of Sunday schools in the year 1886, and the question is, after she introduced Sunday schools, or revived them in her midst, was she still a church of Old School Baptists? The question may be answered as follows:

The members of Mount Carmel Church, prior to the division of 1890, that is to say, about the year 1886, organized or revived a Sunday school in their midst, and it must be conceded that they had the right to do this, the church being a sovereign, autonomous and independent body from any other church or ecclesiastical body, in so doing, exercised her own sovereign right and authority.

When Ebenezer Association met with the Big Spring Church in August, 1887, this same Mount Carmel church, being then a member of that Association, had at that very time a Sunday school in her midst, and said Association conceded and recognized, then and there, the right and privilege of a church of Old School Baptists, according to her own sovereignty, to have a Sunday school, for the Association put forth, in part, the following:

“Yet if a church (meaning an Old School Baptist Church) desires a Sunday school, she in her sovereign capacity, has the right to decide that matter. If another church thinks differently, let her too enjoy her freedom. Build no iron walls around them; encase them in no steel caskets. The sovereignty of the churches should be maintained.” (See Pittman’s deposition.)

And this Association, in thus recognizing the right of an “Old School Baptist Church” to maintain a Sunday school, voiced the sentiment and the views of some twelve or fifteen churches then composing her body, without interpreting the action of said church in supporting Sunday schools as a “departure from the faith,” as stated by Elder Pittman in his deposition. If the Association in 1887 had thought it a departure from the faith to maintain a Sunday school she certainly would have so stated, and, doubtless, would then and there have dropped the Mount Carmel Church from her rolls.

III.  THE QUESTION OF MISSIONS

Under this head it may be remarked that Means Baptists worshipping at Mount Carmel believe in missions purely on the Bible plan, that is to say, they believed that the authority for mission work is divine; that God, by His Holy Spirit, calls men to go into the field to preach the gospel among the heathen, or any where else, and that then it becomes the duty of the church to set those men apart to that work; and then the churches, as churches, by their own voluntary contributions, support them in the field---no missionary board connected with it to control it.

A distinguishing feature in the Bible plan, as we believe it, and the Board System being, that those who believe in the Board System of Missions substitute the Board itself for the Holy Spirit, that is, the Board chooses the minister and directs him where to go. We do not believe in this system, because it is robbing God, or the Holy Spirit, of His own work and substituting therefore human means. And this distinction is, as we believe, a very vital one.

Another distinguishing feature being, that under the Bible plan, as we believe it, the churches make voluntary contributions to the missionary, whereas according to the board system the missionary is paid a stated salary.

Many of the Anti-means brethren show by their depositions that they, too, are of the Bible order of missions, notably among them is Elder Dalton, who, on page 97 of his deposition, says, that he is a missionary Baptist and that if he is shown an anti-missionary Baptist he will “help to kill him.”

Our ancient brethren believed in missionaries on the Bible plan, for, as stated in Elder Burnam’s deposition, quoting from the minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association, he says:

“But to be humble instruments in the Lord’s hand, of sending that gospel, and those pure ordinances which European civil establishments of religion almost shut out, or naturally hinder the progress of, to those poor heathen whose hearts the Lord has opened or may open,---be thus the means of benefit to one poor soul, will unspeakably overpay all the exertions you may use, or expense that may accrue.”

Indeed, Elder Dalton is a missionary Baptist to our own liking, and to show to the Court what sort of a missionary Baptist Elder Dalton is, I refer to Pittman’s deposition, where will be found a part of an article headed, “Mission Report,” copied from the Herald of Truth for June 15th, 1904, written by Mr. Dalton himself, and being a comment by the Elder on the second annual report of the Strict Baptist Mission in India. It is interesting reading and gives our view of the case in a very clear and lucid way, and strange to say, that although Elder Dalton is a member of a body of Baptists that term themselves “Anti-Means Baptists,” he still endorses this article written by himself in 1884. Here is a part of it:

“Oh, how different are the words of the missionaries whom God has sent into mission fields and those that men have sent. We are willing, yes anxious to labor for the support of such missionaries as these old Baptists. In India they are under the divine direction of the God of Heaven and their labors are being blessed of the Lord to the up-building of many good, strong, sound primitive Baptist churches.” *    *    *    “If our modern mission friends would adopt the plans of these Bible missionaries and carry the doctrine that they do we would have no fight to make against them.”

Thus recognizing the right of “Old Baptists” to practice missions.

And yet Elder Dalton and his followers criticize us for believing in and putting into practice the very plan of missions endorsed, in 1884, by himself, and says he now endorses but does not practice.

Further on the subject of missions, see Burnam’s deposition, Waters’ deposition,  Compton’s deposition, where he says he believes in missions so far as the Bible directs, but he “would not encourage it;” Grove’s deposition, wherein he says he believes in “God sent” missionaries, that he would “not help to start them,” but might help them after they “Once got started;” and, see also Grove’s deposition, where Elder John Clarke, in an editorial in Zion’s Advocate, in 1882, has this to say:

“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 praying 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 church, 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, of the word missionary. In the 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 receive 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.”

Thus wrote this man of God in 1882, before there was any division between what is now called Means and Anti-means Baptists: Were they not all agreed at that time, and did they not all subscribe to this very precious article of Elder John Clarke’s?

Mount Carmel Means Baptists stand on this article as it is written to this day. Do our Anti-means brethren take this same position? If so, why should they criticize us for putting into practice what they themselves believe?

Elder Clarke wrote here what were the views of Baptists in all ages, and it remains for the Anti-means Baptists to assail the position of Elder Clarke at this day.

In Mr. John Grove’s deposition, I found what I believe the Court, after reading the depositions on both sides of this case, will recognize to be the true result of the difference of the two denominations on the subject of means and missions. He is asked about the scriptural quotation, “delivering them from the power of the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes * * * that they may receive forgiveness of sins.” Mr. Grove insists on prefixing the word “knowledge”, making it read: “That they may receive knowledge of forgiveness of sins.” In fact, Mr. Grove insists very strenuously on this word “knowledge,” and must necessarily do so in order to fortify their belief of today. We Means Baptists prefer to leave the word “knowledge” out of it, and take the language just as it is written in God’s Holy Word, because we do not believe that we have the right to add to or take from the words of God himself.

IV. THE QUESTION OF THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES LITIGANT.

We contend that the names “Old School Baptists,” “Regular Baptists,” “Primitive  Baptists,” “Old Regular Baptists,” etc., are used interchangeably, and which is nowhere denied. As to this see Pence’s deposition, Grove’s deposition, and, in Grove’s deposition is a very interesting quotation taken from the Minutes of Mount Carmel Church, in May, 1870, at which time the late Elder John K. Booton was ordained. A part of the Minutes read as follows:

“Mount Carmel, May 4th, 1870.  At a special meeting held by the Mount Carmel Regular Baptist church at Luray, Page County, Virginia, called for the ordination of Brother John K. Booton,” etc.

Here is where, this same church called herself a “Regular Baptist Church,”---the name that we usually go by today.

If we are wrong now, and if we are to forfeit our own rights by calling ourselves  “Regular Baptists,” did not the church in 1870 forfeit her rights for the same reason?

The Anti-means brethren are professedly great sticklers for the name “Old School Baptists,” but they have used the name “Old School” interchangeably with the name “Primitive Baptists” since the division.

The Court’s attention is called to their exhibits filed with their Answer in this case, where they had certain trustees appointed for “Mount Carmel Primitive Baptist Church,” and then afterwards, for purposes which must be apparent to the Court, they had these same trustees appointed for “Mount Carmel Old School or primitive Church.”

To further show that the name has been used interchangeably by the members of the Mount Carmel Church---it may be remarked that on the tombstone of Elder Wm. C, Lauck, who died February 6th, 1875, is engraved among other things the following words: “Connected himself with the Old Regular Baptist Church August 8, 1832,” etc. And it is very apparent that the reason the Anti-means brethren are of late so tenaciously holding to the words “Old School” is simply because those are the words used in the deed of 1849, which it is conceded was written by William C. Lauck himself.

Further as to the question of names under the next head.

V. THE STATUS OF THE COMPLAINANTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE TITLE TO THE MT. CARMEL CHURCH PROPERTY.

Elder Pence in his deposition, defines an association as follows :

“Associations are voluntary meetings among the churches in which they come together as a body of churches into one body for the purpose of extending their acquaintance with each other and for mutual benefit as they think in a religious way. It is a purely voluntary meeting of the churches. They are not held for the purpose of governing the churches. Churches are not subject to the control or direction of any association at all.”

And it is admitted by the parties litigant that a Baptist church is a sovereign, independent, and autonomous body, not subject to any other church or to any association or religious councilor to any other ecclesiastical body on earth, and that for all of her acts she is responsible only to God himself. (See as to this Burnam’s deposition, and, also, the answer of the Respondents filed in this cause.)

If this Mount Carmel Church was ever entitled to be called a church of “Old School Baptists” it was so entitled in 1886 when she fostered a Sunday school,---the Ebenezer Association meeting with Big Spring Church in 1887 having recognized and conceded that right. And if she was then entitled to be called a church of “Old School Baptists,” she was so entitled when the entire church was dropped from the roll of the Ebenezer Association in 1890; and, if entitled to be so called then she did not assume too much, I take it, when she still styled herself “Mount Carmel Church of Old School Baptists,” in her letter dated the third Saturday in September, 1890, when she accepted the invitation to join with Bethel and other Baptist churches in the reorganization of Ketocton  Association on the same principles on which Ebenezer Association had been reorganized in 1869 on the motion of Elder Wm. C. Lauck, whom they say would have been an Anti-means Baptist had he been living at the time of the division in 1890. (And, by the way, Elder Pittman, in speaking of Elder Fristoe, says that had he been living when the split came in 1832 he would have gone off with the New School Baptists. Query: Does Elder Pittman mean to say that Elder Wm. C. Lauck was advocating New School principles, when, upon his motion, Ebenezer Association was reorganized on the principles laid down in Wm. Fristoe’s History, in 1869?)

This letter of Mount Carmel church of Old School Baptists was adopted, at its regular meeting in September, 1890, by the undivided church, after she had been excluded or dropped from the Ebenezer Association, in August preceding, at the meeting of said Association held with Alma church. It was the act of the entire body of the church, on its regular meeting day for business,---Saturday before the third Sunday in September, 1890---a meeting which was participated in by Means and Anti-Means brethren; and this was the act of Mount Carmel Church of Old School Baptists of which Elder C. L. Yates was then the pastor and ex-officio the moderator, and W. A. Beach was the clerk.

It is clearly shown that she had, in her own sovereign capacity, the right to take such action, and no one dissented at that time.

Now, when this meeting or association was held; pursuant to a call by the churches, at Salem Church, Clarke County, Virginia, on the third Sunday and the Friday and Saturday preceding, in the month of October 1890, for the purpose of reorganizing Ketocton  Association, and at the time when the pastor of Mount Carmel Church was, with other prominent members, away attending said meeting, (as shown by Grove’s deposition, and Keyser’s deposition, and in accordance with the wishes and desire of the undivided church, as expressed in her meeting of September 20th, 1890, then it was that a minority of the church, who were of those members holding to the Anti-means doctrine, took occasion, in the absence of the legally constituted authorities of the undivided church, to enter the church building and pass certain resolutions and elect a pastor and clerk for said faction, notwithstanding the fact that their pastor was absent attending the meeting with Salem Church, as above stated, and assumed to elect another pastor---Elder T. S. Dalton---and another clerk, in the room and stead of the regularly constituted pastor and clerk, who were absent at the time.

Mr. Grove, in speaking of this very act, in his deposition, says:

“Our pastor (meaning Elder C. L. Yates) had gone---he who was our pastor at that time, had gone to the Association.”

The pastorate of Elder C. L. Yates and the term of the clerk, W. A. Beach, did not expire until the following December meeting in 1890, and yet this very band of Anti-means brethren assumed to elect another pastor and clerk before the term of the regularly constituted pastor and clerk had expired, and this without even declaring said offices vacant. Surely the Court will see that this was an act of secession on the part of the Anti-Means brethren from the regularly constituted Mount Carmel Church of Old School Baptists, a sort of sub rosa meeting, and which meeting, to say the least, was antagonistic to the regularly constituted officers and authorities and body of the Mount Carmel Church, and from this time on the Anti-means brethren have been holding their meetings separate and apart from the regularly constituted church. But this is not all. At the following November meeting, the regular church authorities, composed of the regularly constituted pastor, Elder C. L. Yates, and the regularly elected clerk, Wm. A. Beach, with their congregation, entered their church building, and there received the report of the meeting with the association at Salem church, and attended to their usual church business and adjourned. Now, I ask the Court if this was not still the regularly constituted Mount Carmel church of Old School Baptists ?

Certainly no one can deny that Mount Carmel Old School Baptist church voted to meet with other churches to reorganize Ketocton Association, and the church by its Elder and Messengers did so meet, and this, now, is their regular meeting in November, after the return of the pastor and clerk and messengers from the association held with Salem Church. She came back the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist Church, as she had gone away, and she has been using the church property and, occupying the same to this day. It may be added here that the Means Baptists constituted a majority of the Mount Carmel Church at the time of the division in 1890.

THE BLACK ROCK PRONUNCIAMENTO.

Much has been said by Counsel for the Anti-means party with reference to the Black Rock Articles, or the declarations of faith at the Black Rock meeting house, in Maryland, in 1832, at which time, and during a few years following, there must have been quite a division among the Baptists at that day.

I will now direct the Court’s attention to the Black Rock Articles, as found in Elder Dalton’s deposition, and upon which the Anti-means brethren say they pin their faith, previous to which time, it may be proper to state, that Mount Carmel Church was organized sometime between 1810 and 1820, or some ten to twenty years before the Black Rock Convention. She must have been organized on the old Confessions of Faith; and it is not in evidence that she ever changed her faith. But, on the other hand, it is shown that the church, and the Ebenezer Association of which she was a member in 1869, re-affirmed the old principles as set forth in Wm. Fristoe’s History of 1808, and which same principles this same association repudiated at Robertson River church in 1889. And though, in addition, it is nowhere shown that Mount Carmel Church ever adopted the proceedings of the Black Rock Convention, nor has it ever been shown that either the Ebenezer Association or Ketocton Association, or any of the churches composing their bodies, ever adopted or endorsed said articles, yet it is very interesting to know what was the position of these people especially with reference to Missions and Sunday Schools.

This Black Rock address, adopted by the people who met there on that occasion in 1832, made objection to the following things:

First, Tract Societies---(We means Baptists object to them to this day);

Second. The Modern Methods of Sunday Schools---(We Means Baptist object to them as well);

Third, Bible Societies---(We Means Baptists object to them to this day);

Fourth, Modern Mission Methods---(We Means Baptists object to them today);

Fifth, Theological School---(We Means Baptists object to them as well); and

Sixth, Four days of protracted meetings,---(and we, too, object to the modern method of protracted meetings.)

The whole address is given in Elder Dalton’s deposition.

These people, after filing their objections to the manner in which Sunday Schools were conducted, at that time, closed by saying:

“But whilst we thus stand opposed to the plan and use of these Sunday Schools, and to the S. S. Union in every point, we wish to be distinctly understood, that we consider Sunday Schools, for the purpose of teaching poor children to read, whereby they may be enabled to read the scriptures for themselves, in neighborhoods where there is occasion for them and when properly conducted, without that ostentation so commonly connected with them, to be useful and benevolent, institutions, worthy the patronage of all the friends of civil liberty.”

So, after all, did they not believe in Sunday Schools, “when properly conducted;” and who can say that they are not properly conducted in Mount Carmel Church when only the Bible itself is taught therein and the very doctrines laid down in the deed of 1849?

Then, with reference to missions, they close by saying:

“Brethren, we cheerfully acknowledge that there have been some notable exceptions to the character we have here drawn of the modern missionary, and some societies have existed under the name of Mission Societies which were in some important points exceptions from the above drawn sketch. But on a general scale, we believe we have given a correct view of the mission plans and operations, and of the effects which have resulted from them, and our hearts really sicken at this state of things. How can we, therefore, forbear to express our disapprobation of the system that has produced it.”

Here it is seen that it was not missions that they objected to, but the modern missionary system; and even then they made exceptions to some mission societies at that day and really approved of them. Possibly we Means Baptists of today could hardly go quite so far as did the Black Rock people, because, generally speaking, we are opposed to missionary or any other kind of religious “societies,” believing that if they do not have a tendency to usurp the prerogatives of the church itself, they nevertheless have a tendency to detract from the usefulness of the church.

These six points that were taken up by the Black Rock Convention were the six points that divided the church at that time, and is of itself an answer, in part, to the question of difference between “Old School” or “Regular Baptists” and the “New School” Baptists themselves.

There is also this paragraph contained in the Black Rock address:

“There is, brethren, one radical difference between us and those who advocate these various institutions, which we have noticed, to which we wish to call your attention. It is this: They declare the gospel to be a system of means; these means it appears they believe to be of human contrivance.” (They must have been referring to our Anti-Means brethren of today,) “and act accordingly. But we believe the gospel dispensation to embrace a system of faith and obedience, and we act according to our belief.”

Our Anti-means brethren also believe the gospel to be a system of “human contrivance;” and this Black Rock address criticizes just such people for believing as they do. The people who framed the Black Rock address believed the gospel dispensation to embrace a system of faith and obedience, but, as will presently be shown, this cannot apply to the Anti-means brethren at all for the reason that they have in a great measure eliminated  faith from the plan of salvation.

Dr. Waters, a very prominent minister of the Anti-means party, and Elder Dailey, who was for a number of years the pastor of the Anti-means faction worshipping at Mount Carmel Church, and the majority, I may say, of the Anti-means people worshipping at Luray, subscribe to the following utterances of Dr. Waters in the Zion’s Advocate for
August 1898.

“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.”

And also:
“Spiritual and eternal life may exist, then apart from a belief in Jesus, repentance toward God, or knowledge of spiritual things, all of which are consequent upon and follow after regeneration; and it may please the Lord to remove the subject of His grace from this time state ere he has developed his spiritual growth, and rear him up beyond the river.”
(See Dr. Waters’ deposition.)

Now, let us compare these words and the strange and peculiar doctrine, unheard of and unknown among Baptists in any day or generation until given utterance to by Dr. Waters himself in 1898, with the words as contained in the Holy Scriptures themselves:

TEACHINGS OF THE ANTI-MEANS PARTY.

“One may be regenerate, and never believe in Jesus.”

“Those who were born of God received Christ and believed on his name.” (John i.12).

“Every regenerate child of Adam is saved eternally, faith or no faith.”

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” (Acts XVI.31)-”He that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark XVI. 16.)

“Infants and idiots,” though they be regenerated and saved, “cannot believe.”

“As soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears; the babe leaped in my womb for joy.” (Luke i. 44).

“Faith is not necessary to eternal salvation.”

“He that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark XVI. 16)---”If ye believe not that I am he; ye shall die in your sins” (John VII.24)---”Whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. XI. 23)---”Without faith it is impossible to please God.” (Heb. X. 6).

“Spiritual and eternal life may exist apart from a belief in Jesus.”

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”(John III.36)---”If ye believe not
I am he, ye shall die in your sins”. (John VIII.24).

“Apart from repentance.”

“Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out,” etc. (Acts III.19)---”Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” (Luke XIII 3.5.)

“Apart from knowledge of Spiritual things.”

“The dead know not anything” (Eccl. IX.5)---”Some” (not righteous) “have not the knowledge of God” (I. Cor. XV 34)---”This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent” (John XVII. 3) ---”They that know not God shall be punished with everlasting destruction” (2 Thess. 11.9.)

“All of which (spiritual blessings) follow after regeneration.”

“God hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. IV.6)---”God hath blessed us” (believers) “with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 1.3.)

“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.”

“It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the Judgment” (Heb. IX.17)---”There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a fearful looking for of Judgment and fiery indignation.” (Heb. X 26.27)---”He that is unjust still; and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still.” (Rev. XXII.II.)

Counsel for the Anti-means party have stated that the only reason we have for stating that the Anti-means faction, or party, has substituted the word “preservation” for the word “perseverance,” as named in the deed of 1849, is because it so appears on the cover of a magazine which was published at the time by Elder T. S. Dalton. The attention of the Court is called to the set of articles of faith of the Anti-means party worshipping at Mount Carmel Church, as set forth in their Answer to the Bill of Complaint in this cause, wherein it will be seen that nowhere in those articles does the word  perseverance” appear, but, on the other hand, article 6 reads as follows:

“We believe that all of the saints will be preserved to the end that none of them will ever fall finally away.”

And these Articles of Faith, as shown by Pittman’s deposition, were adopted by the Anti-Means party after the division in 1890.

Elder Burnam, in speaking of the theological difference between the words “perseverance” and “preservation”, on page 42 of his deposition, says:

“A man will not be saved finally simply by preservation. He will be saved by preservation through faith.”

But these Anti-means brethren, in this day and generation, seem to have little use for faith.

CHURCH ORGANS.

This subject, it seems, is scarcely worthy of discussion, but it may be said that Mount Carmel Church has a very plain but neat organ, which was placed in the church building about six years ago, or some twelve years after the division in 1890, and could neither have been one of the causes leading up to the secession of the Anti-means party, nor could it have affected the belief of the Church in the doctrines as named in the deed of 1849.

Although it does not appear in the Record, I, nevertheless, take the liberty to let the Court know some of the differences between our kind of Baptists and those commonly known as New School Baptists, inasmuch as the question has been asked us by Counsel for the Anti-means party in their oral argument.

1. There is a “wide gulf” between their broad system of missions and our Bible plan of missions;

2. We do not believe in their Sunday School Conventions and societies, and much of their methods used in Sunday Schools;

3. We hold strictly to Calvinistic principles---they do not;

4. We do not advocate church societies, or any sort of society or other organization as an adjunct to the church;

5. We do not believe in their modern system of protracted meetings and revivals;

6. Bible and Tract Societies,---we have never advocated them;

7. We do not now and never have believed in a salaried ministry;

8. We do not advocate Theological Seminaries;

9. We believe purely in congregational singing, and do not countenance church choirs; and,

10. Our church services and government are purely congregational and conducted in the greatest degree of simplicity, and we believe in that simple form of worship which  characterized the apostles, in primitive Christian times, without that ostentation and desire to keep pace with the world, which is so manifest in churches in these modern times, and which, in large measure, has made its influence felt on the popular body of Baptists in this day and generation.

Now, in conclusion, is it not shown by undisputed testimony that the fathers in the Baptist faith, as far back as two hundred and fifty years ago, believed in the doctrine of means as well as in the doctrines as laid down in the deed of 1849.

Is it not also shown that if we Means Baptists, who believe as they did, are inconsistent now in our belief and practices that they also were inconsistent in those days?

Have we not also shown that those ancient Baptists, long before there was any thought of division in the Baptist body, believed in the catechetical instruction of their young in the doctrines of the Bible, in houses of worship: and if they were not inconsistent then, why should we be accused of inconsistency now?

Is it not further shown that those same fathers in the faith believed in the spread of the divine truth according to the plan as laid down in God’s Holy Word, and the teaching and preaching of that same word to both saints and sinners, at home and abroad; and if they were not inconsistent then, why should we, who believe the same things now, be accused of inconsistency?

On the other hand, nowhere has it been shown that they ever believed in the heretical no-faith idea of Dr. C. H. Waters and his followers. They believed in a living faith,---a faith that implied action,---not merely that the Christian should be preserved in a dormant state of usefulness, but that he should, in the course of time, be possessed of a living faith, and that he would finally be preserved through that faith.

If I have made this argument unnecessarily lengthy, I trust the Court will attribute it to my deep and burning desire to make our position clear, so that the Court may arrive at a just conclusion of the matters involved in this cause; and, also, for the further reason of my absorbing interest in its outcome.

____________________

Note of Argument

DOWNING & WEAVER

Of Counsel for Defendants

We congratulate the Court, and likewise ourselves, that in determining the right of this controversy, it will be unnecessary for us to argue, or the Court to decide, as to who is
right or who is wrong with reference to our true relations to the Author of our Being, for we assume that the Court would hardly undertake to establish what doctrine, belief and practice is most acceptable to our Maker and Redeemer.

It is likewise true that it is not within the province of the Court to consider or determine as to who is in the majority or minority, for as Counsel concede this is but a moot question and is wholly foreign to a proper decision of this cause.

The subject of this litigation is the title to a lot in Luray, Va., upon which stands the brick meeting house known as the Mount Carmel Old School Baptist Church, and the object of the suit, as set forth in Complainants’ Bill is to perpetually restrain the defendants from exchanging or disposing of the same, and to enjoin her trustees from “assuming to act as trustees of Mount Carmel Baptist Church at Luray.” This property is in the route of the principal street front the town to the Norfolk & Western Railway depot. The Council of Luray, desiring this lot, and recognizing the defendants as the true owners thereof, entered into a contract with them for the removal of the building and the exchange of lots. A temporary injunction was awarded, and the issue is, therefore, shall it be dissolved or shall it be perpetuated? If the title to the property in dispute is in the defendants no one has the right to prohibit or interfere with that incident of ownership,---the jus disponendi; on the other hand, if the title be in the complainants, the injunction should be perpetuated, and the defendants restrained from exercising any further acts of ownership over the property involved. The issue is clear and well defined; there can be no middle ground; there was but a single grantee in the deed, and of necessity there can be but one beneficiary.

How is Your Honor to determine this issue ? The answer is clearly expressed in Schnorr’s Appeal, 67, P.138, where the Court says:

“When the founders or donors have clearly expressed their intention that a particular set of doctrines shall be taught, or a particular form of worship and government maintained, it is not in the power of individuals at any time to alter the purpose of the founder or to divert the property from THE USE FOR WHICH IT WAS INTENDED.”

And again in Roshi’s Appeal, (Pa) 8 Am. Reports at page 280, it said:

“It is the duty of the Court to decide in favor of those, whether a minority or majority of the congregation, who are adhering to the doctrine professed by the congregation, and form of worship in practice as also in favor of the government of the church in operation with which it was connected at the time the trust was declared. * * ‘the title to the church property of a divided congregation, IS IN THAT PART OF IT WHICH IS ACTING IN HARMONY WITH ITS OWN LAW, and THE ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS, USAGES, CUSTOMS, AND PRINCIPLES WHICH WERE ACCEPTED AMONG THEM BEFORE THE DISPUTE BEGAN ARE THE STANDARD FOR DETERMIN1ING WHICH PARTY IS RIGHT.”

Applying this “standard” therefore, to the facts of this case, we find that on March 8, 1849, Barbara Buracker and others conveyed the lot in question to trustees “who have been nominated and appointed by the Old School Baptist Church, known by the name of Mount Carmel at Luray,” the deed further providing that the property should be “for the perpetual use of said Mount Carmel Church of OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS” holding to the doctrines as set forth in the instrument. Thus, it will be observed that the beneficiaries of the trust are specifically and clearly described both in name and doctrine. Their right of ownership demands, as the deed shows, three qualifications, To-wit:

(1) They must be OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS;

(2) They must be of MOUNT CARMEL CHURCH AT LURAY;

(3) They must hold to the doctrines of;

(a) Unconditional and eternal election;

(b) Predestination of God;

(c) Final perseverance of the Saints;

(d) That the elect were chosen in Christ to Salvation before the world was.

All three of these conditions must concur; it is not enough that they should subscribe to and believe in the doctrines of the deed, but they must be “OLD SCHOOL BAPTISTS” holding to these views, and, in passing, we are reminded of the very pregnant question which Your Honor propounded in the course of the oral argument. As we recall, Your Honor asked that if Presbyterians held to the doctrines of the deed, could they have or claim a beneficial interest in the property? We submit that this question is very clearly answered in the deed, which does not confer a beneficial interest upon any and all who may believe and practice the doctrines of the deed, but the instrument clearly and expressly limits the scope of the trust by further providing that the beneficiaries must be “Old School Baptists” who hold to these doctrines. It is, therefore, absolutely essential in determining this cause, to ascertain who are these “Old School Baptists,” their origin, doctrines, practice and faith; from whence did they come?

THEIR ORIGIN.

It is important to observe that prior to the year 1832, or thereabouts there was no such denomination known to the world as the “OLD SCHOOL BAPTIST CHURCH”; prior to that period no one ever heard or knew of an “Old School” or a “New School” Baptists. These were names that had arisen about seventeen years prior to the execution of this deed. Prior to those days, there was but one Baptist Church, but, as the evidence shows, for some years previous to the division of 1832, the question of Sunday Schools, Missions, and other institutions of “means” and human contrivance, was being agitated in the Baptist Church generally. Indeed, the record contains numerous writings and publications ante-dating the division, some of which advocate and others of which oppose these institutions. These, however, can have no bearing or relevancy upon the questions involved in this suit, for it is apparent that these ancient records, from whatsoever source they may come, can not be introduced to show the orthodox doctrine and faith of the Old School Baptists, when it is conceded that that denomination, in name, was not born until about the year 1832.

The result of the agitation of these questions of Sunday Schools, Missions, and Means was the split in the Baptist Church; this division was general and universal throughout our entire land. Those favoring and advocating Sunday Schools, Missions and Means became known as the New Schools or “Means Baptists,” while those who opposed were designated as “Old Schools;” they were likewise called “Hardshells” and “Old Ironsides;” also, “Anti-Means” and “Anti-Mission.”

In this connection, and in thus tracing the origin and birth of the grantees in this deed, we especially call to Your Honor’s attention Vol. 2, page 490 of the 1906 Edition of THE NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, which extract is set forth in Elder Dalton’s deposition, and is as follows:

“Baptists, Old School or Primitive; also known as anti-mission, and popularly called ‘Hard-Shell;’ a denomination whose members claim to be the original Baptists from whose principles and practices all others have departed. In fact, THIS BODY ORIGINATED about 1835 in AN ORGANIZED OPPOSITION to Missionary Societies, Sunday Schools, etc. This opposition grew out of the hyper-Calvinistic theology held by some of the Baptist Churches, and these HUMAN SOCIETIES were held by them to make the salvation of men depend rather upon human efforts than on divine grace. They do not believe in a paid or educated ministry, and sustain no colleges or theological seminaries. They were at one time quite numerous in the middle States, but are now strongest in the mountain districts of North Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia. It is difficult to say whether they are decreasing or diminishing, since adequate statistical information is not to be had. The census of 1890, the first and only careful enumeration of them gave them 3,222 churches, 121,347 members.”

See further on this subject, Vedder’s History of the Baptists (1897) set forth by Elder Pittman’s deposition, as follows:

“A considerable number of Baptists in the early part of this century separated from the other churches on account of doctrine and practical differences. Holding a hyper-Calvinistic theology, they were opposed to MISSIONS, SUNDAY SCHOOLS, and all contrivances which seemed to make the salvation of men depend on human effort. They call themselves Primitive Baptists, and have been known as ANTI-MISSION, ANTI-EFFORT, ‘OLD’ and Hardshell Baptists. They have churches in 28 States, and are strong in the country districts of Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee. There has been an impression until late years that they had become a feeble body rapidly on the way to extinction. Such is undoubtedly the case in the North, but in the South, they seem to be not merely holding their own, but increasing. In 1890 they had 3,222 churches and 121,347 members.”

See especially the deposition of Elder J. L. Paris, a witness introduced by the Complainants, who says:

“IT IS A HISTORICAL FACT that there was a division in the Baptist Church in about 1832, and one took the appellation of the Old School and the other the New School.”

And see, also, the deposition of Elder Pence, another witness introduced by the Complainants, who, in his deposition, says:

“Old School Baptists began in 1832 to identify them from the New School.”

The Complainants do not attempt to deny that the name “Old School Baptists” originated from the Black Rock Convention, held in the early thirties. It is also in evidence---and un-contradicted---that the very purpose of this Convention was to set
forth and