COLLECTIVE SALVATION
The New Testament does not preach either a lonely, privatized “me-and-Jesus” gospel or a faceless, collectivist salvation-by-group-identity; it preaches a salvation that is deeply personal and fiercely corporate—God saving a people in Christ, by sovereign grace, one sinner at a time.
This is perhaps the finest summary of the Old School Baptists’ belief and position. My God, keep it that way! [ed]
INTRODUCTION
Here’s the gist of Elder E. H. Burnam[1] on the “doctrine of means” among Old-School/Primitive Baptists—i.e., whether God uses the preached gospel as an instrument in bringing sinners to life and faith.
Who he was & where he stood
Burnam edited the Regular Baptist Magazine[2] in the late 1870s–1880s and became a voice for the “means” side among Primitive/Regular Baptists. ()
In the 1890 Luray, VA debate[3] (Pence[4] vs. Lemuel Potter[5]), Burnam is consistently listed with W. T. Pence as representing those Primitive Baptists who affirmed gospel instrumentality in regeneration, over against the rising “anti-means” party. ()
What “means” meant for Burnam’s camp
The Spirit uses the Word. Regeneration is by the sovereign Holy Spirit, yet ordinarily through the preached or written Word as His appointed means—so gospel proclamation is not optional window dressing but God’s own instrument. (This is the heart of the “means” position Burnam defended alongside Pence.) ()
Evangelical repentance and faith are real, not redundant. They taught that calling sinners, urging repentance, and expecting faith under preaching are warranted duties because God uses those calls to awaken and convert. (This is precisely what the Luray debate turned on.) ()
Against “hardshell” non-instrumentalism. Burnam’s side rejected the claim that regeneration occurs wholly without the Word’s instrumentality and that preaching is only for the already-regenerate. They argued that the view undercuts the New Testament pattern of Word-and-Spirit together. ()
How controversial was he among Old-School Baptists?Controversy followed. Contemporary notices show tensions around his magazine leadership; one printed account even notes resistance on grounds that Burnam wasn’t “in accord” with some Primitive Baptist principles—shorthand for the widening rift over
means. ()
Why this matters historicallyBy the late 19th century, Primitive Baptists were splitting into
“means” vs. “anti-means” streams. Burnam sits squarely in the former: Spirit-wrought salvation, through the ordained means of the gospel—a view that some regional Primitive Baptist associations (e.g., in the East Appalachians) continued to champion. ()
If you’d like, I can pull representative passages from Burnam-era sources (Regular Baptist Magazine items, the Luray debate materials, and association minutes) to show his wording on “Word-and-Spirit” regeneration and the duty of gospel calls.
Organized June 8, 1988A Conservative, Old-Line Primitive Baptist Website
"The Trial and Decision of Mount Carmel Church."Luray, Virginia,
1909
STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED
____________
IN WHICH IS CLEARLY SHOWN
From Valuable Historical Records
and
Testimony of Many Living Witnesses
Of Different Denominations and Beliefs
Who
are The Primitive or Old School Baptists?
And
what they believe and Practice.
Compiled by
R. H. Pittman
Introductory______________
What is Truth? Pilate asked Jesus this question, but did not wait for an answer. Reader, do not be guilty of thus lightly dealing with such a sacred thing as Truth. It has been said:
The worth of Truth no tongue can tell,
Twill do to buy but not to sell.
To know the Truth is to be free? Christ said to his servants, ---And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. Some handle Truth as a matter of small importance. Often it is bartered and sold, often crushed to earth, and always unpopular with evil minded men.
But there is coming a day when Truth shall be vindicated. Crushed to earth it shall rise again. It must eventually conquer, for God is on the side of Truth. But how stand we in this matter religiously? Moses said to Israel, "Who is on the Lord's side let him come to me." Some are not on the Lord?s side. There must be a division, for there is a contest between Truth and Error. On which side are we enlisted? Let us examine ourselves. Let us go to the Law and the Testimony. Let us dare to be right. A great statesman once said "I had rather be right than be President." The old order of Baptists have ever proven that they would rather be right than to be popular. They cannot be both popular with the world and right with God. For worldly popularity and Christian graces are antagonistic. The Apostle tells us plainly that if we seek to please men we are no longer the servants of Christ. And our people are not charged, even by their enemies, with seeking to please the world. Possibly they have less regard for the esteem of the world than has any other denomination on the earth. This is commendable. Not that they would seek to make enemies, nor do they take pleasure in opposition. But the Baptists are a sincere people, generally speaking. They want to know the truth and to faithfully walk in it, and are willing to suffer for the truth if need be, knowing that Christ has said "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven." And, too, the Baptists take the Bible as their guide in all religious matters, and honestly endeavor to rightly interpret it without fear or favor. This is also commendable, and the more conspicuous because of its rarity. For is it not true that in this day of boasted knowledge and religious progress but few are found willing to take the word of God as their only authority for doctrine and practice? What people, as a denomination, will do so, except the Primitive Baptists?
As a matter of fact, various societies, Sunday Schools, Theological Schools, Instrumental Music, etc., have been added to the simple service of the Christian religion without any authority from the New Testament, yet what denomination today tells the people this truth except the Primitive Baptists? If our people did not have the courage of their convictions and sufficient regard for the teaching of the Bible to do so, would it be done? Is it not true that such additions have become so popular with the religious world that to oppose them is looked upon as the height of folly? And have not the greater number of the professed followers of Christ become so wedded to these institutions of men, organized in modern times, that they evidently value them more highly than they do the Christian Church itself? The writer is witness to this fact that not long since an evangelist in Harrisonburg, Va., stated in a published sermon that Sunday Schools were of vital importance, for said he, "Tear down the Sunday School and the Church will die; keep up the Sunday School and the Church will prosper."
We are free to admit that churches built up by man upon such foundations would crumple and fall without them, but not the Church of Christ. Its foundation is not the institutions and wisdom of men. It has a better foundation and is not dependent upon other foundations for its perpetuity. The institutions of men may come and go, but the Church of God will stand as long as the world does. The reason is
that Christ is the Builder, and He said it would stand. Hear Him: "Upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." That rock was not the Apostle Peter, nor any other man, nor any of the works of men, but the revelation of God. It is nothing short of a divine work, the giving of life eternal to the dead in sin, the giving of a new heart and mind and the writing upon such mind, and heart, the laws of God the giving of eyes to see, ears to hear and hearts to understand the wonderful mysteries in the glorious plan of redemption alone through the atoning blood of Jesus.
Now those to whom this revelation is made are called out of nature
’s darkness into the marvelous light of the Son of God. This is the Church. And this Church, so long as it maintains the principles of its founder, and keeps up the practice of the primitive saints, is viewed by the world as a peculiar people in the general acceptation of the term. But God has "purified unto himself a peculiar people." And our enemies being witnesses, the Old School Baptists are a peculiar people. Not peculiar in dress, nor in the way we wear our hair or cut our beard, not peculiar in the eating of certain kinds of food and abstaining from other kinds, but peculiar in our belief and practice. Does not one of the peculiarities of our people consist in earnestly contending for the doctrine of salvation by grace without works, of preaching the doctrine of God's sovereignty and righteousness, and of man's helplessness and total depravity; of advocating election, predestination, etc., not only in their articles of faith, but also from the pulpit and the press? And does not another of our peculiarities consist in our contention that the practice of the Apostolic church should be maintained as well as its doctrine, and in our willingness, like the primitive Christians, to be a sect everywhere spoken against rather than give up the simple religious service taught in the New Testament?
Evidently
, this is true, for it will it will not be denied that these are prominent characteristics of Primitive Baptists today. We might ask, then, what is there about them to justify the antagonism we meet? The doctrine we preach is not our doctrine, but the doctrine of God our Saviour. The religious practices we advocate were first taught by Christ and His apostles.
If taught by the Master and followed by his Apostles, who should object to them? Were they not meant for examples to us? Are they not good for all time? Surely no one with a sound mind and a good heart will contend that the doctrine and practice of the New Testament can be improved. But this is a day of "Soft-Shell Doctrine," and "Do-as-you-please-practice," and as a denomination, the Old Order of Baptists
stands alone in defense of the so-called hard doctrine of the Bible and its simple but out-of-style practices. But there are thousands of people all over this country who are tired and sick of so much cold religious formality and who in their hearts are hungering for the strong meat of the Gospel and thirsting for the sincere milk of the word. They want the plain, simple service of the Apostolic Church wherein is manifested love for God, for His word, and for His people. They want "A thus saith the Lord" for what they believe and practice, and would follow no man farther than he follows Christ. For such? Pilgrims and Strangers? Our people have a heart fellowship, and we would say to them, "Come and go with us." "Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord." The Jews, God's people as a nation, in order to please the Lord and truly serve Him, had to live as a separate people. When they did this, God blessed them and they were prosperous and happy in the land God gave them. Is it not thus with God's Spiritual Israelites even now? And should they not delight in the Lord and have no other gods before them? Are not Primitive Baptists such a people, and are they not truly concerned about keeping the Lord's house in the order He left it? Are they not careful to add nothing to, or take from His word?
If so, then there is
a great need for Primitive Baptist churches, since but for them, thousands of the meek and humble of the earth would have no spiritual home wherein is true communion of souls and sweet fellowship in the simple service of the Master. And as all other denominations in the country over, are apparently vying with each other in bringing the world and worldly practices into the church, let us have at least one denomination in our midst that is seeking to keep the world and all its institutions out of the church. While others are having their Religious Schools, Theological Seminaries, Salaried Ministry, paid Choirs, Instrumental Music, various Societies, Social Clubs, Bazaars, and whatnots, let us have one church free from all such things. We wish others would refuse to turn their houses of worship into houses of merchandise, but if they will not, let us have one denomination in this country that will not make merchandise out of religion in the name of the pure, humble, and unselfish Nazarene. But the Apostle to the Gentiles said, "The Time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." That time has come, as the facts and the testimony of God's people long have proven. And the Primitive Baptists today need not expect their principles and practices to meet the approval of the popular denominations around us. But we have a right to look for better things from those who call themselves Primitive, or Old School Baptists.
And yet from this latter source has come the most determined opposition to the principles and practices of our people. Men of our own selves have sought to bring in strange doctrines and new practices to the subverting of many and the disturbing of peace and fellowship among the churches. And in doing this, such leaders have almost without exception, pled a purity of spirit and honesty of purpose, and manifested a deep concern about the old church. They would raise it to a higher plane of popularity and usefulness. They would lift it "out of the ruts" and make it respectable and attractive to the world, seemingly forgetful of the fact that if this could be done
, it would no longer be the Old Church and the "sect everywhere spoken against."
This spirit of unrest and dissatisfaction with "the good old way" has led to several divisions. The first of these was in 1828-1932
, when the Baptist denomination of this country split, forming what is now known in name, Primitive Baptists, Missionary Baptists, or Old School Baptists and New School Baptists. To the unprejudiced mind, it is easily shown from unmistakable history that those assuming the title of Primitive or Old School Baptists in that division were those holding to the old doctrine and practice, and were of course the original Baptists, while those advocating new things were New Baptists, and really a new denomination. About the same time of general disturbance in the Baptist denomination, there was a man of ability and influence, who, with his followers, was excluded by the church of his membership in the Red Stone Baptist Association of Pennsylvania. This man was born in Ireland, came to this country in 1807, and was baptized by Elder Loos,[6] a Baptist Minister, in 1812. His name was Alexander Campbell, and he founded the denomination now known as Disciples of Christ, and in some sections called Christian Baptists. Thus, another new denomination sprang into existence. After these disturbances, there was a half-century of comparative peace among the Old School or Primitive Baptists. But this peace was not to continue undisturbed.
In the latter half of the nineteenth century
, the spirit of unrest began to be manifested. Dissatisfaction with the old way of the fathers was evidenced in the public and private service of some. Improvement in the old way of teaching is urged. The children of Baptists must be saved, and the New Testament plan is not thought sufficient. The "Heathen" must have the Gospel preached to them, and the Old Baptist system of depending entirely upon the Lord is not considered the proper one. And so a fireside campaign is put on foot to prepare the Baptists for the public introduction of the things thought to be needed. And the result of all this was that a party within the church was being formed, tutored, and nourished by certain local ministers within the bounds of the Ketocton and Ebenezer Associations,[7] but led mainly by Elder E. H. Burnam, a minister of talent and influence, who finally divided churches where peace and fellowship had long been undisturbed. This party showed their hand in a test of numerical strength, first at the Ebenezer Association, which met with the church at Robinson River[8] in 1889, and where, by a narrow margin, Elder Burnam's effort to exclude Elder Benjamin Lampton's Circular Letter[9] was voted down. Not sufficiently discouraged by their failure, and not willing to let the old church live in peace, the issue was again brought to a test at the meeting of the Ebenezer Association with Alma church in 1890. Here they again failed to elect their moderator and were, by the Association, virtually non-fellowshipped and excluded. It was then that they undertook the reorganization of the Ketocton Association, which in substance meant the organization of a new Association, composed of those in sympathy with them, which they named Ketocton after the old Association, then in existence and had been for one hundred and twenty-four years. In this division, a new denomination was formed, known in this section as Regular Baptists, having entirely discarded the name Primitive, or Old School. Sometimes they, like the Lutherans and Campbellites, are called after the name of their most prominent leader, but they do not adopt it as their denominational name.
Thus far
, the writer has endeavored to give a general outline of the principles and practices of our people. If the reader will peruse the testimony of the many witnesses in this Mt. Carmel Church Case, he will be enabled to see clearly who the Primitive Baptists are, and what they stand for.
But it is also thought well to give some information as to what led up to this suit, and the spirit our people manifested towards those who not only brought strife and division in the churches for the sake of their new things, but who would also take from them their church property. Our people thought that members who were not satisfied with the original doctrine and practice of the old church should leave in as peaceable and genteel
a way as possible and go to those denominations which had what they were clamoring for. But this they would not do. And as in all such cases, the old party is charged with narrowness, selfishness, ignorance, etc., and also with being the cause of the strife and division. But with fair-minded men, such charges are seen to be untrue. Certainly, our people at Luray acted as well as they could be expected to do under the circumstances. When the division came, the church membership at Mt. Carmel was about equally divided, and rather than go to law over the property, our people agreed to divide time in the use of the building, the Old Baptists holding to their regular meeting days. For twenty years, this arrangement was continued and would possibly be in force today but for the circumstances which led up to the lawsuit. Briefly, the circumstances were as follows: The church building was at the head of a cross street. In the building of a railroad through town, the depot was located almost directly behind the church. The Town Council of Luray, evidently considering our people the rightful owners of the church building, and legally able to contract for the removal of the same, entered into such a contract with our Trustees for this purpose. But before any provision of said contract could be carried out, the other party, now the Regular Baptists,[10] got out an injunction, forbidding compliance with the terms of said contract, even though our people had agreed that in the event the old church building was torn down and another built in accordance with contract, no change would be made effecting the previous arrangement of worship, but that the new party should have the same division of time for their services. The Means Party contended that they be allowed equal interest, and join in the new deed as half owners. Legally, under the old deed, this could not be done, since the original conveyance was made to one denomination and not to two denominations. Besides, it conveyed the property to "The Old School Baptists holding the doctrine of Election, Predestination, and the final perseverance of the saints to glory, etc., and that the elect were chosen in Christ before the world was." And therefore, the contention resolved itself into the question: "Which party are the Old School Baptists?" And our people either had to legally resign what they felt was conveyed to them or meet the issue in court. They chose to defend their property rights, and how well they succeeded is shown by the record of the case and the result of the trial.
The compiler of this work wishes to further say that the spirit maintained throughout all this legal contest was
commendable. As a matter of fact, religious controversy is generally conducted with too much personal feeling. This should not be, and when personalities are indulged in, it shows a lack of that broad Christian spirit and matured judgment which dictates that our antagonism should be directed against error, and not individuals. And in the Mt. Carmel Church trial, this was mainly true, and that part of the evidence which appears personal in nature has been eliminated from this work. It has not been the purpose of our people to create strife, dissention, and ill-feeling among brethren, neighbors, and friends, nor to agitate and keep such a spirit alive when brought about by others. As a rule, Old School Baptists love peace, harmony, and that friendly feeling toward all that characterizes the humble child of God. They are perfectly willing and anxious that others have the right to serve God according to the dictates of their consciences, but want the same privilege themselves. And this Church case is not published with any desire, or intention, to widen the breach that has been made, or to again stir up any ill-feeling among otherwise good friends that has been, by the hand of time, somewhat allayed. Nor is it published in any spirit of boastfulness because of the verdict rendered in our favor. In fact, the anticipated publication has been delayed for more than five years, mainly because such motives could not, with any degree of truthfulness, be charged against us. But our object in publishing and sending forth this book is, we trust and believe, a more noble one. We want this record in a more convenient form for the benefit and information of our own people of the Ebenezer and Ketocton Associations. We also want it for our own children that they may clearly see our principles and practices, and wherein we differ and why we differ from other denominations. And we feel that our brethren in other sections of the United States, who had to meet the same innovations introduced among their churches as did our people in Virginia, will receive especial benefit from this record. For even now, in certain sections of the country, new things are being introduced among Primitive Baptists to the disturbing of fellowship and dividing of churches, and it may be that the publication and circulation of this trial and decision will be an encouragement and help to those who are contending for Bible doctrine and practice. We trust it may.
Primitive or Old School Baptists are not ashamed of their principles and practices, believing assuredly that they are founded upon the fair and impartial interpretation of God's Word. Nor are they above suffering for the Truth, however unpopular that truth may be, knowing that Jesus
, who was, and ever will be, the way, the truth, and the life, himself was unpopular with the religious world. But He taught the comforting lesson that if we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him.
May the sending forth of this record be blessed of God as a witness for His eternal truth, and may many of
God's humble children be comforted, built up, and instructed, and His precious name be glorified.
R. H. PITTMAN
[11]
______________________________________
Decision in the Church Case
______________________________________
Full Text of the Opinion Handed Down by Judge T. N. Haas of Page Circuit Court in the Suit of S. L. Batman, Trustee, etc., vs. John W. Grove, etc., Involving the Title to Mt. Carmel Baptist Church.
By deed of March 8, 1849, Barbara Buracker, Mary Ann Buracker
, and Samuel A. Buracker and Caroline, his wife, all of the county of Page, in the State of Virginia, for the recited consideration of one dollar in hand paid, conveyed to Peter Price, Edw. Almond, John Lionberger, Mann Almond and Asahal Slusher, trustees for the Old School Baptist Church, known by the name of Mount Carmel, at Luray,[12] a piece of ground containing 16.75 poles, for the site of a meeting house to be erected thereon under the supervision of said trustees it being expressed in the deed that said piece of ground and the meeting house to be erected thereon were "to be for the perpetual use of said Mount Carmel church of Old School Baptists and their successors holding the doctrine of unconditional and eternal election, predestination of God, final perseverance of the Saints to glory," etc., "that the elect were chosen in Christ to salvation before the world was."
About the year 1887 differences began to arise among the members of Mount Carmel church and these grew more and more acute till they culminated in a division of the congregation in 1890, one faction in the dispute being the element represented by the complainants in this cause, taking thenceforth the name of Regular Baptists, and the other side being the faction represented by the defendants in this cause continuing to designate themselves as Old School Baptists or Primitive Baptists, the terms "Old School" and "Primitive" being used interchangeably. The division which occurred in the Mount Carmel church was not singular to that church
, but a similar division arising out of the same cause occurred in nearly or quite all congregations of the Old School Baptist churches throughout the United States, at or near about the same time. Since the separation in Mount Carmel church, the two congregations, which resulted from that division by a happy modus vivendi, came upon without express agreement, have both used the Mount Carmel meeting house as a place of ownership until the present time, and each has the use of the building on certain days of each month, not conflicting with each other. Each congregation, however, has persistently claimed the better right to the property under the terms of the deed of March 8, 1849, and the desirability or necessity of exchanging the lot for another site, under conditions now affecting the present location and the making by the defendants of this suit of a contract for the sale of the property as property belonging to their congregation exclusively have brought about this suit and the necessity of deciding the controversy between the two congregations as to the ownership under the Buracker deed which has so long lain dormant. The evidence shows that the split which occurred in the Mount Carmel church in 1890 and about the same time in many other churches of the Old School Baptists throughout the United States arose out of differences among the members concerning the employment by the Almighty of human means, agency or instrumentalities in the regeneration of human souls or the quickening into life of sinners dead in sin. The party calling themselves Regular Baptists and who also call themselves and are commonly known as "Means" Baptists believe that God employs such means in the regeneration of his own people but they hold that the "means" are divine and not human being appointed by God for the accomplishment of his purposes and they attribute the regeneration of the sinner not to human works but to the power of the Holy Ghost acting upon the sinner through or in conjunction with the means or instrumentality thus divinely appointed. The other faction constituting the denomination of the defendants and still calling themselves and known by the names of Old School Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Hardshell Baptists, and Anti-means? Baptists are uncompromising in their opposition to the doctrine of "Means" as above described, holding that God accomplishes the regeneration of his people by the power of the Holy Spirit exerted directly upon the sinner without the aid or intervention of any other means or instrumentalities whatever, and they denounce the means doctrine as unscriptural. The doctrine of means is exemplified upon the part of the "Means" or Regular Baptists in various practices, of which the chief are the preaching of the gospel to the unconverted or unregenerated, the sending out of missionaries by the churches, and the conducting of Sunday schools as institutions of the church. The "Anti-Means" Baptists denounce these things as unscriptural and as innovations and human inventions, and they are uncompromising in their opposition to them. On the other hand the Means-Baptists adhere to these things with equal zeal and these practices, particularly the Sunday School establishment with the doctrinal beliefs underlying them, constitute the rock on which the Old School Baptist church of Mount Carmel and many other churches of the same denomination in the United States were split in 1890 or there abouts into two churches, two denominations entirely distinct and separate and holding no fellowship with each other.
To determine which one of these two churches or congregations at Mount Carmel represents or are successors to the Mount Carmel church of Old School Baptists? for whose use and benefit and for the use and benefit of whose successors the lot was conveyed by the deed of 1849, it is necessary to review somewhat the history of the Baptist church and that of the Old School Baptists as a distinct organization or denomination. The evidence shows that while there were differences among Baptists concerning various doctrines and practices, there was in fact no division or separation until about 1832. Before that time, while congregations and elders were divided upon the question of the propriety of so doing, many Baptist churches supported or fostered tract societies, Sunday schools, Bible societies, missionary societies, theological schools, protracted meetings, and perhaps other instrumentalities for the conversion or quickening of God's chosen people who are still in sin. The advocacy and practice of those things were strenuously insisted on by the one element and strenuously opposed and denounced by the other, and so irreconcilable became the conflict between the two factions that in the early thirties it resulted in a division of the Baptists people, those advocating these means and instrumentalities being thence forth known as New School Baptists or Missionary Baptists, and those who oppose them calling themselves Old School Baptists. Thus arose the Old School Baptists church as a distinct and separate organization or denomination, and thus came the name Old School Baptists as a distinctive designation of that denomination. The first organized or concerted action looking to this separation seems to have been taken at an Association or convention of Baptists held at Black Rock in the State of Maryland in 1832, and this convention adopted and published a declaration reciting the causes of difference among Baptists being the practices hereinbefore mentioned, stating their opposition to those practices and to all human means and instrumentalities for so they termed these things, and declaring non-fellowship with, and separation from, those of their people who followed them, should they continue to follow them hereafter. This address concludes with an invitation to the brethren in all parts of the United States who accord with the views expressed in the address to attend the next meeting of that Association to be held at Pleasant Valley, Maryland, in May 1833, and also recommends the address to the consideration of such Baptist churches "as profess to adhere to the ancient faith and order of the particular Baptists, requesting those of them who are disposed to unite with us in the stand which we have taken to give us an expression thereof by messenger or otherwise." Among Baptists, each church congregation is independent and sovereign.
There is no ecclesiastical body having authority over them. They have associations
, but these are voluntary societies formed by the churches of a community or convenient neighborhood and are composed as to membership of messengers sent from the various churches. They meet annually for the purpose of promoting the mutual good and keeping up a brotherly correspondence among the churches and send out annually to the churches of the particular associations a circular letter bearing upon doctrinal or other religious topics, but they do not claim or exercise ecclesiastical authority over their constituent churches.
What action was taken on the subject of separation at the Pleasant Valley meeting in 1833 to which the Black Rock meeting invited Baptists from all parts of the United States who are in accord with its tenets does not appear in this record, but the separation occurred throughout the United States during the period running from about 1832 to 1835, some church congregations going bodily without division to one side or the other and some congregations being divided a part going with the faction thenceforward constituting a separate denomination and known as "New School or Missionary" Baptists and another part going with the faction thenceforward constituting a separate religious denomination known as the "Old School Baptists." Mount Carmel church at Luray, which was an organized congregation at the time of this division, held to the faith and practices of the "Old School" element without division among its people and became known as the Mount Carmel church of Old School Baptists, and the other Baptist churches in the same section of Virginia took the same course, particularly those of Ebenezer and Ketocton Associations, Mount Carmel church was a member of the Ebenezer Association, and the Ketocton Association was an adjoining Association to Ebenezer. Apart from the action of the churches in aligning themselves after this division, and their own practices in their several church bodies, there can be no more persuasive or convincing evidence on the attitude of the several churches on the questions and practices which produced that division than is to be found in the actions of the associations and in the declarations and circular letters adopted by them, for these associations are not only composed of leading men acting as messengers from the individual churches, but when a particular church persists in a doctrine or practice which the association to which it belongs deems to be contrary to the true faith and practice and of such importance that being wrong, it cannot be countenanced, the offending church is non-fellowshipped and dropped or excluded from the association. Mount Carmel church became a member of the Ebenezer Association in 1828.
By reference to the records and circular letters of Ebenezer Association and of Ketocton, with which Ebenezer appears always to have been in hearty fellowship, we find that these associations have persistently and stoutly antagonized the whole doctrine of means including the institution of Sunday schools arid missionary societies throughout their whole history, going, at least upon the question of missionaries, perhaps a little beyond the opposition of the Black Rock declaration. The circular letter of the Ebenezer Association in 1845 written by William C. Lauck, a distinguished Elder of the Old School Baptist church, at that time pastor, I believe of Mount Carmel church, at Luray, was distinctly directed against these things which it characterizes as Arminianism, a character frequently attributed by the Old School Baptists to the teachings and practices of the New School Baptists and by the "Anti-means" people to the teaching and practices of the "Means" people. In that letter, it is stated that "spiritual life is wrought in the souls of all and each of God's elect by the special and direct and independent act of our covenant-keeping God, without the employment of any means or intermediate agencies whatever." In 1834 Ketocton Association passed a resolution in these words: "Resolved that we have no Christian fellowship with those who advocate missionary tract or temperance societies, Sunday school unions, or anxious seats or anything of the kind as religious institutions or means of grace; nor with any person who communes with a church which advocates any of those institutions in the sense above expressed." In the Ebenezer Association letter of 1879, this resolution of the Ketocton Association of 1834 is set forth at length with the statement that Rappahannock Association had expressed the same sentiments, and that Ebenezer Association had stood united with those two Associations against these things, and that their past conduct in keeping aloof from those advocating and practicing such things for forty-five years shows the design of their action. The movement to introduce Sunday schools in Mount Carmel and other churches of the Ebenezer Association commenced in 1887, and the circular letter of the Ebenezer Association for that year contains a strong warning against this institution, describing it as "something new among Primitive Baptists," and as tending to destroy the unity of the church. The force of this letter, as showing the attitude of the Old School Baptist churches of the Ebenezer Association on the subject of Sunday schools as an institution of the church is not mitigated by further declaration acknowledging the right of each church to determine for itself whether it will have a Sunday school or not, and saying that the sovereignty of the churches should be maintained.
In the light of the history and facts which have been herein recited and of the further fact that Mount Carmel church and the other churches of Ebenezer Association had no such institution as a Sunday school, sent out no missionaries, and consistently and persistently taught the doctrine that God accomplishes the regeneration of his people by the power of his Holy Spirit exerted directly upon the sinner without the aid, use or intervention of any intermediate means or instrumentalities whatever, it clearly appears that the "Mount Carmel church of Old School Baptists" which was the beneficial grantee of the Buracker deed of 1849, was a congregation of Baptist Christians hyper-Calvinistic in faith and practice, utterly opposed to the "means" and practices of which we have been speaking and holding no church fellowship with those who adhered to them. Who, then, of the present contestants, harmonize in faith and practice with and are the successors to that congregation of Old School Baptists, that is, the congregation of Mount Carmel in 1849? The causes of the division in 1890 have already been stated, and when they are recalled, this question is answered. The division of 1890 was brought about by almost the same differences, arising in the denomination of Old School Baptists, as divided the Baptists in 1832 into the Old School and the New School denominations. Indeed, about the only difference which has been pointed out in this record between the New School or Missionary Baptist denomination, which arose as a distinct denomination in 1832, and the Regular Baptist or "Means Baptist denomination which arose as a distinct denomination out of the division of Old School Baptists in 1890, is that the former carry on their missionary work through a board of managers independent of any particular church congregation, while the latter eschew "boards" and act wholly through their several congregations. Verily, the Ebenezer circular letter of 1889 is not without justification for its language where after alluding to the separation in the thirties and the causes of that division, it says: "Who would have supposed then that history would so soon repeat itself among us? That even of ourselves men would arise advocating "letter and point" the very things we have rejected." Ebenezer Association was distinctly an Association of Old School Baptist churches
, as distinguished from other Baptist churches after the division in the 1930s. Mount Carmel became a member of Ebenezer Association in 1828, continued with it after the division in 1832, or thereabouts, was a member of Ebenezer in 1849 when the Buracker deed of conveyance was made, and continued a member until 1890, when because of the establishment of a Sunday school in the church and the advocacy of "church sent" missionaries and the adoption of the doctrine of means as already described, but more particularly on account of the establishment of the Sunday schools as an institution of the church and the tendency this manifested, it was non-fellowship by Ebenezer Association and excluded from its membership. This action of Ebenezer Association was taken, of course only after careful and painstaking and sorrowful deliberation, and after hearing the views and contentions of those who favored the practices condemned by it, and while perhaps not conclusively binding upon the courts it is at least the safe and almost controlling guide to them in passing upon questions of doctrine, faith and practice of the Old School Baptists, and of the importance or essential character of any particular belief or practice as affecting the denominational or sectarian character of those who follow it. After the exclusion of Mount Carmel church by Ebenezer Association, the division out of which this controversy arises took place in that church, those who adhered to the doctrines and practices of the Old School Baptists as expounded by Ebenezer Association forming a congregation and continuing to worship at Mount Carmel meeting house under the name and denomination of Old School Baptists and being re-admitted into the membership in Ebenezer Association the next year and the other element forming a congregation under the name of Regular Baptists and continuing to worship at the same meeting house and in conjunction with sections of other congregations situated and separated like themselves, formed a new association called Ketocton Association of Regular Baptists. The Regular Baptists also called themselves and are known by others as "Means" Baptists, a designation which was also applied to the New School or Missionary Baptists at the time of or after the division of 1832, as shown by the testimony of Elder Paris, a witness for complainants; and the Old School Baptists since the division of 1890 are called "Anti-Means" Baptists, a designation, as stated by the same witness, applied after the division of 1832 to the Old School Baptists of that day. Upon the whole case, I am fully persuaded of the correctness of these propositions, to-wit: that the Mount Carmel church of Old School Baptists of 1849 was a church or congregation of that denomination which originated as a distinct sect or denomination among the Baptists in the early thirties out of an organized opposition to the doctrines and beliefs of their former co-religionists on the subject of "means" and Sunday schools, missionary and other practices heretofore referred to; that the congregation at present worshipping at Mount Carmel and known and called by the name of Old School Baptists, being the congregation represented by the defendants in this cause are identical in doctrine and practices with the church of 1849, and are the same church and the true successors of that congregation; and that the Regular Baptists of Mount Carmel, represented by the complainants in this cause, differ in faith and practice from the Mount Carmel church of 1849, and are not their successors in a religious sense, but have become members of a new and separate denomination of Baptist Christians.
It follows from these conclusions that the present Old School Baptists, or Anti-means Baptists, are the true beneficiaries of the trust created by the Buracker deed of 1849, and the beneficial owners of the lot conveyed by that deed together with the meeting house erected and now standing thereon and that the complainants in this cause, the Regular or "Means" Baptist congregation of Mount Carmel have no property right therein, for it is settled by law that when division occurs in the congregation of a church for whose use the property has been conveyed in trust, as in this case, the property will go with and belong to that element in the division which adheres to the doctrine and practices of the congregation as it existed when the trust was created, whether such element be a minority or majority of the whole congregation. A disposition has been shown by counsel on both sides to attach an importance which, it seems to me is undue to a clause in the deed immediately following the declaration of trust in the opening part of this opinion quoted. The clause is as follows:
"In the event of a portion or a majority of the members of said Mount Carmel Baptist church departing from the doctrine above set out, and difficulties on that account arise in the church, the minority holding the doctrines set out above shall not be deprived of said meeting house, but shall be considered as the Mount Carmel church having full right and possession in.? On the part of the complainants it is contended that the Regular Baptists hold to the doctrines expressed in the deed and are therefore entitled to the property or at least to an equal right in it, while it is argued on behalf of the defendants that the beliefs and practices of the Regular Baptists heretofore mentioned on account of which the division occurred, are inconsistent with the doctrines of the deed, wherefore the Court should find that the Regular Baptists do not hold to the doctrines expressed in the deed and for that reason have no right or title in the property. I cannot agree with either of these positions. The doctrines expressed in the deed are well-known doctrines of Calvinistic theology, not confined to Baptists, but common to all denominations of Calvinistic schools. The Regular Baptists undoubtedly profess to believe in these doctrines, and that settles the question of belief or holding. The question of consistency
, happily, is not one for this Court to decide. The law of the land does not require consistency, whether of beliefs or between beliefs and the practices of either religious or political bodies, or of natural persons, and it is fortunate for us all that this is so. But if the Regular Baptists are inconsistent in those respects, however, the same would be true of the Missionary Baptists and of all other Calvinistic churches which accept those doctrines and at the same time believe in means missionary societies and Sunday schools, a proposition we would be far from asserting and exceedingly slow to assert even if we believed it to be true. On the other hand, holding to the doctrines particularly set out in the deed is not all that is required to bring a body of worshippers within the trust clause of the deed of 1849 and entitle them to the benefit of that conveyance. If it were, a congregation of Presbyterians could enter into, and claim the property, or a majority of the congregation of Mt. Carmel might leave the Baptist and join the Presbyterian church and still claim the property, holding still, as the Presbyterians do, to the doctrines expressed in the deed. As a matter of fact and of law, this clause of the deed is merely declaratory of the law applicable to the situation there suggested under the preceding clause of the deed declaring the trust, and in no way detracts from the force of the requirements of that clause that the beneficiaries of the trust created by the deed shall be Old School Baptists, "to be for the perpetual use of said Mount Carmel church of Old School Baptists and their successors, holding the doctrine," etc., is the language of the trust clause. The doctrines expressed in the deed are fundamental and paramount tenets of the Old School Baptist church, it is true, but in addition to holding those doctrines, the congregation claiming the Mount Carmel church property under the Buracker deed of 1849, must qualify further by showing that they are Old School Baptists of the same faith and practices as the Old School Baptists of Mount Carmel in 1849, when the deed was made and the trust was declared; or in other words that they are the sectarian successors of the Old School Baptists of Mount Carmel in 1849. In this respect, the complainants fail, but the defendants fully answer to all requirements.
It follows from these views that the defendants and the congregation represented by them are the true owners of Mount Carmel meeting house and lot, that a decree so adjudicating that question will be pronounced, and the injunction heretofore granted in this cause will be dissolved and the complainants' bill dismissed with costs.
Elder Wheat,
IN close connection with this subject, the apostle has set forth the great oneness existing throughout the kingdom of the Lord Jesus.
39 And David girded his sword upon his armour, and he assayed to go; for he had not proved it. And David said unto Saul, I cannot go with these, for I have not proved them. And David put them off him.
40 And he took his staff in his hand, and chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in a shepherd's bag which he had, even in a scrip; and his sling was in his hand: and he drew near to the Philistine.
41 And the Philistine came on and drew near unto David; and the man that bare the shield went before him.
42 And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance.
43 And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods.
44 And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the beasts of the field.
45 Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.
46 This day will the Lord deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.
47 And all this assembly shall know that the Lord saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the Lord's, and he will give you into our hands
“As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 5:14,15
