Daily vs. Burnam

1854 - 1920

(Note: This article is quite long and I don't expect many to have the desire and fortitude to read it all. Many of my articles are quite long. I could break this entry into two parts, but this has its disadvantages too. Those few who are interested, particularly those studying the history of those who call themselves "Primitive Baptists," will hopefully be edified and informed by this writing. The issues involved in the split over the means question at the latter end of the 19th century, and extending into the 20th century, among the "Primitive Baptists," are still debated today (hence the reason for this blog).

There were several areas of theological debate that took place within the newly formed denomination (or sect) of those who went by the name "Reformed," then "Old School" and/or "Primitive" Baptists. Many historians, both within and without the sect, say that the official date of separation was 1832, the date of the famous (or infamous) "Black Rock Address" but some say the date is 1827 when the Kehukee Association of North Carolina issued a similar Address, also protesting and declaring against mission societies and evangelical methods, and some other things, such as theological education (seminaries), tract publishing, revivals, etc. 

The title of this post refers to two of the leaders of the opposing sides in the war over the question of means in regeneration (and eternal salvation) during the last quarter of the 19th century, to Elder E.H. Burnam (though some spell it Burnham) and Elder John R. Daily. Both men were widely accepted among those who called themselves "Primitive," "Old School" or "Regular" Baptists. We have already also referred to some of the associates of each of these two men, particularly of the debate between Elder Lemuel Potter (confessing to be "primitive" or "regular" Baptist) and Elder W.T. ("Tom") Pence. See my postings on this debate: 1) "Pence on Hardshell Origins" (here) 2) This post from my Duke Research on John Clark (here) 3) "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" (here) 4) "Hardshell Falsehoods" (here).

I have not been able to find pictures of either Burnam or Pence nor much information about them. I have not found much information of other PB leaders who were on the means side in the split, such as Elder J.B. McInturf (and others who were involved in the famed "Mt. Carmel Church Trial"- see archives). These men showed conclusively in their debates with the "modern innovators" of the "anti means" side (as Elder Watson called them) that their anti means doctrine was not biblical nor was it the view of their forefathers but was an "innovation" and showed them to be "ultraists" (what Watson called them, and a term Sylvester Hassell later also used). 

I cannot, for brevity's sake, give any more than the above on the biographies and credentials of either Burnam or Daily. I did read Daily's book as a young Hardshell called "Pilgrimage of a Stranger." I also know that Daily saw himself as the successor to his mentor and idol, Elder Lemuel Potter. Elder Daily had many children and several sons and one of them he named after his mentor, calling him Oliver "Lemuel" Daily. He and one of his other sons, J. Harvey Daily, became PB preachers also. 

It is sufficient only to know that both Burnam and Daily were leaders when the last quarter of the 19th century began or ended. I have written much over the years on both men and have much more information in unpublished drafts on them both. Daily became a leading debater, like his ministerial brother C.H. Cayce, and editor of one of their leading papers similarly. He traveled much in preaching tours to other churches in many states. Burnam preached in several states, living in Missouri, Virginia, and some other places I believe. When the debate over means became intense, Burnam started his own paper called The Regular Baptist Magazine. I have a few of those issues on USB drive but would like to find much more from the years he published it. In it are to be found information on the debate that was going on. Daily at the end of the 19th century took over editorship of the paper started by Elder John Clark in Luray, Va. Below is an entry from "Zion's Advocate" (began by Clark in 1854) titled "Regenerate Sinners Saved - Faith or No Faith" for August 1898, Vol. 37, No. 8 (See here). The Primitive Baptist Library says this about the history of PBs in Missouri:

"The First Regular Baptist Church of St. Louis, Missouri, was constituted on March 29, 1879, by Elder E. H. Burnam, who lived on Laclede Avenue in St. Louis at that time." (See here)

Now let me examine an editorial of Elder Daily in Zion's Advocate (originally begun by Elder John Clark in 1854 and he believed in means and would be disappointed that anti means brethren took control of the paper he started!). It is under the heading "REGENERATE SINNERS SAVED, FAITH OR NO FAITH" and was written to respond to Elder Burnam's article on behalf of the means side (which I wish we had access to and not only the citations of it from Daily). Wrote Daily in rebuttal (emphasis mine): 

 

"This heading is given in quotation marks to an article in "The Old Paths" from the pen of E. H. Burnam, intended as a criticism of statements made by Dr. (Elder) Waters in Zion's Advocate for June, 1890 and June 1891. It seems that a former effort had been made thro' the same paper to overthrow the position taken by Dr. Waters, but we presume E. H. B. was not satisfied with that and so attempted it again. Very well, Elder, you can make another trial if you wish, for unless the former attempt was much more successful than yours above referred to, the Doctor's position is not in the least injured by the assault."

I would love to locate this periodical "The Old Paths" for it would hold additional information on the split over the doctrine of means and of perseverance. It and the "Regular Baptist Magazine" (edited by Burnam during this time) would be desirous of any historian of the "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists. Concerning elder (medical doctor) C.H. Waters, I read some of his sermons back in the 70s when I began to devour PB writings. He pastored churches in the Washington D.C. area. He became editor of Zion's Advocate when Elder Clark passed away in 1882, followed by Elder T.S. Dalton (who at first believed in means but when the split came jumped on the anti means innovation bandwagon) and then Elder John R. Daily. 

Daily writes further:

First, Eld. Burnam says, "It was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth among the Old Order of Baptists to the notion of regeneration without faith, or that it is not necessary that one should exercise repentance, faith, or any spiritual gift, in order to be saved, a heresy than which none more pernicious was ever put forth by any professing to be followers of Christ." From this statement it is logically inferred that Eld. B. believes that one must "exercise repentance, faith, and other spiritual gifts," in order to his own regeneration. If he believes this he believes regeneration to be conditional on the part of the regenerated; that the unregenerated sinner must, while in a state of unregeneracy, exercise repentance, faith, and other spiritual gifts, as a result of which God will regenerate him. Observe that he calls "repentance" and "faith" spiritual gifts. If they are spiritual gifts the Spirit gives them.

I have concluded from all my historical research that Elder Burnam was correct and Daily was wrong. In fact, I have shown how Daily, Potter, and others who took the lead in the schism for the anti means side, told falsehoods about their history. For instance, they all said that both Elders Watson and Clark did not believe in means, which I am sure they knew better. They even said that John Gill denied means! In doing this they lost all credibility and showed that their published histories are what the late PB historian, Dr. R.E. Pound called "wish history" and "mishistory." (See my posting with his citations here) 

One of their historians, Elder W.H. Crouse (a young admirer of the older John R. Daily), I have shown falsified the writings of Elder Clark and made him to believe the very thing he disbelieved. (See here) I had to drive to Duke University and spend a day in the library going through old issues of Zion's Advocate to find the article Crouse cited and I found where Clark advocated a belief in means! The no means view did not become the standard view till the second half of the 19th century, especially in the last decade of that century. 

Of course, Daily's error is not only in denying that faith precedes regeneration, but that it mostly occurs in those who have no faith, or at least no biblical or Christian faith. Why are they serious errors? Besides their ideas being what is positively denied in scripture, it is illogical too. And certainly not "Baptistic" (meaning not what is historical or traditional Baptist belief). Why? Because the scriptures put union with Christ at the head of salvation. One must be united to Christ to have life (like a branch needs to be joined to the vine to have the sap of life) and union with Christ is by faith. So, yes, faith is a necessary precondition for the beginning of regeneration, and God's drawing and teaching work is a precondition of faith. God does work on the heart and mind of a sinner prior to his regeneration. One of the oft cited scriptures of Elder Clark was Galatians 3: 26 - "for you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." No! Waters, Dalton, Potter, and Daily did not believe the same thing as Elder Clark and they lied when they said that they did. God help them.

Further, the crux of the controversy was not so much as to whether faith preceded regeneration or whether regeneration preceded faith, but whether one could exist without the other. Those are not the same things. Further, the proposition of Elder Waters (attacked by Burnam and the Means brethren and defended by Daily on behalf of the anti means brethren) says "faith or no faith" and so the debate is not whether faith immediately precedes or immediately follows regeneration but whether faith is a necessary element or condition of spiritual life. 

The proposition of the anti means innovators was to say that regeneration is not only "before" faith but it is also "without" faith. Their innovative idea produced a character the bible and our Baptist forbears have not known, i.e. a "regenerated unbeliever." The new Hardshell understanding of regeneration led them to believe that many idol worshiping pagans were regenerated while they remained in a pagan faith. Elder C.H. Cayce (perhaps their leading debater, and who had over 300 debates I have been told and of which I have read several along with his "Editorial Writings," which I devoured in my twenties), actually believed that the Athenians to whom Paul preached in Acts chapter seventeen gave evidence of regeneration by their worshiping of idols and thus apart from believing in the scriptures or gospel! When I was a Hardshell I heard sermons about how many American Indians, before they were ever brought to know and believe the scriptures and the gospel, showed "evidence" of "regeneration" by their reverence for the god they knew as "the great spirit." Such is not biblical nor Baptistic. Also it is not what his PB founders believed in the 1830s.

Further, as I have shown in numerous writings, many of the first generation of PBs believed that regeneration and the new birth were not the same, that the former preceded the latter, and that there was a gap in between corresponding to time spent in the womb of conviction. In this paradigm "regeneration" did precede faith or conversion, but the "birth" followed faith. Surely Daily knew this! But, he now represents second generation PBs (who became true "Hardshells") by affirming that regeneration and begetting are the same thing and that neither is connected with faith, repentance, or evangelical conversion. But, as I have shown, the first PBs in the 1830s believed that the birth occurred in evangelical conversion and this is why their oldest confessions say "all the elect will be regenerated and converted." 

Daily says further:

"The position of the Elder seems to be that the Spirit gives these graces to the unregenerate sinner, and then leaves him to exercise these gifts as a condition of his regeneration. Right here we beg leave to join issue with Elder B. This is the great dividing line between us and the Arminian World and ever has been, and we enter a denial that "it was left to the last quarter of the 19th century to give birth to the notion of regeneration without faith," or rather before faith. Birth was given to that notion by divine inspiration. Jesus says, "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things" (Matt. 12:35). "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness" (Rom. 10:10). In regeneration the heart is changed and thus caused to possess a good treasure. "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do them" (Ezk. 36:26-27)." 

Daily's calling a belief in pre-regeneration work, or a belief in means, "Arminian," was a tactic he and his anti means brethren used in their war with the PBs who retained a belief in means. However, today we find anti means PBs saying a belief in means is "Calvinism"! I could use Daily's own argumentation against him by allusion to the story of the coming to life of the "dead dry bones" in Ezekiel 36. There was activity in the bones and other body parts before there was life breathed into them. And God was working on the bones and sinews before they were made alive. So, if we define "quickening" or "resurrection" as that which occurs when God first begins to work on that which is dead, then we will have to say that the bones, sinews, and the persons were quickened before the breath of life was breathed upon them. Don't you see?  

Further, as I pointed out before, the new heart and spirit involves a believing heart and believing spirit, but Daily says this new heart is still a heart of unbelief and this new spirit is still the old unbelieving spirit. 

Dr. John Owen (1616-1683), the great Calvinist of the 17th century, wrote about the preparatory work of God which precedes regeneration, saying (as cited by me here):

"I shall, therefore, in general, refer the whole work of the Spirit of God with respect unto the regeneration of sinners unto two heads:— First, That which is preparatory for it; and, secondly, That which is effective of it. That which is preparatory for it is the conviction of sin; this is the work of the Holy Spirit, John xvi. 8."

("Regeneration", CHAPTER V., "THE NATURE, CAUSES, AND MEANS OF REGENERATION" (See here)

All those who put regeneration before faith do so because they define the word "regeneration" as denoting the first thing God does in the life and heart of a sinner to bring about his being regenerated. By that definition there are no preparatory workings. 

 Owen also addresses the subject in the third volume of his Works in a section entitled, "Works of the Holy Spirit Preparatory Unto Regeneration." Owen writes: 

"Ordinarily there are certain previous and preparatory works, or workings in and upon the souls of men, that are antecedent and dispositive unto it [i.e. regeneration]. But yet regeneration doth not consist in them, nor can it be educed out of them." 

Likewise, another great 17th century theologian, Stephen Charnock, wrote similarly to Owen his contemporary: "The soul must be beaten down by conviction before it be raised up by regeneration..." 

The first Hardshells, as I have shown in my writings, believed that "conviction of sin and lost condition" followed regeneration but preceded the new birth.

Daily says further:

"The following propositions are deducible from these positive declarations, and we are glad to believe that Eld. B is sufficiently acquainted with the principles of logic to understand them:

1. Faith is a good thing. 

2. Only such as have a good treasure of heart can bring forth faith. 

3. A good treasure of heart is given in regeneration. Therefore regeneration precedes faith" 

But, ironically, this is not logical. The way the syllogism is set up it affirms that a heart can be good while it is an unbelieving heart. If a good heart is given in regeneration, and a good heart is a believing heart, then there can be no good heart that is void of faith. Further, the heart cannot be good as long as it remains unconnected with Christ and it remains unconnected till the heart is united to Christ by faith.

Daily says further:

 

"Again, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." To be born of God means regeneration. Belief, or faith, is, then, an evidence of regeneration, and not a condition in order to regeneration. A condition goes before, an evidence follows after. If we say, Whosoever breathes is alive, all understand us to mean that breathing is an evidence of life, and that life, therefore, precedes breathing. But when the Bible says, "Whosoever believeth is born of God," Eld. Burnam and other Arminians still insist that Faith is not an evidence but a condition of regeneration." 

"To be born of God means regeneration" says Daily. But, surely he knows that such was not the general view of the PBs of the 1830s. They saw regeneration as distinct from being born again. But, I do agree with Daily that being born again and being regenerated speak of the same thing. Further, as I have shown in my writings, the scriptures are filled with statements that sinners come to Christ for spiritual life, the coming (faith) preceding the living. 

About breathing because one has life, that is true. However, one cannot make too much of this. Let us ask - can a person be living who is not breathing? Did not Adam have the breath of God before he became a living man? Did not the dry bones of Ezekiel's vision have breath before they were made alive? Again, Daily and his Hardshell brethren say a man can have spiritual life who never comes to faith which signifies a man can have physical life without breathing. But, just as breathing is a necessary condition for being alive, so too is faith necessary for being spiritually alive. 

Daily says further:

"In Heb. 11:1, it is said that "faith is the evidence of things not seen." The Spirit's work in regeneration is a work not seen, and faith is the evidence of that work. We now present the following propositions and conclusion:

1. Faith is an evidence of regeneration. 

2. That of which a thing is an evidence must precede it. 

3. Therefore regeneration precedes faith." 

 

But, if faith is the evidence or proof of regeneration, then how can Daily claim to have proof that unbelievers have been regenerated? Further, Paul does not say it is evidence of "regeneration" but rather the "evidence of things invisible," or evidence of hope. All Paul means is that faith, real faith, is the visible proof of what is invisible. We have hope of Heaven, an invisible thing to us and the evidence of it is faith. Further, I don't think it is true in every case that evidence must follow the thing it evidences. For instance, a pre-cancerous cell is evidence that cancer is coming. Or, certain weather conditions are evidence of a coming storm.

Daily says further:

"What Dr. Waters said in the articles referred to we are glad to say we most heartily endorse. Here is the first quotation given by Elder B. from Dr. Waters:

"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, therefore, is not necessary to eternal salvation."---Dr. Waters, in Zion's Advocate for June, 1890.

We wonder if Eld. B. believes that infants and idiots are saved. If he believes they are saved does he believe they are regenerated?" 

This is the argument that Daily and his ilk rely much upon but it is very weak and unconvincing (which is why very few have been converted to Hardshellism by it). Even if we admit that infants and idiots are saved apart from faith and repentance, that does not mean that all non infants and idiots are saved apart from faith and repentance. In my book on the Hardshell cult, I deal with these type arguments and show them to be invalid. Further, infants and idiots do not go to Heaven without faith and repentance. Does Daily believe that they enter Heaven unbelievers and impenitent? If he believes that only believers are in Heaven, then when did the infant become a believer? 

Daily says further:

"We now give the second extract.

"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 this spiritual growth, and rear him up beyond the river."---Dr. Waters, in Zion's Advocate and Herald of Truth for June, 1891.

We wish it understood that what Elder Waters stated in those articles is still the doctrine of Zion's Advocate and we pledge ourselves ready to stand by it." 

It may be the doctrine of Zion's Advocate since the death of its founder, Elder John Clark, but it was not the view of Clark and of Zion's Advocate prior to Waters, Dalton, and Daily taking it over. Of course Clark would have affirmed that infants go to Heaven apart from being converted, at least on the conscious level and in a way visible to adults. John the Baptist however was able to leap for joy in his mother's womb when he heard the good news. This in itself destroys the argumentation of Daily. Further, Sylvester Hassell, a contemporary of Daily, would not agree.

Elder Sylvester Hassell (1842-1928), Hardshell historian and apologist, wrote:

"Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)."  (see here)

Does this not say that infants, who are part of "His people," have Jesus to preach the gospel to them? 

I had a former Hardshell attendee call me years ago and I recall we talked about John R. Daily and the means question. He was very familiar with Daily's Hymn Book which he compiled and he assured me that there were songs in it that advocated means in regeneration. Ironic and revealing it is.

Daily says further:

"After asserting that the notion of regeneration preceding faith received its birth among the Old Order of Baptists in the last quarter of the 19th century, Eld. B. discovers "one eminent man," A. Fuller, who believed and advocated that notion, who he declares to be the "antipodes" of ours "on some accounts." He should have said antipode using the word in the singular form. True enough, in his Arminian views he was the antipode of us, just as Burnam and all other Arminians are, but we are glad to learn he was right on this one point, and not surprised to find Eld. B. taking exceptions to his position on that point."

Several things need to be said in reply to these words of Daily. First, again, the debate is not over whether regeneration precedes faith, but whether it, or the new birth, can exist without faith. Burnam would have known that many of his forefathers or founders of the PB church believed that regeneration did precede faith but they also believed that faith preceded the new birth. So, the real question is whether a man can be born again without faith. Daily will not find any church or leader in Baptist history who taught that born again people are without faith (among adults). They never believed in a regenerated or born again unbeliever.

Second, Daily is wrong about Andrew Fuller. Fuller taught that one was regenerated before faith! He taught essentially what is taught by many Reformed Baptists, such as James White, or some Calvinists such as John MacArthur, that regeneration logically preceded faith but did not precede it chronologically. Fuller and such men believe essentially in the same three stage model of the new birth (that I have written about so much, which makes regeneration to be like conception in the womb via the male sperm, followed by the time in the womb, corresponding to the experience we call "conviction of sin," and after a period of time followed by the birth or delivery from the womb corresponding to the new birth). However, many would not put a gap in time between regeneration (seed planting), conviction, and birth (gospel conversion or deliverance). 

Alexander Campbell, in his dialogues with Baptist leader J.M. Peck (who debated Daniel Parker), attacked Fuller for believing that regeneration preceded faith and forced Peck to respond to it! See these postings (here and here)

Daily says further:

"In coupling us with Fuller he says, "A noble pair of brothers, truly! One knows not whether most to wonder at the daring impiety of these utterances, or the contempt which they imply for the common sense and judgment of men." Eld. B. must have felt relieved after letting off that extraordinary load. But really such a statement comes with a very ill grace from a leading man among the faction which, like that led off by Fuller, left the Old Order of Baptists. The most contemptible thing connected with this recent separation from us is that those who have gone out from us because they were not of us, persist in claiming to be the Old Order of Baptists at the same time advocating the Arminian doctrine. "And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach."

I don't know what Burnam is referring to in regard to Fuller. Fuller certainly did not believe regeneration was complete until one was brought to faith and repentance. He was like many in his day who spoke of two senses to the term "regeneration," one narrowly defined, and one broadly defined. Fuller did fight against the Hyper Calvinists, and he was vehement in affirming that the preaching of the gospel was the means God used to regenerate or beget. 

Daily says further:

"Eld. B. then says, "In the first place, the Holy Scriptures in the clearest manner show that faith in God is essential to spiritual or eternal life," and refers to a number of passages as negative and affirmative proof, not a single one of which says or implies that "faith is essential to eternal life." Eld. B. does not show, nor can he show, that any one passage in the Bible teaches that one must believe in order to receive eternal life. It is not enough to say they are associated in regeneration, for if belief is to be exercised in order to the work of regeneration, as the Eld. asserts in the beginning of his article, and faith and eternal life are given at the same time, then it follows that one has eternal life before he is regenerated."

Daily was living in a dream world to believe that his Baptist forefathers affirmed that faith in Christ was not essential to possessing eternal life. Daily never produced one source from previous decades or centuries to show that his view of life without faith was "Old Baptist" teaching. Further, Jesus said "except you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins." (John 8: 24) Jesus made faith necessary for salvation and eternal life.

Daily says further:

"Again, the Elder says, "One is not born in order to be possessed of sensation of which faith is the spiritual organ." Worse and worse! Then we suppose one possesses "sensation of which faith is the spiritual organ" before he is born. But this is not all. He says, "Both illumination and faith are equally the product of the Spirit of God, and being equally essential to life, they must be imparted at the same time and become inseparable." He here makes a distinction between illumination and life. Illumination is the impartation of light. John says, "In him was life and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4). According to this the illumination is the life, but Eld. B. makes a distinction and argues that the sinner is illuminated before he has the life, for he says this illumination and faith are given at the same time, and that both precede the work of regeneration. In the same connection he asserts that both illumination and faith are given at the instant life is given. These contradictory positions the Eld. will never be able to reconcile." 

I don't understand the first part of the citation from Burnam. I would need to see more of the whole article from which Daily takes the quotation. 

But, the statements or propositions of Burnam are the teachings of scripture and of the "Old Baptists" of former times. Jesus had the order this way: hear the teaching of the Father, be drawn by the Father, come to Christ, obtain spiritual or eternal life. (John 6: 44-45) That seems to be the very thing Burnam was conveying and Daily is against both scripture and Old Baptist history and tradition.

Daily says further:

"Now, as he proposes to continue the subject we have a few questions to propound which we desire him to answer.

1. Will any have faith who never hear the gospel? 

2. Will any of the Heathen who die without having heard of Jesus be finally saved? 

3. Will infants who die in infancy be saved without being regenerated? 

4. Will insane persons and idiots dying in that state, not having minds susceptible of believing on Jesus Christ, be saved without regeneration? 

5. Is the illumination mentioned in your last article enlightenment imparted through the preaching of the gospel? 

6. Give a passage that says or implies that the unbelieving sinner is affected by the preached word while in a state of unbelief, and tell how such sinner is affected. Be frank and plain in your answer to these interrogatories. 

Here are my answers. If I every locate where Burnam answered them, I will post them.

1) Romans 10 says people must hear about Jesus to believe in Jesus and "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." How could Daily believe otherwise? It is bewildering.

2) Not according to Sylvester Hassell, your contemporary (see the citation above). Further, Jesus said "all that the Father gives to me will come to me." So, yes, all who have not come to faith in Christ are not of the number given to Christ.

3) Infants are saved by regeneration but we do not have any scripture that explains that to us and we do not build doctrine on speculation. Like Campbell said, "we speak where the bible speaks and are silent where it is silent."

4) Same answer as the above. I deal with all these questions or arguments in my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult."

5) Of course enlightenment and illumination come by the gospel! (See I Cor. chapter 2 for instance)

6) My section in the above book dealing with "Addresses to the Lost" answers this question.

In another upcoming post I will deal more with the division over the "means question" that occurred within the denomination.